MAGA Women Defy the Birth Dearth

[border_humper]

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/free-expression/maga-women-defy-the-birth-dearth-02549ce7

While Democrats are increasingly the party of the childless, Republicans are increasingly the party of parents.​

Free Expression is a daily newsletter on American life, politics and culture from the Opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal. Sign up and start reading Free Expression today.

Something of a baby boom is happening at the White House. Vice President JD Vanceand his wife Usha announced last week that they are expecting their fourth child, a boy. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt and Katie Miller, the wife of White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, are also pregnant. White House deputy chief of staff James Blair and his wife, Sam, are expecting a baby in March.
These unborn babies have already attracted a fair bit of partisan commentary. Vanity Fair described the Vances as “Pronatalism’s Poster Couple” and points out that Ms. Vance’s pregnancy announcement was posted on X.com, “a social network owned by fertility-crazed Elon Musk.” Slate suggested that this pregnancy was an attempt to appeal to the MAGA base, since while the choice to have four children “doesn’t have to be conservative-coded, it tends to skew that way.”

In historical terms, this surprise at the fertility of the White House seems odd. American presidents and vice presidents have often had large families, regardless of party affiliation. Historically, six or more children isn’t unusual for families who have occupied the White House. But then, having babies didn’t used to be a partisan matter.

A strange thing has happened to U.S. fertility patterns in recent decades. In the 1970s, there was little to no partisan difference in birthrates. This was an era when the total fertility rate was still hovering around the magic replacement level of 2.1—that is, the average woman could be expected to have 2.1 children across her lifetime, keeping the size of the population stable. The U.S. total fertility rate plummeted to a new low of 1.63 in 2024.

A partisan fertility gap has emerged and seems to be growing. Conservatives have more children than liberals. They also are more likely to marry and marry younger. While Democrats are increasingly the party of the childless, Republicans are increasingly the party of parents.
The Institute for Family Studies has found a strong relationship between support for President Trump during the 2020 and 2024 elections and birthrates at the county level. Counties in which less than 25% of voters opted for Mr. Trump in 2024 had a median total fertility rate of 1.31. In contrast, counties in which the vote share was more than 75% for Mr. Trump had a rate of 1.84. That might not sound like much, but across time, it’s a big difference.

Exactly why this is happening is a complicated question. For two years I’ve been working on a book on falling birthrates, a phenomenon that is sometimes called “the birth dearth,” or “the depopulation crisis.” Over the past half-century, birthrates in almost all of the richest countries in the world have fallen below replacement.

Now it’s happening in less-rich countries, too. Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Thailand and Turkey are among those that are both poorer and less fertile than the U.S. Researchers estimate that by 2050 more than three-quarters of countries won’t have fertility rates high enough to sustain their population over time. Only in the poorest parts of the world are birthrates still moderately high. But even there, fertility is falling fast.

The popular explanations for why birthrates are falling don’t work. For those who blame feminism, Iran’s total fertility rate of 1.6 is a problem. For those who blame liberalism, North Korea’s rate of 1.8 is a problem. For those who blame a lack of state-funded child care, Norway’s rate of 1.4 is a problem. People who enjoy lives of material abundance unimaginable to their ancestors complain that they don’t have the material resources to bring even one child into the world, while the very poorest countries are maintaining above-replacement fertility.
Whatever the cause of depopulation, we can nonetheless see some suggestive patterns emerging that indicate how the world is likely to change in the coming decades.

Birthrate data show that the partisan gap isn’t unique to the U.S. A recent analysis by the Financial Times indicates that, across the developed world, conservatives are having almost as many children as they were a few decades ago. It’s on the progressive left where birthrates are tumbling. Something about conservatives makes them resistant to the depopulation effect, at least for now.

We might not know exactly why birthrates are changing in this way, but we can still make some educated guesses about how this will affect politics in the future. Twin studies suggest that political attitudes are roughly 40% heritable. Of course, children do sometimes diverge from or react against their parents’ politics. But in general, expect the partisan fertility gap to usher in a U.S. that is more conservative. In fact, the whole of the developed world is on track to become more conservative.

In this sense, the commentators who interpret Ms. Vance’s pregnancy as “conservative-coded” are correct. Whether or not any of the women of the Trump administration are deliberately using their pregnancies as a political statement (and I’m inclined to think they aren’t), all these White House babies are symbolic of a phenomenon that ought to worry progressives.

If you’re not making babies, you might be far left.

 

[Radicalfarminist]

Liberals don't need to have children to create more liberals, the education system takes care of that.

 

[FreedomTruth]

Does Low T correlate (not cause, correlate) to low birth rates?

 

[Nink]

Im no biologist but i wouldnt be surprized to find that ladies on birth control create low t dudes as there is no need for all the extra t if it goes to waste.

 

[border_humper]

Also, women’s sex drive is also controlled by their own testosterone, which hormonal birth control probably lowers.

