According to Phillip Longman, American demography would be very favorable to the conservatives. The Democrats would risk losing again because they did not have enough children.
In an excellent recent issue of the review Twentieth centuryPaul-André Rosental recalled the importance of demographic factors in the analysis of historical and political phenomena. This demographic argument is not new. In the 1970s, Emmanuel Todd already announced the collapse of the Soviet Union by brandishing demographic data that turned out to be particularly accurate. In their own way, demographers are dream breakers and remind us that political voluntarism and the rationality of candidates are little with regard to our biological behaviors. At a time when candidates are agitating in the various states, reading the work of Phillip Longman, a researcher at the New America Foundationallows you to take a step back. His idea is simple: demography is very favorable to the conservatives. Democrats are likely to lose because they have not had enough children, he explains to us ! With humor, he poses the equation in a very simple way: in Seattle, in the state of Washington, a city rather acquired from democratic ideas, there are 45% more dogs than children ; In Salt Lake City, a strong conservative city, there are 19% more children than dogs !
For the past twenty years, details Longman, demographic dynamics have been more favorable to conservative families. In the state of Utah, one of the most conservative in the country, where two-thirds of citizens are members of the local Church, the fertility rate is 92 per thousand. Conversely, the State of Vermont, one of the progressive bastions in the country, the State being the first to have legalized homosexual marriages, the rate is lowest in the nation with only 51 per thousand. The correlation between the fertility of the states and the vote works almost systematic. Longman applies this hypothesis to the 2004 election which opposed the Republican George Bush to the Democrat John Kerry. According to its calculations, the correlation reaches 0.84%, a sufficient level will tell us the statisticians to act as proof. In the state of UTAH, George W. Bush received 70% of the votes during the 2004 presidential election. In the States of Washington DC, Massachusetts, Vermont and Rhode Island, where the fertility rate is low, the vote for Bush did not exceed 40%. In total, in 2000 and 2004, Bush won in the nineteen states where the fertility rate is the highest. Conversely, candidate John Kerry won the sixteen states located at the bottom of the list ! California or New York State, which have low birth rate rates, voted for Kerry. The only exception to this demographic rule is the State of Michigan, which is among the twenty-five states where the fertility rate is high, but which voted mainly for Kerry due to the high presence of unions. More generally, this demographic argument is also relevant within the traditional supporters of the Democratic Party. The Jewish and African-American electorate votes in the vast majority in its favor. A minority, which does not exceed 20% in one case as in the other, stands out. In both cases, the correlation between the number of children and the vote still works and confirms the popular adage: making children makes conservative.
Is this demographic observation a simple digital game, a shiny but hollow manipulation of statistical tools and correlation ? Going in this sense would be to be blinded on the decisive role of demography in our societies. Longman emphasizes a fundamental point: Democrats have Malthusian behavior, whose causes are very easily identifiable: the extension of education, women’s work and the importance of urban cultures. Conversely, the privatization of political questions in the 1980s facilitated the mobilization of conservative families and encouraged procreation. In a comparative study of the militant commitment of former students, members of the curator Young Americans for Freedomand the progressive Students for a democratic Society (SDS) In the 1960s, sociologist Rebecca Klatch demonstrated the permanence of the militant combat of the first and the gradual crumbling of that of the latter. How to want the revolution again with a mortgage to reimburse ? wonders, not without humor, the historian of the working world Michael Kazin, former activist of the SDSand now academic in Georgetown. The political commitment of conservatives has obvious biological consequences and by ricochet a considerable incidence on the electoral body.
Ultimatelythis demographic logic has an impact on political representations. Undeniably, since the success of the conservatives in the 1980s, the Democrats have lost this impression of natural legitimacy which made their strength. Is this a coincidence that the few important electoral victories of the Democrats are systematically called into question ? Bill Clinton was constantly attacked during his two terms for his lack of legitimacy. The elected Republican of Texas, Richard Armey, spoke in front of his democratic colleagues of “ your president ». Radio conservative host, Rush Limbaugh, evokes America “ hostage To describe the years of the presidency of Bill Clinton. If the conservatives now display their legitimacy to govern, it is because demography seems to go in their direction. But we must not despair of these cold statisticals. The demography and his relentless observation tell us one thing: Barack Obama is right to seek to seduce young voters.