David Brooks Hearts White Fertility
| By Josh Eidelson - Sep 15th, 2007 at 2:27 pm EDT |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
Why isn't John McCain on the stump telling Americans to have more babies?
Kate Sheppard notes the passage of Russia's "Day of Conception:"
This seems like a good opportunity to ask why the kinds of natalist appeals and policy justifications that are so widespread in Europe are all but non-existent in the United States. Sure, American politicians seem to be expected to have gobs of kids to demonstrate their family values. But why is it much more common for politicians in Europe to push policies explicitly designed to make people have more kids?
Discouraging though it may be, I think the best answer is race. Politicians in Sweden or in Russia or in France get further with calls for the nation to have more babies for the sake of national greatness or national survival because that nation and those babies are imagined to look more the same.
Marty Gillens caused a stir with his research suggesting that Americans have negative attitudes towards welfare and its beneficiaries because of their negative views towards the racial groups imagined to benefit (Alberto Alesina, Edward Glaeser, Bruce Sacerdote, Simo Virtanen, and Leonie Huddy further explore this). Americans are less inclined to support government spending on social programs, these scholars argue, because they're less likely to imagine those programs benefiting people who look like them. Conversely, Swedes are more content with a robust welfare state because their immigration restrictions keep those benefits away from people of other races.
(In 1990, the top country sending immigrants to Sweden was Norway. In 2000, it was Iraq. And the increase in Sweden's foreign-born populations in the 90's roughly equaled the increase from the 70's and 80's combined. There's cause for concern that as immigration to Sweden increases, benefits will decrease or access for immigrants will decrease - a process Swedish conservatives already began in the 1990s.)
I don't think you can really explain the lack of natalist rhetoric in the US without similar logic, and particularly confronting animus towards a group Americans can't deny welfare benefits simply by cutting off immigrants: African-Americans. What Ange-Marie Hancock calls "the politics of disgust" heaps shame on imagined "welfare queens" for working too little and birthing too much. In the controversy over the '96 welfare bill, fertility came up plenty, but the imagined problem was too many babies, not too few. Churches and others made what you might consider natalist arguments against the bill, but they didn't get much traction - unlike the GOP Congressman who held up a "Don't feed the alligators" sign.
So when David Brooks wrote a paean to natalism in America, he left those hated Black women out. Instead, in a column a month after the '04 election, he cited Steve Sailer (who even John Podhoretz recognizes as a racist) celebrating that "George Bush carried the 19 states with the highest white fertility rates." Brooks' column celebrates these fertile white parents for demonstrating good red-state values:
Can you imagine a prominent right-wing pundit or politician saying such things about a low-income Black family that chose to have more kids?
Now some will say that American conservatives are less natalist than their European counterparts because they're more anti-government. Which is a fair point, but I think it's difficult to explain the presence of "Christian Democrat" parties in Europe without considering race. Or you could argue that the natalist push in Europe is based in part in fear of immigration. Which circles back on the same argument: racial fears and prejudices map more easily along lines of citizenship in countries that have historically had fewer non-white citizens. Just as the comparative historical ethnic diversity of the United States plays a role in explaining why our political system has held down benefits for everyone rather than only restricting them to citizens (though we've done that too), it seems like the strongest explanation for why we don't hear lots of appeals for America to have more babies.
Is there a better explanation?
Kate Sheppard notes the passage of Russia's "Day of Conception:"
Today falls exactly nine months before Russia Day, and as one of Putin's policies to encourage more breeding in his country, he's offered SUVs, refrigerators, and monetary rewards to anyone who gives birth on June 12. So the mayor of Ulyanovsk, a region in central Russia, has given workers there the afternoon off to make with the baby making. Everyone who gives birth is a winner in the "Give Birth to a Patriot on Russia's Independence Day" contest, but the grand prize winner -- judged on qualities like "respectability" and "commendable parenting" -- gets to take home a UAZ-Patriot, a Russian-made SUV.
This seems like a good opportunity to ask why the kinds of natalist appeals and policy justifications that are so widespread in Europe are all but non-existent in the United States. Sure, American politicians seem to be expected to have gobs of kids to demonstrate their family values. But why is it much more common for politicians in Europe to push policies explicitly designed to make people have more kids?
Discouraging though it may be, I think the best answer is race. Politicians in Sweden or in Russia or in France get further with calls for the nation to have more babies for the sake of national greatness or national survival because that nation and those babies are imagined to look more the same.
Marty Gillens caused a stir with his research suggesting that Americans have negative attitudes towards welfare and its beneficiaries because of their negative views towards the racial groups imagined to benefit (Alberto Alesina, Edward Glaeser, Bruce Sacerdote, Simo Virtanen, and Leonie Huddy further explore this). Americans are less inclined to support government spending on social programs, these scholars argue, because they're less likely to imagine those programs benefiting people who look like them. Conversely, Swedes are more content with a robust welfare state because their immigration restrictions keep those benefits away from people of other races.
