Bushicide of the GOP—And Of America?

In all the many discussions of Red (Republican) states
and Blue (Democratic) states since the 2000 Presidential
election, the most striking finding that emerged has
been that the GOP share of the vote correlates extremely
closely with "affordable
family formation
"
for non-Hispanic whites.

In states where young white couples make enough money to
buy a

house
with a yard in a neighborhood with a

decent public school,
they are more likely to get
married and more likely to have more children.

And where you find lots of white married couples with

lots of children
, you`ll find lots of Republican
voters.

So you might think that the Bush Administration would
promote policies making family formation more affordable
for its political base. But the latest government data
suggest that it is not.

As I pointed out in a series of articles last winter, in
the 2004 election Bush carried—

  • The 26 states with
    the least housing price inflation since 1980: That`s
    what I call

    The Mortgage Gap
    .

  • The 25 states in
    which white women from 18 through 44 average the
    most years married: I call this

    The Marriage Gap
    .

  • And 25 of the top
    26 states in total lifetime fertility among younger
    white women: I call this

    The Baby Gap
    .

In contrast,

single people
, especially

single mothers,
vote Democratic.

For example, California voted Republican in nine of ten
Presidential elections, from 1952 through 1988. As
recently as 1990, non-Hispanic white women in California
averaged 1.93 babies.

Over the next dozen years, though, as immigrants poured
in, California`s white fertility rated dropped 14.4
percent to 1.65 babies. And the

Democrats
have carried the state easily four times
in a row.

If the Bush Administration had the long-term interests
of the GOP at heart, it would limit immigration to allow

native-born Americans
to better afford marriage and
children.

Cutting immigration would raise America`s employment
and wages, keep

housing prices
in check, and make

public schools
better in quality by not overloading
them with children from families that

don`t speak English
and don`t put a high value on
education.

But instead, incredibly, the President has encouraged
illegal immigration—actually goading Mexicans to

sneak across the border
by

saying
"You`re going to come here if you`re worth
your salt…"


We could call this “Bushicide”—for the GOP, and
for the American nation.

Now the National Center for Health Statistics has
released its "Preliminary
Births for 2004
"
report. And it`s more apparent
than ever that the demographic trend is

not the GOP`s friend.

For example, illegitimate births grew 3.8 percent in
just one year to a new record of

1,470,000
in 2004. That`s

35.7 percent
of all births, up from 34.6 percent in
2003.

Among

non-Hispanic whites,
the illegitimacy rate rose to
24.5 percent, which is even higher than the notorious
black illegitimacy rate that so alarmed Daniel Patrick
Moynihan in his

famous 1965
report to LBJ "The
Negro Family: The Case for National Action
."

Among African-Americans, there had been

some hope
that the illegitimacy rate was starting to
go down from its catastrophic level of recent decades.
But in 2004 it bumped back up to 69.2 percent.

The President has

repeatedly
assured us, "Family values don`t stop
at the Rio Grande River."
Yet the U.S.

Hispanic illegitimacy
rate rose from 45.0 percent to
46.4 percent.

Sure, Latinos are assimilating—but they are assimilating

toward African-American norms.
The illegitimacy rate
is actually higher for American-born Hispanics than for
immigrant Hispanics. (Which doesn`t bode well for the
future crime rate.)

The GOP won

58 percent of the white vote in 2004.
It gets about
nine out of every ten of its votes from whites.

So it`s not good news for Republicans that the
number of babies born to white women dropped by 18,000
last year to 2.303 million.

It`s not good news for two reasons:

  • Having babies
    (legitimately) encourages whites to vote Republican.

  • Judging from past
    elections, white babies are about twice as likely to
    grow up to vote Republican as are nonwhite babies.

White women accounted for only 56.0 percent of all

births in the U.S.
last year, down from 56.7 percent
in 2003.

The total fertility rate, or expected lifetime number of
babies, among white women in their childbearing years
fell from 1.87 to 1.85.

That`s about 1/4th below the replacement rate at which a
demographic group can

maintain a stable size.

In contrast, the number of babies born to Hispanic women
grew by 33,000 (or 3.6 percent in one year) to 945,000,
or 23.0% of all births. (Latinos make up only about 14
percent of all residents.)

The Hispanic total fertility rate rose from 2.79 to
2.82.

The high Hispanic fertility is driven upwards by illegal
immigration. A

recent analysis
of 2002 data by Steven A. Camarota
of the Center for Immigration Studies suggests that the
total

fertility rate for illegal Mexican immigrants
is
above 3.5 babies per woman. That compares to only 2.4
for Mexican women in Mexico.

Keep in mind that Latinos also tend to

have children
at an earlier age (their teen birth
rate is more than triple the white rate). So their
growth rate relative to whites is even faster than the
total fertility numbers would suggest—because their
average generation time is shorter.

As we`ve seen in California, immigration is crowding
out marriage and childbirth among American citizens by
making family formation less affordable.

This will spread to the rest of the country—unless
something is done, i.e., current government policies are
reversed.

During the last, disastrous, week, many Republicans have
finally woken up to realize that the

Bush apparatchiks
are not the political geniuses
that they`ve claimed to be.

If it is to survive, the Republican Party can no longer
afford to mortgage its future to George W. Bush`s

extraordinary
obsession with, in effect,

abolishing the Rio Grande
.

Nor can America.


[Steve Sailer [email
him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and


movie critic
for


The American Conservative
.
His website


www.iSteve.blogspot.com
features his daily
blog.]