Democrats Recoil From GOP`s Electoral Secret: Marriage Plus Children


There is a
little-known movement sweeping across the United States.
The movement is "maritalism."

Okay—that`s pretty silly.

But if demographic trend

impresario
David Brooks can use my number-crunching
in his Dec. 7th New York Times op-ed "The
New Red-Diaper Babies
" to claim:


"There is a
little-known movement sweeping across the United States.
The movement is `natalism`"

then can`t I cash in with my own buzzword too?

Brooks declared “natalism” to be A New Trend in
part because of me. He wrote:

"So there are
significant fertility inequalities across regions… You
can see surprising political correlations. As Steve
Sailer pointed out in The American Conservative,
George Bush carried the 19 states with the highest white
fertility rates, and 25 of the top 26. John Kerry won
the 16 states with the lowest rates."

Of course, in reality, there`s no organized "natalist
movement."
But it`s a

marketable catchphrase
on which Brooks can hang
articles and lucrative lectures.

So, needing the money more than he does, I`m going to
coin the term "maritalist movement" even though
there`s no Movement with a capital M either—just people
who are married.

This article is a sequel to my cover story, "Baby
Gap: How Birthrates Color the Electoral Map
" in the
Dec. 20, 2004

American Conservative
. I can now reveal on
VDARE.COM some new and improved insights into the two
underlying demographic factors that molded, to a quite
astonishing degree, the last two Presidential elections.

Two factors, because being married turns out to be even
more important than having babies.

Let me fill in the recent history. My AmCon piece has
been getting a lot of attention because it`s the first
major conceptual breakthrough in understanding the
much-discussed divide between

“red states”
(Republican) and
“blue states”
(Democrat).

Here`s a
scatter plot
illustrating my original correlation in
"Baby
Gap
" between voting by state and the expected number
of babies per white woman over her lifetime. Red dots
represent the red states and blue dots the blue states.
The correlation coefficient of Bush`s share of the total
vote in a state and the number of babies per white woman
is r = 0.86, meaning that this relationship "accounts
for"
74 percent of variance (r-squared = 74
percent).

(Here
is a fairly simple explanation of what "correlation"
means, in the statistical sense. Also, to help you
visualize the geography of my 2004 correlation, Ethan
Herdrick has graciously constructed a nifty

map
.)

This is an extraordinarily close connection. But it`s no
one-time fluke. As I

pointed out
on VDARE.COM back in 2001, Bush carried
the 19 states with the highest white fertility in 2000.

And the strength of the relationship has been growing
with time. Back in 1988, the correlation between white
fertility and George H.W. Bush`s share of the vote by
state was r = 0.71 (r-squared = 51%). That was only
about

70 percent
as powerful as the correlation with
George W. Bush`s share in 2004. [Here`s the data
for the data hounds
]

Why do voters follow these patterns? Because blue
regions tend to be more densely populated and racially
diverse—which raises the cost of both

capacious housing
and

safe schooling.
This makes children harder to
afford. Bigger families make red staters more open to
voting on the GOP`s "family values" issues. (My
American Conservative

article
explains the mechanisms in detail.)

Do Democrats want to learn the secrets underlying voter
behavior and figure out how to beat the Republicans?

Or do they just want to congratulate themselves on their
morally superior ignorance…and keep losing?

Answer: the latter, judging by liberals` reaction to my
discovery so far. A

frenzy
of Democrats` denunciations of my finding
have rained down, all predicated on the assumption that
they can ignore what I discovered because … I`m evil.

There`s a classic

example
of anti-Sailerism over at TAPPED, the blog
of the liberal American Prospect, by

Garance Franke-Ruta
. She is in a tizzy that Brooks
defiled the pages of the New York Times by citing
me.

The defining
characteristic of anti-Sailerist diatribes like
Franke-Ruta`s is multitudinous quotations from my
writings with no attempt at refutation of their truth.
The reader is simply supposed to be shocked, SHOCKED
that anyone would dare write such politically incorrect
things.

A few times,
Franke-Ruta gets so worked up she can`t even be bothered
to quote me out of context. I was particularly amused
that she included my AmCon article`s concluding
paragraph in full:

"Nobody noticed
that the famous blue-red gap was a white baby gap
because the subject of white fertility is considered
disreputable. But I believe the truth is better for us
than ignorance, lies, or wishful thinking. At least,
it`s certainly more interesting."

Apparently, by
revealing that I believe that the truth is better for us
than ignorance, lies, or wishful thinking, I`ve
condemned myself in the eyes of all of polite society.

No refutation of my
shocking faux pas is needed. All bien-pensants
can instantly see how much better it is to bask in

reputable ignorance.

In 1942, George
Orwell

famously observed
of this manner of thinking:

"Nazi theory indeed
specifically denies that such a thing as `the truth`
exists. There is, for instance, no such thing as
`Science.` There is only `German Science,` `Jewish
Science,` etc… This prospect frightens me much more than
bombs—and after our experiences of the last few years
that is not such a frivolous statement."

