Political Evolution

One has to appreciate the delicious irony that liberals, who generally support Darwin's Theory of Evolution, are themselves being weeded out of the population by their own philosophies.

In "The Fertility Gap" (over at the Wall Street Journal's opinion page), Arthur C. Brooks has made the point that liberal reproduction trends, or lack thereof, bode poorly for the Democratic Party:

"Simply put, liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result. According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41%. Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections.

...Alarmingly for the Democrats, the gap is widening at a bit more than half a percentage point per year, meaning that today's problem is nothing compared to what the future will most likely hold. Consider future presidential elections in a swing state (like Ohio), and assume that the current patterns in fertility continue. A state that was split 50-50 between left and right in 2004 will tilt right by 2012, 54% to 46%. By 2020, it will be certifiably right-wing, 59% to 41%. A state that is currently 55-45 in favor of liberals (like California) will be 54-46 in favor of conservatives by 2020--and all for no other reason than babies."

It is one thing to defend reproductive rights, but to do so while NOT reproducing is ludicrous, and will eventually lead to this country becoming even more conservative.

The message to liberals is clear: Darwin is lurking, ready to declare you, and your political philosophies, unfit for natural selection.