U.S. population will reach 300 million next month, up 50 percent in 40 years, and at current rates will double by 2100. Growing Latino population in the U.S. may not play to Democrats' advantage, while busy GOP breeders and population trends predict even greater Republican electoral succcess. "Red" breeders are a force, writes SF Chron Insight section staffer Vicki Haddock. Haddock says data from the General Social Survey suggest conservatives are out-propagating liberals by 41 percent, 19 percent if controlled for income, age and other factors; and that four of five kids, as adults, mimic their parents politically. The Chron's podcast tie-in: "Republicans Are Red Hot Breeding Machines." I've done my part; and I hope you have too - or will. That wish extends to libs - becoming a parent and homeowner is an awakening.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at September 18, 2006 10:17 AM | Email ThisAs a father of a five month old, I find cruel irony in that statement! Oh well, back to wo... Zzzzzzzz
Posted by: Sstar on September 18, 2006 10:51 AMNew citizens who believe in self reliance and individual responsibility aren't a burdon on everyone. Quite the opposite.
Posted by: RBW on September 18, 2006 11:12 AMOther political leaders with four kids are Dino Rossi, Rob McKenna, etc. A trend! Four kids is cool, they all fit in a mini van and they learn to become team players.
Posted by: Dick Muri on September 18, 2006 11:58 AMOK, have kids. Then pick up the tab for their educations, health care, moral guidance, etc. Why am I supporting these things through my taxes? I'm only responsible for my own debts. Parents, pick up the tab for your offspring and leave me out of it!
Already happening. Many conservatives are checking out of the public school system and going to private school or homeschooling. No burden to you. Seems like all the trends are going your way vis-a-vis the conservatives. You should be happy. :)
Posted by: Eyago on September 18, 2006 12:12 PMYou ready need to update your data points:
Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich's, The Population Bomb has been pretty throughly debunked.
Intercollegiate Studies Institute Worst 50 Books of the Century
Food production not only increased, but increased faster than population growth, so 27 years after the publication of The Population Bomb, not only are there many more people alive in the world, but they eat more than they did in the past. Water quality, which Ehrlich believed beyond repair, has also steadily improved.Posted by: JCM on September 18, 2006 02:06 PM
MS
Could your comments possibly be more obtuse??
"increase the population burden on everyone"?
What, praytell, population BURDEN would that be? Did you used to be a hippie in the 60s, who though the world would be all fire and brimstone with no trees nor air to breathe by now?
Here's a little something I point out to people who speak of a population 'burden':
Land area of the state of Texas: 7.3 Trillion square feet.
Current world population: 6.5 billion people.
Divide the former by the latter. Every person in the world could live within the state of Texas - and each of us would have 1,100 square feet - exactly the size of my apartment on Queen Anne hill in Seattle.
The world is NOT over-populated...only very certain small parts of the world are over-populated. And none of those (Mexico City, etc) are within our jurisdiction.
We're fine. But if you find it too crowded, they say it's nice this time of year on Jupiter - except for the meteors.
Posted by: Larry on September 18, 2006 03:09 PMI LOVE the very first paragraph...
"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."
I've got two kids, but I'm also one of the rare species. A child born of 60s liberals, in San Francisco, during the Summer of Love, who realized after college that I needed to use my brain and think for myself. So that's another three votes out of the lefty column.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 18, 2006 09:10 PMNot only is the earth not overpopulated, it's almost entirely unihabited. If you look at all of the land mass that is covered with ice and devoid of life, or desert, and all of the oceans on the earth, you quickly find that humans live in a very small percentage of the total earth area. So we are supposed to believe that a few cars in that tiny percentage of the earth's total area are destroying the atmosphere that covers the entire earth area. Yeah right.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 18, 2006 09:15 PMThey won't.
Conservative parents nurture and talk with their children.
Liberal parents indoctrinate theirs.
See the difference?
Posted by: Cheryl on September 18, 2006 10:43 PMGrowing up in New York City, I saw persons arrive from all over the world, and from all over our country. Many of the latter came from what we now call "red states", seeking freedom from the stifling ways of their hometowns. Rejecting conservative, "heartland" values became an important part of their new, liberal identities. A constant influx of new immigrants makes New York City what it is-- one of the world's great cities.
Living in Seattle now, I see the same effect. Most of Seattle's population (myself included) grew up somewhere else. Yet we all vote for Dr. McDermott. Tell me, Cheryl, how many conservative parents honestly "nurture and talk" to their children about sex? How many gay children of conservative parents flee to the coastal cities, like Seattle and New York?
There's a reason that the inland population dwindles, despite a higher birthrate. Does anyone here care to speculate on how this trend will determine our future politics?
We liberals have always believed that nurture, not nature, determines the outcome. When the rural children migrate to the liberal city, that city has the final say.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on September 18, 2006 10:55 PMFirst, let me say that I think we all appreciate liberal input when it is calm, intelligent and reasoned, and not of a trollish nature, so thank you for that.
