2004 November 26 Friday
Steve Sailer: Total White Fertility Best Predictor Of Bush Vote
White total fertility correlates at an incredibly strong 0.86 with Bush's share of the vote in each state.
States, however, differ significantly in white fertility. The most fecund whites are in heavily Mormon Utah, which, not coincidentally, was the only state where Bush received over 70 percent. White women average 2.45 babies in Utah compared to merely 1.11 babies in Washington D.C., where Bush earned but 9 percent. The three New England states where Bush won less than 40 percent -- Massachusetts, Vermont, and Rhode Island -- comprise three of the four states with the lowest white birth rates, with little Rhode Island dipping below 1.5 babies per woman.
Bush carried the 19 states with the highest white fertility (just as he did in 2000), and 25 out of the top 26, with highly unionized Michigan being the one blue exception to the rule...
In sharp contrast, Kerry won the 16 states at the bottom of the list, with the Democrats' anchor states of California (1.65) and New York (1.72) having quite infertile whites.
Among the fifty states plus Washington D.C., white total fertility correlates at a remarkably strong 0.86 level with Bush's percentage of the 2004 vote. (In 2000, the correlation was 0.85). In the social sciences, a correlation of 0.2 is considered "low," 0.4 "medium," and 0.6 "high."
You could predict 74% of the variation in Bush's shares just from knowing each state's white fertility rate. When the average fertility goes up by a tenth of a child, Bush's share normally goes up by 4.5 points.
This result can not be explained away by the effects of lower IQ people having more children than higher IQ people (even though that is really happening). In spite of left-liberal imaginings to the contrary Bush did well in many states that have higher average IQs.
The Democrats do well in less egalitarian states where the middle class is smaller and both the lower and upper classes are larger.
Democrats, however, tend to be more inegalitarian, with higher highs and lower lows than the more middling Republicans.
This is clearly visible in the biggest blue state of them all, California.
Census Bureau figures show that California, traditionally America's trendsetter, is pioneering a new kind of class structure—ominously like that of highly unequal Latin American countries like Brazil or
The Golden State is now one of only three states with above average percentages both of people who never got past elementary school and of holders of graduate degrees. (The other two are New Mexico and Rhode Island). In California, 10.7 percent of grownups have no more than elementary schooling, compared to only 6.4 percent in the other 49 states.
Of all the states in the Union, California now has the lowest percentage of its population with a midlevel education consisting of at least a high school diploma or some college, but not a bachelor's degree from a four-year college.
California's educational inequality is driven by both foreign immigration and domestic migration. The state has attracted the top and the bottom of the schooling pyramid, while repelling the middle.
These upper-middle-class newcomers tend to be liberal, especially on cultural issues.
Mexican immigrants supply much of California's huge
number of less-educated people. According to a 2000 Census Bureau survey, 65 percent of America's Mexican immigrants never finished high school versus only 9.6 percent of natives.
Highly egalitarian yet highly Republican Utah is closer to the egalitarian ideals that the Democratic Party quite falsely claims to champion. But unegalitarian California represents the future for America as a whole. The flood of Hispanic lower class immigrants will increase the size of the lower classes and the resulting greater inequality bodes well for the Democratic Party in the voting booth.
Utah, the destination of so many disgruntled ex-Californians, is emerging as the anti-California. It leads the country with only 2.4 percent of its residents never having attended high school.
Paradoxically, this staunchly Republican state, where Bush won 71 percent in 2004, exemplifies some of the supposed egalitarian ideals of the Democratic Party. A 2000 study by the Economic Policy Institute found Utah to have the most equal income distribution of any state.
Still, Utah is more likely to be the anomaly and California the harbinger of the United States' future.
The Republicans are committing political suicide by trying to curry favor with Hispanics by offering amnesty programs, worker permit programs, and lax immigration law enforcement. The United States of America is going to become like Latin America.
Before Steve posted his explanation of total white fertility as an incredibly strong correlation with Bush's vote A gnxp.com post started an interesting list of speculations on what might yield such a strong correlation with a pro-Bush vote. Check it out.
My own thoughts: Is the fertility rate a proxy for something else? For instance, my guess is that white women who have more children tend to be married longer than white women who have fewer children. At the same time, there is a huge gap (which I'm in too much of a rush to find a link for) between voting patterns of single and married women. Married women vote Republican in much larger numbers (the difference is almost 20% - a big swing) than do single women. I would be very curious to know what the correlation is between ratio of white men to white women voting for Republicans versus total Republican vote in each state. Did the Red states swing more Republican because the male-female pro-Republican voting gap is narrower in Blue states than in Red states?
Of course, the kinds of women who have more children have different values on average from women who do not have as many children. For instance, they assign a higher relative value to having children. Either that or they find it easier to find men who they think make suitable partners.
