The Demographic Solution (and Question)
R. Alex Whitlock
Back in my CSPAN junkie days (you know, when I actually had CSPAN), I remember a black lady addressing folks at a pro-life convention saying, to the rallying crowd, "We'll keep having our babies, they'll keep aborting theirs, and eventually we'll outnumber them!"

This all ties in to the argument that demographics ultimately favor Republicans due to procreation rates among conservatives and liberals. If you think about it, there's something to the argument. Republicans tend to be more family-oriented, religious people have more kids, and religious people are more often than not Republicans.

The Democratic counterargument is based largely on immigration and that polls of twenty-somethings demonstrate a slight leftward tilt. That too makes sense when you think about people who became interested in politics during the Clinton-Gingrich years (not hard to tell who resonated better among young people) and have finally gotten out from under their parents rule and thus are not receptive to the government telling them what to do.

So taking immigration out of the equation, the question is whether or not children born from conservative homes will themselves grow up to be conservative. It's a question only time will be able to answer, ultimately.

And so it is with the subject of abortion. The Catholic Exchange is celebrating a poll released in November that states 72% of teenagers believe abortion is morally wrong. Will the same people still believe that as they get into their twenties and probably have sexual encounters with people that they wouldn't want a child with? Studies suggest that kids are more likely than not to take on the beliefs of their parents, though it's not absolute and there are definite culture shifts where large numbers reject the attitudes of their parents (the 60's are a prime example).

So is this a culture shift?

It very well might be. Contraception, abortion, and altered attitude towards unmarried adults and childless couples are some of the accomplishments of liberals over the last century or so and they've changed a lot of minds. The results may not change anyone's mind, but are likely to change the numbers.

It's often said that the people that most ought to have children rarely do because of their careers and interest and that those that really don't need to procreate breed like rabbits. For those of a conservative mindset, that's true insofar as those less likely to be able to financially support children (and would thus require government aid) have them while the well-to-do are doing other things. For those from a liberal perspective, those that are more likely to procreate are more likely to vote the other way. This is especially true as the Catholic vote is slipping away from the Democrats as a reliable voting bloc.

It's possible that there will be no shift at all. Entertainment media, which helps form the opinions of a lot of people, is very strongly pro-choice. Also, from a purely self-interested standpoint, it's advantageous for young people to be pro-choice because for women it means they can dispose of the unwanted unborn and for men it means that women are more likely to want to have sex more often since they won't have to worry about becoming parents.

On the other hand, many of those people will eventually settle down and have families. At that point they will they hold on to the teachings they were raised with or the ones they formed before they were ready to settle down? I'd guess it would more likely be the former, but it could well be the latter.

One never really knows.
Posted to Pacs n Donks
 
 

Observations

 
Lex wrote:
One question the polls on abortion might or might not be asking is, "morally wrong relative to ... ?" Sure, in a vacuum, it's easy to say abortion is morally wrong, or at least a damn shame. But somehow, even for Republicans, it becomes a little harder to parse when it's you, or your daughter, who's unmarried and pregnant. Not to say the polls are wrong, necessarily, but to say that the poll results, even if "true," don't necessarily tell the whole story.
12/24/2003
 
RAW wrote:
Lex,

I agree, but I take the shift as being somewhat significant. Even if they're of the mind that it's-wrong-but-it-should-be-legal-and-in-some-circumstances-is-the-right-thing-to-do (which is not the position I hold), that's an improvement over It's-her-body-and-absolutely-nothing-matters-except-her-happiness and more are (at the very least) starting to believe the former rather than the latter.

Changes of heart on subjects like this take time. I see this as an improvement. The question is whether it's a temporary one or a more lasting step in the right direction.
12/24/2003

Add an Observation

Comment spam is an ongoing problems that we're trying to address. Previously we required people to create accounts and log in. I am thankful to say that is no longer the case. We're giving Captcha another try and are playing around with a text-based Q&A variant of Captcha. So bear with us as we try to figure out how to best get a handle ont he problem. Please note that any comment on a post more than 30 days old will go into the moderation queue, where I will get to it when I can which could be once a week.

:

:
:



 

 

Home || RSS || Archives || Ten Second News || FURL || Blogrolodexical (Full)