Poor future for Liberals??

[KYTOP]

I was listening to Good Morning America as I got dressed this morning and they had an interesting story about the birthrates of Liberals vs Conservatives. Since children have a tendency to vote as their parents they were talking about the future effects upon Democrats and Republicans.

There was a study done they shows Liberals have 147 kids per 100 people vs 208 kids per 100 Conservatives. Not sure who did the study but it looks like there will be more conservative Republicans in our future 15-20 years from now.

They did note that Liberals tendency to include gays and support abortion rights as a few of the reasons.

[Guest Conway]

I would have to say that, if there is a poor future for liberals, it is more the result of fielding polarizing candidates for national office with no discernable platform that appeals to anything except the most extreme idealists in the Democratic Party.

I'm a registered Republican, consider myself a moderate leaning somewhat to the conservative side, especially where fiscal issues are concerned. Socially, I'm somewhat more liberal (obviously as I have sex with other men), though it is rare that a social issue will ever who I vote for in an election. I support gay marriage. But, its not a voting ssue for me. I support choice. But, I have yet to cast my vote in an election based on a candidates position on that issue

In the last presidential election, the Democrats could have easily won myself and my ilk over had it fielded a candidate with a fiscally moderate approach and a more liberal social approach.

Instead, the Democratic faithful nominated perhaps the most polarizing political candidate for President since George McGovern. A traitor against his country with no plausible agenda that he could explain in any detail. A flip flopper who seemed to be saying what he thought the extreme party loyalists wanted to hear rather than what the middle of the road swing voter wanted to hear.

As candiates begin to line up for 2008, I see those who are moving somewhat toward the center being blasted by the far left in the party for taking anything other than the most extreme position available to them.

The recent ouster of a guy like Joe Lieberman, a social liberal and a military hawk, by the new "center" of the party spells more doom for the liberal establishment in the Democratic party than any study of birth patterns among conservatives and liberals does.

The folks who run the DNC have made it patently clear that, if established politicians within the party don't tow the line of the far left, they'll be uncerimoniously booted in favor of political neophytes with extremely narrow agendas.

That may bode well for guiding the Democratic Party to a more leftist approach to its politics. But, it is going to do nothing to appeal to the swing voters that the Democrats desperately need to win elections.

[TampaYankee]

Well, I wasn't happy with either side last election or the one before that but that doesnt have any bearing on KYTOP's proposition regarding the issue of potential philosophy of future voters based on likelyhood that they vote as their parents. Of course that assumes that they vote. Or that that they vote in equal proportion across both political philosophies. It also is not clear how these stats accounted for the fact that members of the population tend to grow more conservative with age.

I suspect that, as a practical matter, social security and medicare funding is likely to be more of a driver in the popuation attitudes at large. It still remains to be seen if the terror issue will persist to have long term legs. Still there is some truth to the maxim that the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.

Please remember to keep the discussion focused on the nonpolitical subject matter. Political discussions always manage to descend into a shouting match, even if everyone tries to be good. And for what? Few if any ever change their position anyway.

[Guest deej]

I think it was Richard Nixon who said in his book .....

"To reach the age of 30 and never have been a democrat means you have no soul. To reach the age of 30 and STILL be a democrat means you have no brain."

Saying that children are born to liberal or conservative parents is like the nature vs. nurture argument about being gay.

In the end, people vote for what they think (rightly or wrongly) is in their best interest, labels be-damned.

Like it or not, people vote for the best dog-and-pony show.

[AdamSmith]

>Saying that children are born to liberal or conservative

>parents is like the nature vs. nurture argument about being

>gay.

>

>In the end, people vote for what they think (rightly or

>wrongly) is in their best interest, labels be-damned.

Maybe so, but then again maybe not quite...

Circling the Wagons

By David Brooks

...In a perfectly rational world, citizens would figure out which parties best represent their interests and their values, and they would provisionally attach themselves to those parties. If their situations changed or their interests changed, then their party affiliations would change.

But that is not how things work in real life. As Donald Green, Bradley Palmquist and Eric Schickler argue in their book, "Partisan Hearts and Minds," most people either inherit their party affiliations from their parents, or they form an attachment to one party or another early in adulthood. Few people switch parties once they hit middle age. Even major historic events like the world wars and the Watergate scandal do not cause large numbers of people to switch.