In a related vein divorce rates are an imperfect measure of family values. One reason for this is that marriage rates are higher in Red states. So the Red states have more marriages to be at risk of breaking up in the first place.
Then there is the evolutionary biological angle to the differences in fertility rates of white women in different states: Will white fertility rates eventually start rising as the women who have the strongest genetically-caused instinct to reproduce have more children than women who have weaker instincts to reproduce? A few months ago I was watching a C-Span broadcast from a Washington DC demographics thinktank (and if anyone can find this report I'm about to describe please tell me - dummy me I forgot to write down the thinktank name and I can't find this report after many hours searching). The thinktank had just released a new study where they reported that in some African countries the fertility rate has stopped dropping and has even increased in some cases. My interpretation is that natural selection is selecting for women who will have more children in spite of the influences of modernity. This does not bode well for the optimistic view that problems will come from human population growth will eventually be solved by massive numbers of voluntary individual decisions to have progressively fewer children.
Update Read the full article here. His arguments for why the gap exists between the Red and Blue states is pretty convincing.
"The Republicans are committing political suicide by trying to curry favor with Hispanics ..." However they do it , curring favor from the fastest growing minority group is not political sucide but the smartst thing they can do.
A strategy that is doomed to failure is the dumbest thing one can do.
Hispanics have twice the illegitimacy rate of whites. They have much higher crime rates. They have much higher rates of dropping out of high school and of poverty. What they want from government (more social services and racial preferences for them) is stuff which defeats the point of the Republican Party existing in the first place.
What they want from government (more social services ...) is stuff which defeats the point of the Republican Party existing in the first place.
I'm sorry, if that's the point of the Republicans, then they've lost their point a long time ago. The reality is that a moderate safety net (defined as what we have now), if pretty much a given for both parties and the vast majority of the electorate (third rail anyone?). During the last administration, such increases in social services have been paid for with massive tax increases (for the next generation).
"I'm sorry, if that's the point of the Republicans, then they've lost their point a long time ago. The reality is that a moderate safety net (defined as what we have now), if pretty much a given for both parties and the vast majority of the electorate (third rail anyone?). During the last administration, such increases in social services have been paid for with massive tax increases (for the next generation)."
That's all well and good, but the point is that there isn't an actual spectrum of choice in America. Americans have to vote for Tweedledum or Tweedledee, and the red one seems more for White family values than the blue one.
The point will be re-debated in the near future,as our national financial obligations outrun our resourses to such a degree even mindless open border advocates will be forced to notice.
The creation and maintaincence of the vaunted black middle class was and is heavily dependent on AA,direct and indirect government employment and set asides.This accounts for significant protion of our est. $53 trillion liabilities.We CANNOT afford to maintain the black middle class,spend huge sums to create a latino middle class AND fund a generous retirement for boomers.
Also,as more and more public jobs ae filled by quota,government services,even the most basic,will become more expensive and less competent.As private sector business moves,public services will try to fill the vacuum,increasing costs yet again.
Nope,it's gonna get nasty as ethnic movements collide with economic reality.\
Don't say you weren't warned.
Fascinating post, Randall. As an outsider looking in I am struck by how much America appears to be a nation in the early stages of bifurcation.
I struggle to find what, besides inertia, is actually holding it together even now. The principles of the Founders have become propositions. Racial homogeneity, sufficient in 90%-white 1950's America to produce a golden age of national pride and optimism, has been replaced by a looming demographic disaster - and the dream of Atzlan, or something very like it. Loser-Dems are beginning to comprehend that their east/west coast, middle-class cultural marxism will never be welcome in the white, high(er) fertility heartland - as is only right. They are out of power now. But one day, when the racial balance allows, they will be back in again. The tensions, though, will remain and will continue to drive the nation towards Partition.
Meanwhile, the question of ethnie and nation is rising all across the world. Ukraine is addressing it now. For us, suffice for the moment to say that we've been fed a lie by the left. Ethnicity trumps all, and that will prove to be so in America, too. She is merely journeying to the point of where this truth is realised.
You are right about the coming clash between the conflicting demands on the welfare state. Old folks, blacks, and Hispanics are all going to demand increasing amounts. The rest of the population is going to push back against these demands. The American domestic politics of the 2010s is going to be about the clashes between these groups.
"They are out of power now. But one day, when the racial balance allows, they will be back in again."
Won't happen,watch the reaction when white Dems in Cali are screwed out of power by the very ethnic seperatists they've created.Several latino groups have already sued over a Dem gerrymander that grandfathered in most of the white reps for another generation,positions they want for their own people and aren't shy about saying so.
They make the same mistake the euro elites are making.
