Demography Ain’t Destiny
posted by David Zaring
Daniel Drezner notes the latest study in the always irritating demographic-victory-of-the-scary-is-upon-us field of empirical research. This time, instead of the Chinese or the Hasidim, it’s the conservatives of Salt Lake City who will, if the trend lines continue unabated, take over the earth.
Look, there’s no doubt that far into the future, there will be way fewer bloodline-pure Italians, or ditto-pure Iowans born into Italy or Iowa. There’s also no question that if you’re only going on the basis of children produced, Salt Lake City will grow at a faster rate than Seattle.
But what conclusions can be drawn from these facts in light of the prevalence of immigration and assimilation? I have no confidence – none – that the political ideologies of parents with big families will result in successful political movements soldiered by their children. And if I was a political consultant, I’d be more concerned with the ideological ferment in Greater Los Angeles than I would in the ten Great Plains states that might rival it in population, even if your average couple in Scotts Bluff produces more kids than your average couple in West Hollywood. Or at least I would be if we didn’t have a Senate.
March 15, 2006 at 1:29 am
Posted in: Politics
Print This Post
Responses (13)
Nate Oman - March 15, 2006 at 10:04 am
David: You assume that immigrants move naturally into the progressive camp, but this is not entirely clear. To be sure, periodic bouts of know-nothing GOP xenophobia doesn’t always endear the right to new arrivals to our sures. On the other hand, the notion that Pakistani, Indian, Chinese, or Hispanic immigrants are the natural allies of the demographically challenged Hollywood progressives rather than the more fecund conservatives of the heartland strikes me as contestable at best.
David Zaring - March 15, 2006 at 10:26 am
I guess there is a progressive assumption in there, and it’s true that immigrants may tend to be culturally conservative. I’m just not sure that the point holds true for the children of immigrants. Or the children of native born conservatives, for that matter. Those are the people most likely to be assimilated into the culture of our fast growing coastal areas.
At the same time, I don’t think the left will be affected by the fact that hippie back to the landers have more children than, say, union members. If that’s true. My bottom line is that it doesn’t matter who’s having the kids. It matters what the kids do with themselves.
Akrasia - March 15, 2006 at 10:31 am
Immigration Will Not Save You
David Zaring at Concurring Opinions has decide that the progressive baby-bust is nothing to worry about because the cause of truth and enlightenment will be saved by the teeming immigrant population of Los Angles. Out gunned by their more fecund
Nate Oman - March 15, 2006 at 10:36 am
But this niavely assumes that who is having kids has no impact on what the kids come to believe and do, which flies in the face of virtually everything that we know about demographics.
It is true that children abandon the views of their parents, but in order for demographics not to be destiny, you must assume that conservative children will abandone the conservatism of their parents at much higher rates than will children of progressives. Why on earth should we believe that?
So long as we assume that a majority of children of conservatives are going to be more conservative than the children of progressives, we get a more conservatice country, even if it is not as conservative as it would be if one simply straight lined the demographics and ideology into the future.
David Zaring - March 15, 2006 at 10:53 am
I’m no expert in demographics, but I’d dispute the kids-follow-their-parents’-ideologies hypothesis. I’m sure there’s probably some correlation, but it can be way overstated, given the opportunity for exit from the parents’ cultural millieu. I would imagine that conservative families have been out-producing non-conservative ones for some time now, without an appreciable increase in our net conservatism.
Nate Oman - March 15, 2006 at 11:14 am
David: But hasn’t their been a massive increase in the net conservatism over the last quarter-century?
Ideology is a difficult to measure. On the other hand, if you look at things like voting and party affiliation, it looks like parents pass opinions on to their children fairly well. Not perfectly, to be sure, but well enough that it is probably safe to extropolate at least some political trends from demographic trends.
Philosophical liberalism encourages us to think of human beings as autonomous choosers who forge their own belief systems unconstrained by the shackles of family or tradition. Whatever the attractions of this vision as a normative framework, it is probably not a particularlly good description of how people actually act.
David Zaring - March 15, 2006 at 11:42 am
If there has been a massive increase in conservatism it hasn’t been because of demographics – because republican baby boomers had more kids than democrats. That just isn’t the reason – and anyway, if you add single parents in with families, I’m sure you could tell a very different demographic story … I obviously disagree about the shackles of family, though I find the shackles of the larger culture compelling, which is why I’d point to so much exit from the family culture among children of the Hasidim or Amish. But once again, too many comments from me! I’ll permit Nate and anyone else to conclude….
Nate Oman - March 15, 2006 at 12:35 pm
David: Actually the Amish are growing precisely because, all things considered, they do a fairly good job of retaining some large chunk of their youth. (Wikipedia entry here) Obviously, lots of Amish kids are leaving the fold, but you have very solid Amish growth that is driven entirely by demographics.
Bruce - March 15, 2006 at 5:01 pm
I’m with David. Kids rebel against their parents, no matter what their parents think. I’m reminded of a skit on the short-lived comedy show “The State,” where a teen’s parents are so totally hip and non-authoritarian, he’s reduced to repeating “I’m outta heeeere” as his only form of protest.
But this post reminds me of another feature of modern American politics I’ve been wondering about. One reason why American politics is becoming more conservative (is it? How liberal was the government in the 1950s? Put a pin in that one) is because the South is more politically powerful now. One big reason it’s more politically powerful is because it’s rapidly growing in population due to migration. But those people are coming from the Northeast and Midwest (right? that’s the Rustbelt-to-Sunbelt hypothesis). So why is there still a recognizably conservative South? Why isn’t all of the South like Florida and Ohio — split 50-50?
Amy - March 15, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Bruce, your comment raises an interesting point – representation in this country is based on total population, not number of voters. So even if the children of conservatives ultimately reject their parents’ political beliefs, until they are of voting age or move away from their home state they will help increase the political representation – and hence the relative power – of conservative states. (I think that is in part what’s going on with the South today – sure, some of its increase in population is due to migration, but I believe many conservative-leaning states have higher average family sizes than does the nation as a whole.)
bill - March 15, 2006 at 8:50 pm
If what we’re talking about is religious conservatism, which Karl Rove is said to believe correlates with churchgoing, well, rates of churchgoing have been falling consistently for years.
Religious conservative churchgoers have to have more kids than nonreligious liberals (not that these are the only two possibilities) or else the Christian right would be doomed.
Clark - March 16, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Bruce, wasn’t the gimick of a kid rebelling from totally hip and non-authoritarian hippies the theme of Family Ties back in the 80′s? The result being a Reagan Republican?
While kids often rebel, they don’t always stay in a rebellious state.
Bruce - March 16, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Clark: True. The gimmick in the “State” skit was a little different though; there the teen actually shared all the same values as his parents (drinking, staying out late OK), but nevertheless was desperately searching for some way to rebel.
Amy: it could well be I’m not factoring in enough of a time lag. But I also wonder about places like Arizona, where my intuition is that the native population of, say, 40 years ago has been completely dwarfed by immigrants. Yet they’re pretty conservative too, as is San Diego. Maybe the sun makes you conservative? Maybe liberals like snow? E.g., Canada. Daniel Patrick Moynihan once demonstrated a statistically significant correlation between proximity of a state’s capital to Canada and its spending on education per pupil.
Leave a Reply