[Cross-posted at RedState]
Liberals in this country have brought about their own demise – they just don’t realize it yet.
Ever since the Sexual Revolution, liberals have been on a path of species self-destruction. Through their “enlightened” policies over the past 40 – 50 years, they have quite literally managed to socially engineer themselves into obscurity.
In another 20 years it is quite possible that Liberals will no longer be able to drive the national conversation, because they will have ceased to be relevant. They will have become just another minority; they are already well on their way down that path.
Over the past 40+ years, the cult of liberalism has shunned traditional religion in favor of their own Holy Trinity – Free Love, Reproductive Rights, and the crown jewel of them all, Abortion. Ironically, they don’t realize that by their very actions they have become just one more species that is driving itself to extinction.
Those of us who have been watching from the sidelines are starting to see the very real results of this ongoing social experiment. While it has been disastrous for their side, I think that those of us who have stood firm against their attempt to remake society are about to see our patience rewarded.
Prior to the 1970’s, most couples got married young and started having babies, just like men and women had been doing for thousands of years before them. Prior to the discovery of antibiotics, the spectre of venereal diseases kept people from engaging in risky sexual behavior. If a couple remained chaste before marriage, there was no danger of becoming infected with a potentially fatal disease.
When birth control pills came on the scene, for the first time in history couples had more than a couple of options if they wanted to delay starting a family. At the time, it seemed like a good thing for society – women were encouraged to go to college, get a degree, and have a career. Many couples began to put off getting married until they were older and in a better financial situation.
In 1978, the first “test tube baby” was born, and that technology gave many infertile couples the hope that they might finally be able to have a child of their own. And whereas before women had been encouraged to “not wait too long” to start having children, as IVF technology improved, people started to think that it was OK to put off starting a family – after all, if all else failed, everyone assumed that a couple could just help nature along with the assistance of a petri dish and a turkey baster.
It has only been recently that a large amount of data has been available about womens’ fertility, but the sad fact of the matter is that it is harder to get pregnant as a woman ages. The number of viable eggs declines over time as well (increasing the chance of miscarriage or birth defects). By the age of 35, the biological clock starts ticking with a vengeance.
Unfortunately, by putting off starting a family until they are older, many couples – if they are able to have children at all – find that they are only able to have one or two before Mother Nature steps in and closes up shop. Meanwhile, the couples who have kids when they are younger are often able to have 3 or more children.
Instead of having children when they were 18, 19, or 20, many couples started waiting until they were 25, 30, or 35. The most well-educated, enlightened, and socially liberal among the first generation of this movement were oftentimes the ones putting marriage and family off the longest.
What they failed to take into account, however, was that many of their conservative peers – most of them just as well-educated and enlightened – were getting married and starting families while they were still in their 20s.
By the time liberal couples got around to starting their families at 30 or 35, many more of their conservative counterparts already had 2 or 3 children of their own, having started their families 10-15 years earlier.
While liberal couples were busy potty-training their children, conservatives’ children were entering high school and/or college. By the time liberal couples’ children were starting elementary/middle school, many conservative couples’ children were entering the work force, getting married, and starting their own families.
Let’s take two hypothetical ladies, Julia and Jane – both born in 1950, and both on the front lines of the women’s movement:
Julia takes the message of the women’s movement to heart. She puts off getting married, and doesn’t have her first daughter until the age of 30 (1980). She has one more child (2 kids).
Her first daughter puts off getting married until she is 30 (2010), puts off trying to have a baby another couple of years, has to go through several IVF cycles, and finally has her first daughter at the age of 35 (2015). She is unable to have any more children; her sibling is able to have 2 children (3 grandkids).
By the time Julia is 70 years old, only 2 generations have been completed, and the Women’s Movement only has 5 more Liberals to show for it.
Jane, on the other hand, gets married at the age of 20 and has a daughter a year later (1971), then 2 more children (3 kids).
Her daughter grows up, gets married at the age of 20, and has a daughter a year later (1992), then 2 more children. Jane’s other children also have 3 children apiece (9 grandkids).
The first granddaughter grows up, gets married at 20 (2012), and has a daughter a year later (2013), then 2 more children after that. Each of Jane’s grandchildren has 3 children apiece (27 great-grandkids).
By the time Jane is 70 years old, there are 3 “complete” generations, and the country has gained 39 more Conservatives.