Moreover, Green, Palmquist and Schickler continue, people do not choose parties by comparing platforms and then figuring out where the nation's interests lie. Drawing on a vast range of data, these political scientists argue that party attachment is more like attachment to a religious denomination or a social club. People have stereotypes in their heads about what Democrats are like and what Republicans are like, and they gravitate toward the party made up of people like themselves.

Once they have formed an affiliation, people bend their philosophies and their perceptions of reality so they become more and more aligned with members of their political tribe.

Paul Goren of Arizona State University has used survey data to track the same voters over time. Under the classic model, you'd expect to find that people who valued equal opportunity would become Democrats and that people who valued limited government would become Republicans.

In fact, you're more likely to find that people become Democrats first, then place increasing value on equal opportunity, or they become Republicans first, then place increasing value on limited government. Party affiliation often shapes values, not the other way around.

Party affiliation even shapes people's perceptions of reality. In 1960, Angus Campbell and others published a classic text, "The American Voter," in which they argued that partisanship serves as a filter. A partisan filters out facts that are inconsistent with the party's approved worldview and exaggerates facts that confirm it.

That observation has been criticized by some political scientists, who see voters as reasonably rational. But many political scientists are coming back to Campbell's conclusion: people's perceptions are blatantly biased by partisanship.

For example, the Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels has pointed to survey data collected after the Reagan and Clinton presidencies. In 1988, voters were asked if they thought the nation's inflation rate had fallen during the Reagan presidency.

In fact, it did. The inflation rate fell from 13.5 percent to 4.1 percent. But only 8 percent of strong Democrats said the rate had fallen. Fifty percent of partisan Democrats believed that inflation had risen under Reagan. Strong Republicans had a much sunnier and more accurate impression of economic trends. Forty-seven percent said inflation had declined.

Then, at the end of the Clinton presidency, voters were asked similar questions about how the country had fared in the previous eight years. This time, it was Republicans who were inaccurate and negative. Democrats were much more positive. Bartels concludes that partisan loyalties have a pervasive influence on how people see the world. They reinforce and exaggerate differences of opinion between Republicans and Democrats.

The overall impression one gets from these political scientists is that politics is a tribal business. Americans congregate into rival political communities, then embrace one-sided attitudes and perceptions. That suggests that political polarization is the result of deep and self-reinforcing psychological and social forces.

This theory doesn't explain how the country moves through cycles of greater and lesser polarization. Still, I have to say, depressingly, this picture of tribal and subrational partisanship does accord with the reality we see around us every day.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/05/opinion/...artner=USERLAND

[KYTOP]

>Saying that children are born to liberal or conservative

>parents is like the nature vs. nurture argument about being

>gay.

Part of the study told that children, at least initially, are influenced by the voting preferences of their parents. I was hoping the study would pop up on another news source's website since I was listening while trying to get ready for work.

I found the whole concept of Liberal vs Conservative birthrates done in a study interesting. Wonder if a Federal Grant paid for the study.

[caeron]

I wish this site would just delete political posts. The venom of Conway's post is an example of what I think sped the downward spiral of the Hooboy boards.

Nobody changes their minds about their politics by these type of posts, they're just encourage to return flames with flames. Is a driveby shooting of Kerry (or Bush for that matter) something we really want here?

[Guest Conway]

I apologize if I offended you or anyone else with my post. That certainly wasn't my intent.

I follow the business of politics closely and have duly noted that the Republican Party has succeeded over the past ten years by appealing to a broader audience than it did in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan years. In doing so, it abandoned some of the core values of those who identified with it in those years. It has become more socially liberal and less fiscally conservative.

I'm a person who would love to see the Democratic Party shift its focus away from the extreme left and, similar to what republicans did in 2004, adopt a "contract with America" type approach to politics that addresses the concerns of those of us who occupy the political middle.

My post was hardly a "drive by" attack on either Kerry or W Bush. After all, weach of those men are what they are politically. My beef is with the DNC leadership that continues to drive the party farther to the left instead of closer to the center.

That's just a reality of political life. Political peace, which represents the best for our country, isn't achieved by promoting extreme points of view. It is achieved by electing politicians who can build a consensus on dioing what's best for America.

[TampaYankee]

>Nobody changes their minds about their politics by these type

>of posts, they're just encourage to return flames with flames.