(In 1990, the top country sending immigrants to Sweden was Norway. In 2000, it was Iraq. And the increase in Sweden's foreign-born populations in the 90's roughly equaled the increase from the 70's and 80's combined. There's cause for concern that as immigration to Sweden increases, benefits will decrease or access for immigrants will decrease - a process Swedish conservatives already began in the 1990s.)
I don't think you can really explain the lack of natalist rhetoric in the US without similar logic, and particularly confronting animus towards a group Americans can't deny welfare benefits simply by cutting off immigrants: African-Americans. What Ange-Marie Hancock calls "the politics of disgust" heaps shame on imagined "welfare queens" for working too little and birthing too much. In the controversy over the '96 welfare bill, fertility came up plenty, but the imagined problem was too many babies, not too few. Churches and others made what you might consider natalist arguments against the bill, but they didn't get much traction - unlike the GOP Congressman who held up a "Don't feed the alligators" sign.
So when David Brooks wrote a paean to natalism in America, he left those hated Black women out. Instead, in a column a month after the '04 election, he cited Steve Sailer (who even John Podhoretz recognizes as a racist) celebrating that "George Bush carried the 19 states with the highest white fertility rates." Brooks' column celebrates these fertile white parents for demonstrating good red-state values:
Very often they have sacrificed pleasures like sophisticated movies, restaurant dining and foreign travel, let alone competitive careers and disposable income, for the sake of their parental calling...The people who are having big families are explicitly rejecting materialistic incentives and hyperindividualism.
Can you imagine a prominent right-wing pundit or politician saying such things about a low-income Black family that chose to have more kids?
Now some will say that American conservatives are less natalist than their European counterparts because they're more anti-government. Which is a fair point, but I think it's difficult to explain the presence of "Christian Democrat" parties in Europe without considering race. Or you could argue that the natalist push in Europe is based in part in fear of immigration. Which circles back on the same argument: racial fears and prejudices map more easily along lines of citizenship in countries that have historically had fewer non-white citizens. Just as the comparative historical ethnic diversity of the United States plays a role in explaining why our political system has held down benefits for everyone rather than only restricting them to citizens (though we've done that too), it seems like the strongest explanation for why we don't hear lots of appeals for America to have more babies.
Is there a better explanation?
!
Comments are closed for this post.
""Sure, American politicians seem to be expected to have gobs of kids to demonstrate their family values.""
This doesn't seem to be much of an issue anymore. The current Republican front-runner isn't exactly much of a family values candidate. Neither is the new entry, Fred. Mitt's family hasn't been much of a credit to his campaign - the whole "Five Brothers" thing seems, and is, incredibly contrived. The Bush Twins haven't been much of an aid to Bush, either.
""But why is it much more common for politicians in Europe to push policies explicitly designed to make people have more kids?
Discouraging though it may be, I think the best answer is race. Politicians in Sweden or in Russia or in France get further with calls for the nation to have more babies for the sake of national greatness or national survival because that nation and those babies are imagined to look more the same.""
Well, maybe sometimes, but overall, there's a much bigger issue here - assimilation.
Europe's immigration and assimilation programs have been far less successful than America's. An immigrant to America, by and large, shares the same basic values and principles as the native-born. That often isn't true in Europe.
In the most un-assimilated American immigrant communities, only about 25% are unable to speak English. In countries like France and Britain, that number approaches 75% in some places. Shadow courts (some operating under sharia law) allow these insular communities to explicitly 'police themselves'.
American immigration and European immigration just can't be understood on the same wavelength. We do assimilation, they don't. (They call their policy program "multiculturalism", but they have a very different conception of what that word means than we do. Sort of like how the definition of a 'liberal' is very different there as well.)
""What Ange-Marie Hancock calls "the politics of disgust" heaps shame on imagined "welfare queens" for working too little and birthing too much. In the controversy over the '96 welfare bill, fertility came up plenty, but the imagined problem was too many babies, not too few. ""
Well... no. The issue wasn't, and isn't, too many babies per se - the issue is too many babies born *out of wedlock*. And as best we can tell, the way welfare policies were originally implemented 40-odd years ago is a large part of why the African-American out-of-bedlock birthrate began to skyrocket.
One of our primary domestic policy goals should be the reduction of out-of-wedlock births - it's the root cause of an incredible number of problems that disproportionately inflict poor and minority communities. You can't tackle cyclical poverty, urban crime, and a host of other ills without first getting women (primarily poor women) to stop having children when they're unmarried.
This is a problem that was created as a result of policy, not the culture of any racial/ethnic community - up until about 40 years ago, black and white rates of illegitimate birth were roughly equal. Our policies had this unintended consequence, and we have to figure out how to put the genie back in the bottle.
Now, as to David Brooks' column, I found it uncomfortable too. I don't think he really intended it that way, though. I think if asked, in his heart of hearts he'd include a middle-class African-American, Carribean-American, Hispanic, or Asian family in his homage to the Colorado suburbs - the emphasis being on the 'middle class' part. But the way he put it in this article, and the way he cited Sailer, does make me feel like his argument was racially-based even if it wasn't intended that way.