Second, as spot-on as I usually think Cheryl is, I think she's over-generalizing a little on this one. Of course, I also think you're stereotyping a bit.
Third, I think the inland population hasn't been growing like the coastal areas have because 1) automation of agriculture means fewer people really need to live in areas used mostly for farming; and 2) if you don't need to live close to the wheat crop in order to eat, then liberal or conservative, why would you? Living in a place where you can ski down to the trailhead where you left your mountain bike that you can ride down to your kayak which you can paddle out to the ocean just rocks... why live in a place where you've never seen so much of so little, if you don't have to?
Fourth, I don't pretend to know where it's all going politically. But I'm not convinced that population influx into a liberal area is necessarily an influx of liberals into a liberal area. And if nurture determines the outcome, then are not the economic experiences of the residents of that liberal city not part of that nurture? Do they not become frustrated with their inability to compete with more free-market-oriented areas? Is there not a swinging back of the pendulum? Even Seattle residents vote down the occasional blank check to government, and there is always that persistent percentage of actual, certified Republicans, right inside the city, that never goes away, and needs only a little help from the hayseeds to make a majority.
Good questions, but I don't think it's as striaghtforward as you see it.
Posted by: TB on September 18, 2006 11:47 PMIf I were you Dick, I wouldn't use my real name here. There are those of us who know you from the past.
Posted by: CZR on September 19, 2006 07:41 AMAs far as Europe and its problems is concerned, their's is not a population problem. They have an immigration problem. France, in particular, let in too many people from certain countries and of a certain religion that wants to slit every Frenchman's throat. Britian is just about in the same shape.
Producing more white children to offset the "invasion" will have unintended consequences. The samrt thing to do is shut-off all immigration. That's an idea we whould consider here.
Welcome to America! Have a nice visit, and when your visa expires, have a safe trip home! And you can't LIVE here!
You're confusing psychology, sociology, and demographics, and muddying your own waters.
Just because a Conservative born & raised in DuPage County, IL (like myself) moves to blue-liberal Seattle, it doesn't mean that Conservative sheds his or her values.
If anything, moving to Seattle has made my Conservative values even stronger.
So I suggest you start studying demographics. It's a fact that the number of Republicans are increasing and Democrats decreasing. These cycles take about 60-70 years, and we're in the midst of a full Conservative up-swing.
Furthermore, the birth-rate of Conservatives/Republicans is (much?) greater than that of Liberals/Democrats.
So not only are more and more people self-identifying as Conservatives day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year - said Conservatives are also having more children, and those children are many times more likely to share their parents' values than to shun them.
What does this mean for your precious blue urban centers? They will dwindle in size, and more and more Conservatives will inhabit them. If you'd like to discuss these statistics more, I'd be happy more than happy to point you in the right direction.
Subject change: Please tell me, Paddy Mac - what has Jim McDermott done for you? I live in his district. He's brought home negligable, if any, federal funding, he's considered a pariah on Capitol Hill (even among many members of his own party) so he'll continue to bring home nothing.
If you vote for him only because he calls President Bush a liar - why is he any more qualified than you or anyone else who votes for him? How is Jim McDermott more qualified for the office than YOU, Paddy Mac?
p.s. If you have to ask how Conservative parents talk to and nurture their children, it suggests that you don't know any. And that implies that you live in a big blue echo-chamber.
Posted by: Larry on September 19, 2006 10:19 AM"Just because a Conservative born & raised in DuPage County, IL (like myself) moves to blue-liberal Seattle, it doesn't mean that Conservative sheds his or her values."
If a person from a red-state, the heartland, moves to Seattle and rejects those Conservative, heartland values - then they were a liberal all along. They haven't changed their mind-set - they merely moved to a place where most people agree with them so they don't have to listen to opposing points of view.
Posted by: Larry on September 19, 2006 10:23 AMThose of us in Pierce County are still p*ssed about having a toll on the Narrows Bridge project. What have we been paying gasoline taxes for all these years?
Just wait: the Alaskan Way Viaduct project won't have a toll. Tolls are for the little people who don't live in King County. Tough noogies for them!
Posted by: Libertarian on September 19, 2006 11:34 AMI'll speak for myself re: your question. My liberal Dad did try to indoctrinate me with his liberal beliefs. There was always only once choice. He painted every conservative as evil regardless of individual ideas or merit. By contrast, I am teaching my children to judge based on merit. I'm not telling them how to vote, I'm teaching them how to think for themselves. I suspect my children will find as I have, that there is far more value in a society where each person is expected to create value and posses skills to trade for like value as opposed to one where wealth is redistributed. But, I could be wrong.
As for views as related to geography, I lived in San Francisco and Denver. And I didn't allow the dominant local political culture to make decisions for me, instead I thought about the merits of each issue on its own.
If the realtively true and common stereotype of today's angry Seattle Bush Hating progressives is any indication, my children will be much better citizens whatever they choose politically, because above all I'm going to teach them that hatred is not the best way to get their point across.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 19, 2006 12:41 PM