Political Demographics
Political demographics of a rather basic sort: the birth rate in so-called red and blue cities. A post of mine last year that touched on this subject (rather tangentially, actually) raised a small ruckus.
USA Today runs an op-ed titled “The liberal baby bust.”
The lede:
What’s the difference between Seattle and Salt Lake City? There are many differences, of course, but here’s one you might not know. In Seattle, there are nearly 45% more dogs than children. In Salt Lake City, there are nearly 19% more kids than dogs.
This curious fact might at first seem trivial, but it reflects a much broader and little-noticed demographic trend that has deep implications for the future of global culture and politics. It’s not that people in a progressive city such as Seattle are so much fonder of dogs than are people in a conservative city such as Salt Lake City. It’s that progressives are so much less likely to have children…
A caveat: over time, wealth tends to reduce family size. (Longman needs to note that.)
The essay is by Phillip Longman and is an excerpt from his article, The Return of Patriarchy, in the current issue of Foreign Policy magazine.
An extract from that article:
With the number of human beings having increased more than six-fold in the past 200 years, the modern mind simply assumes that men and women, no matter how estranged, will always breed enough children to grow the population—at least until plague or starvation sets in. It is an assumption that not only conforms to our long experience of a world growing ever more crowded, but which also enjoys the endorsement of such influential thinkers as Thomas Malthus and his many modern acolytes.
Yet, for more than a generation now, well-fed, healthy, peaceful populations around the world have been producing too few children to avoid population decline. That is true even though dramatic improvements in infant and child mortality mean that far fewer children are needed today (only about 2.1 per woman in modern societies) to avoid population loss. Birthrates are falling far below replacement levels in one country after the next—from China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea, to Canada, the Caribbean, all of Europe, Russia, and even parts of the Middle East.
Here’s his definition of patriarchy, which isn’t a feminist definition:
Patriarchy does not simply mean that men rule. Indeed, it is a particular value system that not only requires men to marry but to marry a woman of proper station. It competes with many other male visions of the good life, and for that reason alone is prone to come in cycles. Yet before it degenerates, it is a cultural regime that serves to keep birthrates high among the affluent, while also maximizing parents’ investments in their children. No advanced civilization has yet learned how to endure without it.
There’s a lot to disagree with and question in the article, but the stats are pretty solid (clarification: the national and international population reproduction stats– thanks to the commenter) . (Mark Steyn has been all over this subject for years.)
Here’s an example of what I mean. Longman writes:
The great difference in fertility rates between secular individualists and religious or cultural conservatives augurs a vast, demographically driven change in modern societies. Consider the demographics of France, for example. Among French women born in the early 1960s, less than a third have three or more children. But this distinct minority of French women (most of them presumably practicing Catholics and Muslims) produced more than 50 percent of all children born to their generation, in large measure because so many of their contemporaries had one child or none at all.
Fair question: What’s to keep the offspring from becoming secular individualists?
UPDATE: See the comments. I found a website that frames my comment as “blue emerging from red” — which is my question in a more pop (and funnier) frame.
But read the entire article.
In fact the underlying facts are not solid. I tried to track down the fact on the number of dogs in Seattle, for example, even calling the pound there, and such numbers are very hard to find. Moreover the big issue — that “conservative “parents have “conservative” children — is nonsense. If that were so, where did all the liberals come from? (i.e. conservatism is the natural state of humanity in every society and liberalism is a departure from it.) There are demographic problems in the West but Longman’s political thesis is weak. ED NOTE: Let me clarify– the gross population reproduction rates (which Steyn writes about, usually addressing Europe’s kinderlos societies). As for dogs in Seattle, check up and see what you find. Your question is my question, which is in the post: what keeps people from changing? I’m going to make the clarification on the post. Thanks. Good comment.