Like it or not, it is a woman’s biology which drives this whole equation, since only women are capable of getting pregnant. All of the “liberation” in the world will never be able to change that evolutionary fact.
We may never know how many children were never born as the result of the Pill, but we DO know how many were never born as the result of abortion, thanks to the studious recordkeeping of the folks of the Guttmacher Institute (the Heinrich Himmler arm of Planned Parenthood).
Since 1973, over 50 million abortions have been performed in this country. Given that the majority of abortion advocates tend to self-identify as socially liberal, I think that we can safely assume that most of those unborn children would have been raised in socially liberal households and would have gone on to vote for primarily Democrat candidates.
So, what does 40 years of legal abortion mean for the future of the liberal movement (and by extension, the Democrat party)?
The population of this country – according to the 2010 US Census – was 308.7 million.
The number of people determined to be old enough to vote in 2010 was 229.7 million.
Any citizen born by November 6, 1994 is eligible to vote in the 2012 Presidential election.
The number of abortions performed between 1973 and 1994 was 31.4 million.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, none of those unborn children will be voting this year.
[Update 07/18/12]: Thanks to Barbara Curtis at Mommy Life for linking this post – appreciate it!
Pingback: The Instruments of Their Own Destruction | RedState
That’s the Roe Effect at play, or rather at work. Amazing how liberals, thinking of only the “now”, always forget about the “later”.
Yup – one of the articles that I linked refers to that investing rule – “The Miracle of Compounding”.
If you “invest” earlier rather than later, you will ALWAYS have more money than someone who waits 10 years – they will NEVER be able to catch up with you, even if you quit investing when they start and just let things take care of themselves.
I just want to rub it in their faces – “You will NEVER be able to catch up with us!”
Of course, most of them wouldn’t understand….
Liberals are relying on the fact that they control the public schools and universities, where they are not shy about their agenda to indoctrinate conservatives’ children away from “fundamentalist” beliefs (unless, of course, the “fundamentalist” orthodoxy happens to be Secular Humanism). If we want all these children born to conservative families to stay conservative, we must break the government monopoly on the education system and support school choice, so that conservative parents can limit the left’s access and influence on their kids.
Yes, but every 50 years Conservatives are cycling through 3 generations while liberals are only cycling through 2 – and our generations are much fuller in terms of sheer numbers.
They will NEVER be able to catch up – they are doomed, but they don’t see it yet.
And if they manage to “convert” a few conservative kids, then they will go the way of the rest of the liberals – they won’t ever have enough offspring to offset the number of conservatives that keep on coming.
We are back down to 1974 numbers/percentages for abortion.
And they don’t understand why “business” is so bad – they aren’t bright enough to realize that all of those babies who were aborted all those years ago never grew up to abort their own babies years later.
Most of the babies who survived were born to more Conservative parents.
The Abortion Industry has a shoddy business plan – they keep killing off future “customers”…..
Which is why I can never figure out why the teachers’ unions are so rabidly pro-abortion. It’s their future students that are being sliced and diced and flushed down the drain. Fewer kids = fewer jobs for teachers. Naked self-interest, if nothing else, should make them oppose abortion. Why are they too stupid to figure this out?
Sounds like those folks are too stupid to be teaching….
Yep, that’s what I was thinking!
Everything moves in cycles, this topic is no different.
As for abortion, good points can be made on either side…no need to call teachers “stupid”.
Oh, dear – I worded my comment badly. It’s the folks in charge of the teachers’ unions who are acting stupidly (as Bob was pointing out); I honestly don’t know how many of them are still teaching in classrooms. Please forgive my choice of words – I know that you are a teacher, Fred, and from all that I have seen, you are a darn good one.
I’ll be much more careful in the future (but please continue to point out when *I’m* the one being stupid, OK? 😛 )
I agree for the most part, but Hispanic Americans are typically very liberal, vote, but haven’t bought into the small family liberal mantra. They’re still producing a very large number of liberal voters.
I’ve seen some data that suggests that 2nd-generation Hispanics are VERY conservative. And the ones whose parents jumped through all of the hoops to come to this country are very anti-amnesty for those who think it’s OK to jump to the front of the line.
I am a 3rd generation hispanic american, and I am practically a necon. Most of my family are catholic, conservative and very traditional.
The interesting thing is that many 2nd and 3rd generation Hispanic Americans ARE conservative (a point conveniently left out of the discussion when liberals talk about the Hispanic vote).