Okay, I hadn't realized what sort of topic this was going to be. Racial warfare on the horizon? Whites heading for the hills with shotgun in hand? Black helicopters anyone? Sounds like our very own Heritage Front (White supremacist group in Ontario)!
Sheesh. I'm out of this topic, hopefully the other topics in ParaPundit attract a more grounded crowd...
Problems and conflicts are not made better by closing one's eyes and pretending that one doesn't want to look at, can't be real. On Sailer's list of TFR's by state, most of the redstates which also have those TFR's below the national average are in the south. This suggests that the republicans should say and do as much as they can against affirmative action as they can, and against the other racial policies of the government which will only antagonize their constituency. Those who do not believe that caucasian children cause the disadvantaged minorities to live in degradation, are the more likely to vote right-wing.
Correction: the above should read 'pretending that what one doesn't want to look at' and 'against affirmative action, and against the other racial policies'. Suppose that the sum and substance of the government schools' teaching were that disadvantaged minorities live in a condition of degradation, and this is caused by caucasian children. A message of that kind would generate the differential voting as correlated above. Add gender into the equation, since those with more children are more likely to have one or more sons than those with fewer children overall, and the correlation with higher W-TFR fits. If this is the primary determinant, then the right should miss no opportunity to bring up issues like busing, quotas, immigration of those eligible for quotas, getting violent teenage criminals into prison for decades, and whatever else would offend those who are not raising white children, but not likely those who are.
a bullshit topic that generated the usual bullshit "commentary". there is NO WHITE RACE. it's a myth that has been pepetuated by the ruling elites to pacify the poor, uneducated and ignorant indentured servants from europe into believing that their horrible lives in the new colonies was somehow more worthwhile because, "well, you are white". the concept of whiteness has gone through so many revisions from the first days when ben franklin believed that germans were too "swarthy" to be white, to the days of early 20th century when huns, poles, slavs, and irish were denied "whiteness" and hundreds of thousands were deported based on the now famous iq tests. this is all less than a century ago.
what i find interesting is that in the year 2004, we are STILL on this silly topic of "white birth rate" vs "latino" birth rate. i thought latinos were immigrants from spain in the first place. spaniards are now NO LONGER "white"? get a grip, fellas. address REAL, CONGENT ACTUAL issues. if a woman wants to have a bdy, good for her. i could care less if she was green or blue. in any event, there are a LOT of mexican immigrants in california. most of these people come from the poorest, most rural parts of mexico. they come here with a desire to work, and most of them work EXTREMELY HARD to make it. if the idiot who wrote this "article" had half their character, this country of ours will be a much better place to live. and, yes, spanish immigrants qualify for ZERO, that's ZERO social benefits in the us. i should know because i represent thousands of them, and know our country's immigration laws, unlike the ignorant hordes on these boards. their children--but only those born in the us--qualify for medical and the rest of the benefits available for the rest of the "white" children born here in the us. these people are not the problem.
If there is no white race, how is that applicants have been sued for fraud when they claimed a different race, in order to get affirmative action? If one knows the law at all, then one knows also that the current interpretation of our constitutional laws is a racial one. Today, America has a racial constitution, and this is highly relevant to the political affiliations of those who have white children versus those who do not. When a racial or ethnic group has to be described as hardworking rather than productive, this means that they cannot be reasonably described as productive. This is a case of utilizing the marxist menial labor theory of value, also, perhaps. The immigration of those of poor enough character to flop onto the welfare society's programs is driving the growth of the welfare state. This includes the majority of immigrants who are on net public subsidy. Responsible people, of good character, do not make parasites of themselves.
Possibly the main element of this correlation is the difference between women who care more about what the anti-caucasian policies do to their children who are negatively affected, and the childless white women, without as much of a personal stake. The life-chances of white children, especially males, and including their overall environment, would seem to be what is behind this pattern. A decade or so ago, crime was out of control, and many said we couldn't do anything about it because politicians would always be afraid that the media would describe large-scale imprisonment of disadvantaged minorities as a racist response. Today, we have millions in prison, the crime rate is way down, and the left says it's all racism, but they are disregarded, almost as much as if they were lunatics or retardates. The same can happen with the right-wing taking up the issues of concern to the majority parents; the left says it's all racist code-words, but they are overridden.
James Taranto of the WSJ posits that the "Roe Effect" has been making the population more conservative. Conservative are less likely to abort babies and more likely to pass along conservative values to their children. Liberals are more likely to abort and therefore less likely to pass along liberal values.
People with children tend to be more "conservative" than people without children. They are less likely to take perceived risks (in order to protect their children) and less likely to favor liberal standards of conduct.
Religious people are more likely to have children than secularists (especially when abortion is an available option). Most religions place a high value on children and passing along religious beliefs to children. Most secular ideologies do not place the same emphasis on passing along beliefs to the next generation.