I once again get Chad's dander up:
Ken Blanchard, professor of political science at Northern State University in Aberdeen, really goes out on a limb and embraces a pretty wacky theory: that liberals are essentially going to be overwhelmed with conservatives because conservatives are having more babies.
Huh?
I know we all search for affirmation of our own beliefs, but this seems like a real stretch.
Sure, birth rates may well indidcate that "red" states are experiencing more child births than "blue" states, but I don't see the evidence that this translates into anything of substance.
If you want to look at real demographic trends, one could make the case that partisan and ideological identification has actually steadily declined since WWII. I'd be willing to bet that with a couple short-term exceptions, religious identification has declined as well over the past 50-100 years.
But the biggest flaw in Blanchard's argument is the fact that American society has, over time (albeit slowly), grown more liberal and progressive. The rights of minorities, women, and gays being the prime example. And they will continue to lose these wars despite some small wins on the battlefield in recent years. I can predict without any trepidation that in my lifetime gays will enjoy the right to legally marry anywhere in this country. Conservatives always lose these battles over the long haul.
The only way for Blanchard's arguments to have any real validity you would have to believe that "red state children" would inherit a conservative ideology and not move to the left at all during their lifetime with the rest of society.
That's just plain wacky.
UPDATE
One additional thought: Why in the world does the Aberdeen American News publish this stuff? I can understand the need for differing "opinions", but when an "opinion" or "theory" is so far wacky and makes leaps without facts to back it up, does it really require publication? Seriously.
My reply:
The old phrase "knee-jerk liberal" clearly applied to yourself. Your knee-jerk reaction is to think that any voice that you find discomforting ought to be silenced, and any argument you find "wackey" ought not to be printed.
Why does the American News print my stuff? Well, the article I based my essay on, Philip Longman's piece on "Patriarchy," was printed in Foreign Policy. FP is one of the two most influential journals on world affairs (the other being Foreign Affairs). Longman also produced a simliar piece for USAToday. So the American News is in good company. Too bad all these journals did not come to you for clearance.
I can understand why you don't want to think about demograpics. It is certainly possible that other factors will cancel out demograpic effects, but historically speaking, I wouldn't count on that. One generation does not always mirror the one that came before, but (and this is a bit of political science for you), most people most of the time follow the politics of their parents. This is especially true where a strong religious influence is at work.
Moreover, the next generation is not always more "progressive" that the last. Muslim youths in Europe are, by and large, more extreme than their parents. Are you really sure that the children of present day Bush voters will suddenly turn into loyal Daschle voters any day now?
I myself qualified the argument by these words: "If Longman's argument is right." Maybe he is wrong. But surely its worth thinking about? I did not present this argument because I like it. In case you haven't noticed, I am a Darwinist, professionally speaking. I am not altogether happy with the prospect of fundamentalists inheriting the Earth. But that might be what's about to happen.
You are of course free to reject this argument. But it is striking that you and so many of your readers seem to delight in the prospect that my voice should be silenced. I would have thought that we might be allies on many things: the teaching of evolution in schools, for example. But I confess that I have met few religious conservatives so intolerant as the readers of CCK.
Recent Comments