AustinRoth – you do see the irony/hypocracy in your comment, right? Saying the article is biased in one paragraph, then displaying your own bias in the next?

Of course I see the irony, as it was quite intentional. I do not think that of democrats as a whole, anymore than I think Republicans as religious nuts or patriarchal societies.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that my wife and I are Republicans (although admittedly very liberal Republicans). My wife has a BS in Anthropology and a BA in French. She decided (we decided jointly, really) 8 years ago that my wife would stop working outside the home. We felt that the presence of one of us on a consistent, daily basis was more important to our children’s well being than additional income. We decided she would stay home as I had and continue to have higher income potentials than her career (I am in high-tech telephony). Both of us wanted to stay home. My children were thrilled with the decision. They are now young adults (20 and 17), and neither one have caused us any problems through their adolescent years.

They have both commented on many occasions to us the comfort they got from having my wife at home, and that even as younger children understood that we had made that decision for them, and that meant a lot to them, and showed to them how much we cared for them over money and material things.

I admit that my income was sufficient that we have still enjoyed a fairly nice middle class to lower-upper middle class life, but it was the conscious choice we made that made the impression on our children. Those choices are noticed, and do have an effect on children. Plus the fact of being there for them, making home a safe place rather than an empty nest after school, etc.

Finally, I do want to note as I have before that even though I am a Republican, I am pro-choice (but not pro-Roe), an atheist, raised my children in a home with open and frank discussions of sexuality, drugs, etc. I know for a fact when both of my children tried smoking pot (one told me two days before, the other the day after); which one still does about once or twice a month; if and when they have had drinks at friends houses or parties; when or if they have become sexually active, etc., because we talk and communicate, and they trust us to provide guidance and advise, rather than try to control every aspect of their lives. I think that was a key reason we never had to deal with the ‘rebellion period’. It also means when we say no, they listen, because they know we don’t play the ‘just because I said so’ head games.

Not very stereotypical Republican behavior, is it?

The point being that there is such a tendency to listen to and accept the Kos view of the world that every Republican is a right-wing, Bible-toting, woman-oppressing Neanderthal who goes through life trying rip off the poor, control everyone’s morals, and is a self-righteous smug prig. I know many, many Republicans like my wife and myself, although I will admit that we do tend to live in Liberal communities throughout our lives (Hawaii, Silicon Valley, Princeton, Austin).

Patriarchal societies tend to shun women working outside of the home and punish women who don’t fit the role. On the whole, patriarchal societies which reduce women’s economic freedom and choice will always have more children than societies that are not strictly patriarchal.

Of course it couldn’t be that conservative women would ever CHOOSE to have more children. Choice seems to be revered among the left unless we’re talking about that choice.

I guess I have to give Amanda some credit for saying that “babies are incredibly time consuming” (though I’d arguer her point about older kids not requiring as much parental involvement.)

But conservative women have to deal with the same “insensitive employers”. We just accept that we may have to sacrifice career for family (or in some cases, the fathers will make the sacrifice though admittedly this is rare.) We happen to think that raising the next generation is a sacred privelege and it’s worth it. And I don’t need a “patriarchal society” to convince me of that.

I didn’t see any real bias, though. It is a problem for progressive thinking people when that segment of the population is shrinking. If the conservative base was shrinking, would they not also be worried about it?

The thing that really bothers me though is the comments on this site and on Donklephant. There seems to be this misconception that liberals kill babies and hate families and kick puppies for fun. I call shenanigans. Liberal thought is about choice and personal freedom. It’s about plurality of ideas and allowing for options. If you think abortion is wrong, you’re free to say so and tell others why. You’re free to protest and offer alternatives. But we’re also free to support a woman who has a tough decision to make about her future and she should be able to do so without being harassed by strangers.

I met a guy the other day, a self-described conservative, who said I was probably going to Hell because I chose to go to college and have a career instead of settling down right after high school. He told me it was sinful that I wasn’t a submissive wife with at least 1 child by now (I’m 25). Now, I have no beef with people who decide to have kids young and get married young. If it’s what you want, then go for it. It just isn’t for me, or for a lot of other people, and I don’t think that makes us immoral or somehow pitted against the American family.

And if you want to sort of even out the liberal/conservative balance, consider adoption. I think one of the main issues that prevent working-class 20- and 30-somethings from having kids is the fact that babies are incredibly time-consuming and not all employers are sensitive to that. One alternative for those who want to raise a family without sacrificing a career is adopting a child. Older kids, especially once they get to school-age, don’t need constant attention and care (this is not to say we should allow for absent or bad parenting). Most people who adopt go for babies and that leaves older kids stuck in orphanages or foster care – they deserve safe, stable homes, too and there are plenty of working adults who could provide that.

Maybe Democrats are just self-centered, materialistic individualists who find childbearing and rearing too much of a bother.

No, you’ve got this wrong, Austin Roth. See, according to a liberal columnist quoted in the WSJ piece, the low liberal birth rate is because the libs are concerned about overpopulation and its effects on the planet.

Seems that self-righteousness doesn’t always come from the religious right.

And I was as astounded as Austin Roth that this article was even posted. It reminds me of one I saw recently that showed Muslim populations rising in countries where abortion is legal, because of much higher birth rates among Muslims (this was noted particularly in Australia.) I’m sure many would have viewed that argument as racist…but of course, hatred and bigotry toward the religious right in our country doesn’t really count, does it?

Perhaps Republicans (who, despite characterizations are not all Bible-belt Evangelicals) are as a group more committed to family and children than Democrats. Maybe Democrats are just self-centered, materialistic individualists who find childbearing and rearing too much of a bother.

However, theres another way to spin this too. with 41% more kids, a smaller % should be able to afford college, and therefore more should end up in a lower income tax bracket. When combined with this you might be looking at the hard sell on more supply side economic policies.