We have 2 neighbors who are 2nd-generation Hispanic – their parents did all of the stuff necessary to get into the country LEGALLY; they have no patience for the “jump to the head of the line” crowd….
I love that picture of the Romney family — it makes me smile every time I see it.♡
Yep – and when I look at it, I just want to wave it in some liberal’s face and say, “Just LOOK at all of those future Conservative voters!”
If they give me a hard time, I casually comment that the Romneys have certainly contributed “their fair share” in future taxpayers….
Yeah, I’m a stinker that way….. 😛
I agree with everything you stated here. As an aside, it is interesting how “old” Hilary and Bill look and how “young” Anne and Mitt look. One couple looks more happy and joyful, one does not. Granted one picture is a posed portrait and one is a candid snap, other photos show the Clintons looking weather beaten, yet the Romneys seem to look “fresher”.
Yeah, but also remember that the Clintons have already been through the White House (and one of them is still in it, sorta), and the Romneys have yet to do that. One thing that happens to EVERY President is a HUGE amount of aging in a short 4 years. Just look at the difference between Obama in 2008 and now. I know what you’re getting at, but I don’t think it’s a possible comparison 🙂
Bill (1946) and Hillary (1947) Clinton.
George (1946) and Laura (1946) Bush.
You left out a very important tool for democrat voter reproduction: dependency. I am hispanic, and I fear the democrats are going to try to do to my people what they’ve done to the african-american communicty.
Education is key – I was looking at some data (can’t find the bar graph now….) that was projecting the Hispanic population will grow by 2050, but the African-American population will DECREASE from its current 12% of the US population to 11% by 2050.
That’s a full 8% drop.
If it was an animal species, the liberals would be up in arms over something like this – and it IS completely “man-made”.
But they can’t be bothered with that – there are 2″ fish in California in danger….
Thanks – I’m so glad that you do! 😛
Congrats Teresa…for creating a spectacularly ridiculous piece of drivel.
Why, thank you – now please elaborate on what I said in here that is “drivel”. The numbers don’t lie. Anyone who cares to do the research will find that there is an entire segment of science/statistics dedicated to studying population trends – not just in the human population, but in ALL species populations.
It is a well-known fact that if a species doesn’t maintain a 2.1 replacement ratio, that species WILL die off (see California Condor, Pandas, Tigers, Black Rhinos, etc.). Unless significant breeding protocols are put in place, that extinction cannot be stopped.
Look into the mating/reproductive habits of Pandas and tell me how they are different from the mating/reproductive behavior of liberals.
So much to elaborate on, difficult to pick where to start. But first off, numbers often lie especially when they are applied or extrapolated incorrectly. Secondly, one’s political thought, leaning, philosophy etc. do not in any way align to your species argument, so your rather wishful premise basically falls down before it gets out of the gate. Lastly, you might want to re-examine your “data” on Hispanic voting patterns. Last poll I saw has Obama with an almost 50 point lead on Romney among likely Hispanic voters. No matter how much you wish for something, does not make it so.
Apparently you didn’t bother to take the time to read the article that I linked in my comment – the data DOESN’T lie; the more liberal a person is, the fewer children they are likely to have. That has borne itself out across the entire developed world. Japan is currently in danger of having its society collapse upon itself because each generation is smaller and smaller.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to do the math down through the next few generations. If a couple waits until they are 30 to have kids and they only have 1-2 kids, they are automatically at a numerical disadvantage to a couple who starts having kids at the age of 20 and has 3-4 kids. By the time the liberal couple starts having kids, the conservative couples’ kids are already halfway on their way to adulthood.
The conservative couples’ 3-4 kids are much more likely to have 3-4 kids of their own (also at a young age). The liberals’ kids are more likely to wait longer to have kids and to have fewer of them. Sixty years later, there will usually be 3 generations of conservatives vs. 2 generations of liberals. The math favors the conservatives, even if everyone has the same number of children per generation.
Obama may be “ahead” of Romney by 50 points in the Hispanic voting community, but bear in mind that the NUMBER of Hispanics that vote is small compared to the number of Caucasians that vote. And Blacks make up an even smaller percentage of overall voters.
Regardless of that, Obama is just one candidate. The philosophy of many Hispanics is more in line with Conservative thinking than with liberal thinking.
And this generation of 18-25-year-olds is trending as Conservative as the WWII generation – like it or not, that is the net result of increased access to birth control and legalized abortion.