Democrats, of course
are not Nazis—they are the only organized American
opposition to the

Bush dynasty.
But if they prefer to wallow in
self-congratulatory bigotry, they simply won`t be able
to provide the effective competition our country needs.

Enough of the past.
Here`s what I`ve found that`s brand new.

There is another
demographic factor that correlates at the state level
even more tightly than

white fertility
with Bush`s share:

being married
.

And, when years
married is teamed with fertility in a two-factor
multiple regression model, the correlation becomes
stratospheric.

The more years of
their young adulthoods that the white people in a state
spend in wedlock on average, the more Republican the
state is overall.

I figured out how to

estimate
by state the expected number of years
between the ages of 18 and 44 that a woman will be
married (to be precise, married with her husband
present).

For example, white
women in

Utah
, where Bush had his best showing with 71
percent of the total vote, led the nation by being
married an average of 17.0 years during those 27 years
from age 18 through 44.

In contrast, in
Washington D.C., where Bush only took 9 percent, the
average white woman is married only 7.4 years. In

Massachusetts
, where Bush won merely 37 percent, her
years married average just 12.2.

California is next at
12.5. That coincides with my observations: four of my
seven best friends from my Los Angeles high school`s
class of 1976 did not get married for the first time
until this millennium, when they were in their forties.

Marriage in L.A. is
increasingly reverting to what it was in Jane Austen`s
novels: a

luxury
that many cannot currently—and some may
never—afford.

(For The Onion`s
satirical views on the increasing age of marriage, click

here
.)

Indeed, there is much
more

diversity among states
in years of marriage than in
years of

education
—a factor that is frequently discussed
although it is less politically significant.

Leaving anomalous
Washington D.C. aside, the range between the state with
the most-educated whites (Hawaii with 14.2 years of
schooling on average) and the worst (West Virginia with
12.2) is only 42% as large as the Utah-Massachusetts gap
in years married.

Overall, Bush carried
the top 25 states ranked on years married for white
women. The correlation coefficient with Bush`s share of
the vote is 0.91, or 83 percent of the variation
"explained."
That`s extremely high. Years married
also correlates with the 2000 election results at the
0.89 level (80 percent). So it`s no fluke.

The r-squared when
years married and fertility are combined in a multiple
regression model is improves to 88 percent.
(Small-sounding change, perhaps, but actually an
important (30%) reduction in the unaccounted variation –
from 17 percent to 12 percent.)

In other words, both
years married and fertility play statistically
significant roles, with years married somewhat more
important.

Not surprisingly,
years married and number of babies per woman is highly
correlated (r = 0.80, r-squared = 65 percent). On both
measures, Utah is first and D.C. last.

However, there are
some differences.

Southern states tend
to have quite early marriage, but only somewhat above
average fertility. That`s probably because years married
is negatively correlated with

years of schooling
(-0.72, 52 percent), and the
Southern states tend to be a little below average in
white educational level.

In case you are
wondering, five out of the ten states with the
most-educated white populations gave their Electoral
Votes to Bush. Strikingly, the most socially
conservative state, Utah, has the seventh most-educated
whites, ahead of even educationally haughty archliberal
Massachusetts.

However, nine out of
the bottom ten least-educated white populations are in
red states—mostly in the South.

Despite the notorious
Red State-Blue State

IQ Hoax
with which so many millions of Democrats
consoled themselves after November`s election,

exit poll data
shows that, across all races, the two
parties` voters are virtually identical in years of
schooling. They were tied in 2000, the GOP was slightly
ahead in 2002, and the Democrats were up in 2004, but
only by only about 0.15 years of classwork per voter.

However, white
Democrats tend to be somewhat more educated than white
Republicans (who are what white Democrats are thinking
about when they obsess about their superiority).

In contrast,

black and Hispanic Republicans
average more
years of schooling than their Democratic co-ethnics.

While limited
schooling correlates clearly with early marriage, the
negative correlation between years of education and
babies per woman is surprisingly weak (-0.38, 14
percent). The states that have relatively late marriage
combined with relatively high fertility are led by
Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico.

My guess is that

these states
receive many educated

refugees from California
looking for a place where
they can afford to raise several children.

What lessons can the
GOP learn from this trove of information?

The most obvious:
Republicans do best when younger adults can afford to
get married and have children. (Women are especially
likely to be

converted
from Democrat to Republican by marriage
and children.)

Young white people are
most inclined to marry and procreate if housing is cheap
because of low population density and if the public
schools are

undamaged
by ethnic diversity.

That may sound
shockingly blunt to see in writing. But, let`s be
honest, that`s how everybody talks in private

when buying a home.

In increasingly
expensive and diverse California, white fertility fell
14 percent from 1990 to 2002.

Not surprisingly,
although

George H.W. Bush
carried California by four points
in 1988, his

son
lost it by nine points in 2004.

What is the single
most effective way

Republicans
can avoid

Californicating
the rest of the county?

What is the simplest
way to keep

population density
under control and

public school quality up
—thus allowing more young
people to afford the Republicanizing blessings of
marriage and children?


Cut back on
immigration.


[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.]