Comment by Raw Data — 3/14/2006 @ 9:40 am
“As for dogs in Seattle, check up and see what you find.” That’s my point — I did check and I could find no hard facts on the numbers of dogs in Seattle. Yes there are estimates and guestimates but Longman doesn’t disclose that his number is just a guess. Go check it yourself. Moreover the factoid (dogs vs children) is a fetching one but it illustrates nothing much less proves anything. ED NOTE: I believe you. I did a quick google with “Seattle” and “Dog ownership” and here’s the only link that had anything useful. In fact it mentions Longman. http://citycomfortsblog.typepad.com/cities/2004/12/ok_i_am_convinc.html Here’s that URL as a link. The site says it intends to post a response by Longman answering “what’s the significance?” And he answers her. Does so here. I dont’t think the stat proves what Longman says it does, but he is clarifying what he meant. The website frames my question as “blue emerging from red.” That’s a nice formulation. A stat like “the ‘average’ dog ownership in City ABC” strikes me as “squishy” any way, though that’s a suspicion; someone else may know. Longman does tackle a subject that others avoid and he tackles it from a clear point of view. Foreign Policy’s editors deserve a kudo for giving him the space.
Comment by Raw Data — 3/14/2006 @ 10:13 am
The question of dog ownership notwithstanding, Longman doesn’t make the point that conservatives make conservative children. His point is that they make more children than liberals. There is no doubt that liberals judge “traditional” families as less valuable. It’s been obvious that neo-liberalism is rapidly dying. I always thought the explaination was that even the “average” person will eventually realize the intellectual bankruptcy of neo-liberal idiocy. I see now that I must stand corrected. ED NOTE: The dog versus child stat doesn’t necessarily demonstrate the “less likeliness” of traditional families in a particular area. The stats aren’t necessarily connected. He clearly thinks they are but that isn’t demonstrated. The other commenter pointed out he couldn’t get a solid stat on dog ownership from the Seattle pound and the link I found indicates Longman is dealing with a ballpark estimate. I think he should have avoided the dogs. The conservatives begetting conservatives is a fair question to ask because Longman suggests a long-term conservative takeover. I’d amend your formulation this way: a significant number of liberals –based on impressions made in the press and academia– ” judge traditional families as less valuable.” The question then becomes, less valuable than what or for what? The demographic (and moral) irony is that the childless — no matter their politics– depend on the child-bearers and child-raisers to provide them with a future.
Comment by scott — 3/14/2006 @ 2:07 pm
I write for The Republican newspaper, a small weekly in rural western Maryland, and just had to share this quote from a press release we received this morning announcing a Women’s History Month program coming up at the local community college….”It is important to recognize that much of the suffering in the world can be directly attributed to the dominance of a patriarchal social structure for thousands of years – that is to overvalue masculine qualities and to devalue those human qualities that are considered feminine, [such as] nurturance, cooperation, compassion, interdependence and wisdom. By honoring the contributions made by women we ultimately work toward restoring balance between men and women. The focus of the women’s movement has always been and will always be to create an egalitarian society, so that we, men and women, might take better care of our world, better care of each other and, most importantly, better care of our children.”
Comment by David Foster — 3/14/2006 @ 4:28 pm
Mr. Foster. That’s an interesting quote but you are not suggesting that it is somehow anti-family, I hope. The statement is in fact explicitly pro-child which if I remember correctly is the whole point of families: “The focus of the women’s movement has always been and will always be to create an egalitarian society, so that we, men and women, might take better care of our world, better care of each other and, most importantly, better care of our children.” Living as I do in a very blue city and knowing many liberals — with whom I disagree on all too many things — I cannot concede that liberals judge “traditional families less valuable” in any way. I know these people. One can say that they are tolerant of same sex couples but for anyone to say that they think the traditional mommy-daddy-brother-sister cohort to be “less valuable” would be — excuse me for putting it this — pure right-wing know-nothing (”and proud of it”) hogwash. So I am sure you are not saying that. I know liberals. Liberals are friends of mine. And no liberal is against the family.
Comment by Raw Data — 3/14/2006 @ 7:32 pm
BTW, I should point out the the above quote in Comment #4 was said by the professor of psychology at Garrett College.
Comment by David Foster — 3/14/2006 @ 8:31 pm
I guess the difference between Seattle and Salt Lake City (in relation to children) is sort of like a microcosm of the difference between Europe and the U.S.
Comment by Don Miguel — 3/14/2006 @ 9:47 pm