The American electoral map, birthrates and culture wars

Since the last presidential election south of the border, a number of observers have pointed out that the electoral map of the United States corresponds very nicely to the frontlines in the so-called culture wars. The red states (as rendered by the television networks) voting for Bush are generally conservative with respect to religious and cultural ethos, while the blue states that went for Gore are much less so. Phillip Longman has unpacked this further by noting that birthrates in the red states are higher than in the blue: "Political Victory: From Here to Maternity." Writes Longman:

High fertility also correlates strongly with support for George W. Bush. Of the top 10 most fertile states, all but one voted for Bush in 2000. Among the 17 states that still produce enough children to replace their populations, all but two -- Iowa and Minnesota -- voted for Bush in the last election. Conversely, the least fertile states -- a list that includes Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Connecticut -- went overwhelmingly for Al Gore. Women living in Gore states on average have 12 percent fewer babies than women living in Bush states. . . .

In states where Bush won a popular majority in 2000, the average woman bears 2.11 children in her lifetime -- which is enough to replace the population. In states where Gore won a majority of votes in 2000, the average woman bears 1.89 children, which is not enough to avoid population decline. Indeed, if the Gore states seceded from the Bush states and formed a new nation, it would have the same fertility rate, and the same rapidly aging population, as France -- that bastion of "old Europe."

If Gore's America (and presumably John Kerry's) is reproducing at a slower pace than Bush's America, what does this imply for the future? Well, as the comedian Dick Cavett remarked, "If your parents never had children, chances are you won't either." When secular-minded Americans decide to have few if any children, they unwittingly give a strong evolutionary advantage to the other side of the culture divide.

This could, of course, lead to a realignment in favour of the Republican Party over the long term.

But what about 2004? My guess -- and it is just a guess -- is that, come November, the Bush and Kerry electoral map will not yield the same neat geographic division between religious and secular America. Why? Four years ago both Bush and Gore were untried as national leaders. They had no record on which to stand. Thus voters had the luxury, as it were, of choosing whichever candidate they felt to be closest to their overall worldview and political philosophy. They would then hope for the best after their favoured candidate was actually in office.

This time around, however, things are different. Bush has been president for nearly four years and he has a record to defend or to live down. This includes his performance with respect to both domestic and foreign policies. If voters in the red states believe that Bush's economic policies have hurt their local economies, they might decide to take their chances with Kerry. Similarly, if many reds, who were impressed four years ago by Bush's so-called compassionate conservatism, dislike the fact that his foreign and defence policies, besides alienating much of the world, have deflected his administration from its domestic priorities, they could abandon him for Kerry or -- perhaps just as likely -- stay home.