 

[Nink]

@border_humper

Society also use to smoke tobacco quite heavily which increases testosterone. Wars were fought and won by nicotine enhanced young men storming pillboxes.

 

[Hirudinea]

There is a large amount of estrogen getting into the water from birth control.

 

[FreedomTruth]

I just saw research today that the pill affects women's brains, so they no longer feel "safe" when they should feel safe. And apparently the effects linger after going off the pill.

I could see just that alone reducing the birth rate. Besides the 2nd order effect of
Negatively affecting marriages.

So glad I never touched the stuff.

In addition, BPA (in plastics) affects fetuses, even in tiny amounts, causing hormonal changes. With globalization, I can only imagine the same kinds of "useful, cheap" products are used all over the world - except maybe the poorest countries.

 

[Nink]

@FreedomTruth

Good on you. My sister was on bc almost as soon as she became a woman. All to avoid teenage pregnancy.

 

[Hirudinea]

@FreedomTruth

I believe that BPA was considered as a hormonal birth control in the 1930's because it it a hormone disruptor. As for the pill affecting women's brains, I don't know, all I know is it can increase the risk of blood clots.

 

[Hirudinea]

@Nink

Should have gotten your sister the t-shirt.

 

[ChevChelios]

@Hirudinea: I heard an old joke that the most effective birth control tablet of all was a little white pill that you put into an envelope and then carefully held between your closed knees

 

[saymyname]

@ChevChelios - the grandmother also used to tell me a dime works between the closed knees.

 

[RightOfSask]

@Hirudinea
The biggest source of estrogen in water isn't birth control. It's the run off from cattle and dairy farms. All those dairy cows are artificially in "pregnant mode" (with the help of estrogen boosters) to give the most milk or to pop out as many calves as possible.

 

[border_humper]

@Hirudinea Abstinence didn’t work for Mary.

 

[Hirudinea]

@RightOfSask

I didn't know they used estrogen boosters in cows, knew they were always pregnant or nursing but not about the boosters.

 

[Hirudinea]

@border_humper

Like the shirt says 99.99% percent effective.

 

[ayn_rands_ghost]

 

[saymyname]

nah. she just doesnt date.

 

[d01tg0d0wn]

if she does its at the Donut shop and she when she gets ghosted that means more donuts for her

 

[ChevChelios]

That's a white whale even Captain Ahab wouldn't chase

 

[BeerAndOil]

My observation and theory is that women naturally want to date upwards. Women have also been the majority of university graduates for a decade now, and corporate affirmative action policies have brought minorities and women into the workforce ahead of white men.

So your typical liberal women wants to date upwards, but there are very few men who actually fit list of their requirements.

Secondarily, any parent wants to give their child at least as good as up bringing as they themself had. The past 10-15 years have been getting shittier and shittier, so it’s getting harder and harder to meet that goal. And it’s not just financial related. If you’re a liberal, 2016-2020 there was orange man bad, 2020-2022 was the pandemic, 2022-2024 was Russia planning to Nuke the world, and now 2024 to present we’re back to orange man bad. So a decade of things being seemingly worse then the 1990’s and early 2000’s.

 

[border_humper]

View: https://www.instagram.com/p/DUHC6HWkgCZ/?

 

[saymyname]

not everyone should have kids, but it'd be nice if some would

 

[Nink]

Interesting since 1 in 4 woman have at least one abortion before the age of 44. Thats a lot of murder

 

[ChevChelios]

It'd be enlightening to see the racial breakdown on those figures. We all know it's Courtney and Megan who are deciding to be childless, not Fatimah and Pushpinder

 

[CaptainTrouble]

I mean, the stats don't indicate such a huge difference that we should disparage men without kids as being leftists. If men can have kids and they do, great. If they can't have kids and they don't, then great. Some of the greatest contributing men of society over our history did not have kids. Genetic analysis has suggested only 20%-40% of men born historically have had kids thus suggesting those men who don't have kids are left-wing is suggesting the right-wing is a minority and can never win in a democracy (which isn't actually true at all). Most men, simply won't have kids. The stats change for women though (about 60-80% of women have kids), for obvious reasons, have a lot more control on whether they choose to have kids or not. I'd argue most women who choose not to have kids are left-wing but I also think women are highly selfish in their politics. Most women are left-wing until they have kids because only when they have a husband and kids do they see the benefit in right-wing ideology. Up until then, many vote for their interests which is often more aligned with left-wing.

So, in conclusion. If we want more right-wing voters we need to encourage women to marry a man and have more kids. IMO, a great systemic policy would be to abolish all government subsidies to the education system and actually, ALL, social programs whatsoever then lower taxes. This would increase men's access to resources, while lowering women's access to resources. More women would want to marry men and have kids with a man to gain access to his resources which in turn would cause her to become more aligned with the right-wing.