It's raining babies in the blogosphere today. Everyone and their mama is talking about how red-staters make more babies than blue-staters, and will continue to make more babies, who will then grow up to be a whole new generation of fertile red-staters.
Uh oh, Michael Moore is going to be very sad to learn that Jesusland begets an even bigger Jesusland.
Here's Hal Young (father of 7), of the John Locke Foundation, responding to a David Brooks column on the subject:
Brooks treats it like an anthropologist -- the "natalist" label and the categorization "defined by parenthood" are the phrases of an outsider, not those he describes. I think most of us would say our true identity is in the total of our religious belief, of which childbearing and child rearing are only one facet; after all, faith informs the believer on his role in the community, his duty to country, the use of his finances, and the daily disciplines of life. It's part of the same package that leads many of us into homeschooling (indeed, the National Center for Educational Statistics reported that nearly two-thirds of homeschooling families had three or more children -- which has other interesting ramifications).
And Paul Chesser backs him up.
It seems Rightwingsparkle is one of this demographic too, herself a stay-at-home mom of four. She has some thoughts on what impact this phenomenon may have already had.
Then, none other than James Taranto points out that more kids these days are getting along with their parents. So much for "another 1960s-style youth rebellion. What's more, intergenerational harmony coupled with the Roe effect ought to lead to a more conservative electorate as these youngsters come of age."
Julian Sanchez has a take on this group, called the Millenials. He thinks it's overreaching to call them conservative or libertarian, but that they could be urged in that direction.
I know AEI and the Manhattan Institute have done something on this too, but I can't seem to find it right now. I'll keep looking.