Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Liberals Destined to Die Off!!
One of The Anchoress' comments that aup (and I) particularly liked:
I wonder how they can reproduce with their noses so high in the air?Well, through the magic of synchronicity (again), The Wall Street Journal published this op-ed piece by Arthur C. Brooks today, also:
The Fertility Gap
Liberal politics will prove fruitless as long as liberals refuse to multiply.
Simply put, liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result. According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41%. Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections. Over the past 30 years this gap has not been below 20%--explaining, to a large extent, the current ineffectiveness of liberal youth voter campaigns today.Indeed, the snotty nose snobs seem to have trouble reproducing. Thank, God. Brooks cites more interesting facts in his article.
The fertility gap doesn't budge when we correct for factors like age, income, education, sex, race--or even religion. Indeed, if a conservative and a liberal are identical in all these ways, the liberal will still be 19 percentage points more likely to be childless than the conservative.
Often I had wondered about this very thing because of the obvious discrepancy between the liberals and conservatives amongst my siblings and myself. There are three liberals and two conservatives between us. We have a total of seven children. Six of the children belong to the two conservatives, my brother and myself.
I've taken delight that no matter how much my liberal siblings rant and rave, between my children and myself, we will out vote them. Now I find that it goes far beyond just my family to our society as a whole. Yee Haw!!
Maybe, this is why liberals do things like this. (Thanks again to just muttering.)
Of course, a philosophy where same sex marriage and terminating pregnancies are paramount is not conducive to reproduction. Perhaps the new left should adopt the rallying cry of "Make Babies, Not War."
Woody at GM Roper has some thoughts on The Fertility Gap.
of course this makes me think of the lies, damn lies and statistics quote.
the idea that pregnancies are all healthy for society, imagine a 12 year old girl who has sex, has a kid, are they able to cope with the kid, no, they expect you to pay for the kid, if a person with a genetic medical condition that will be passed on, and cause the kid suffering and a short life, is that worth it for not aborting.
should everyone have kids regardless of the cost tangible or intangible.
of course how does same sex marriage actually stop people from having babies, they probably wouldnt have kids anyway, so same sex marriage, doesnt do anything for the birth figures.
imagine if a girl (any girl)was raped, and became pregnant, would u want that kid to be born, a visible reminded of rape. or incest. should people in these cases have the kids.
if you read the rulings in the south dakota case, you will see incest, and rape are not covered for abortion. so you can go rape any girl, and they have to keep the kid.. thats totally wrong.. isnt it..
The birth rate for liberals is below replacement which means they would eventually die out, everything else being the same. While over-population isn't a problem in the U.S. yet zero growth is a desirable goal. But first we have to make sure the conservatives out number the liberals by a considerable margins. :-)
Conservative parents often have children who are liberals when they grow up, and vice versa, just as gay people almost always have straight parents. Most ex-Mormons have Mormon parents. All Protestants originally had Catholic parents.............
Yeah, you and your brother are counter-examples, but I do think that in general your point is valid. Except that...party affiliation may or may not correlate to any particular ideological stance, since the parties obviuously don't have much commitment to any particular ideological stance.
You're certainly right about the parties' ideological stances. While there is some, the main ideological stance seems to be to do whatever it takes to get elected.
i have noticed that a lot of these politicians all go for the female votes, rather than the males, its baby this, awww, lets give women more power over men.
its no longer about beliefs in politics its all about personal power, the politicians dont actually care about you, only your vote.. thats the real truth.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]