I agree and that is why we have chosen to forego a politics forum in favor of the many sites and blogs in internet land.

If anything spirals off the current envents path on to hard politics and takes on momentum we will archive the discussion for posterity. :7

[caeron]

Calling Kerry a traitor is not a drive by attack?

Calling Kerry a a flip flopper is not a drive by attack?

If this passes for polite political discussion at your house, then I can't imagine the flames when you actually get worked up.

[Guest Conway]

I appreciate what you're saying. Without any intent of further bruising your political sensitivities on this issue, I might suggest to you that these opinions are held widely outside of my household (which, by the way, I live alone in).

Here is an example of a major news source, one more friendly to the left than the right, making note of the good Senator from Massachusetts history with regard to flip flopping:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/29/...ain646435.shtml

But, to bring this discussion out of the political realm and back into a more philosophical realm, my point is this: If the left (or liberals in the context of this discussion) want to reinsert themselves in the political structure of this country, they're going to have to appeal to more centrist swing voters.

That was certainly the philosophy that elected Bill Clinton. And in the opinion of this moderate Republican, he wasn't a half bad President. As a matter of fact, on domestic issues, I prefer Clinton to W Bush.

That said, I don't think that the birth rate in red states spells doom for the liberal establishment nearly so much as its political swing to extreme positions does.

[caeron]

The nation is hugely divided on political issues. I could as easily post things about Bush and Republicans and point to polls to show that these are widely held beliefs. The fact that they're widely held isn't a reason to bring them here and further contribute to the polarization of our political process.

I, for one, would like a few refuges from the vile cesspool that has become the political divide in this country.

[TampaYankee]

>

>The nation is hugely divided on political issues. I could as

>easily post things about Bush and Republicans and point to

>polls to show that these are widely held beliefs. The fact

>that they're widely held isn't a reason to bring them here and

>further contribute to the polarization of our political

>process.

I agree. That is why we choose to end this exchange now.

If permitted, I will leave this thread open in the hope that anyone having an opinion on the original topic may chime in.

To refresh, the topic is: the child bearing rate of liberals vs conservatives and how far does the acorn fall from the tree with respect to political philosophy.

[Guest BewareofNick]

>I was listening to Good Morning America as I got dressed this

>morning and they had an interesting story about the birthrates

>of Liberals vs Conservatives. Since children have a tendency

>to vote as their parents they were talking about the future

>effects upon Democrats and Republicans.

>

>There was a study done they shows Liberals have 147 kids per

>100 people vs 208 kids per 100 Conservatives. Not sure who did

>the study but it looks like there will be more conservative

>Republicans in our future 15-20 years from now.

>

>They did note that Liberals tendency to include gays and

>support abortion rights as a few of the reasons.

Well, heterosexual have more children than homosexuals, yet there doesn't seem to be any dearth of gay people floating about.

Just because someone is brought up ina conservative household doesn't mean that they will automatically be conservative (or vice versa). Remember the old show Family Ties? Meredith Baxter Birney and Michael Gross played liberal flower children parents who had a son, Alex, who was a young Republican. Archie Bunker had a daughter who married a pinko commie meatheaded liberal. Anything can happen. Remember Newt's gay sister?

[Guest Conway]

I would have no problem with you raising those issues. I always welcome the opportunity for intelligent lively debate on any number of subjects and welcome opinions that vary from mine in that regard.

But, as TY said, he doesn't wish to see this thread go any further in that direction.

Thus, I yield to popular opinion.

[marcanthony]

>I would have no problem with you raising those issues. I

>always welcome the opportunity for intelligent lively debate

>on any number of subjects and welcome opinions that vary from

>mine in that regard.

>

>But, as TY said, he doesn't wish to see this thread go any

>further in that direction.

>

>Thus, I yield to popular opinion.

Actually, Conway, not that my opinion is worth more than anyone elses... but I thought you conducted yourself like a true gentleman in this thread (with the exception of your opening post of course, which you gentlemanly clarified and apologized for the tone).

I was going to chime in a bit too, but then I read that TY wanted all of us to move on, and given that I know he has sacrificed a couple of trips to MOntreal to keep this board going, I am certainly not going to be the one to ignore his request!

But I agree with some of what you say, and disagree with some of what you say, but I totally respect the way you said it.