Hispanics and Republicans

In response to my post revealing that Bush voters had more children than Gore voters, Steve Sailer asked how that breaks down for only white non-Hispanic voters. (All statistics are from the General Social Survey.)

Looking at all voters, Bush voters had 2.03 children compared to 1.92 for Gore voters.

Looking only at non-Hispanic white voters, Bush voters had 2.01 children compared to 1.83 for Gore voters.

The average non-Hispanic black voter had 2.16 children compared to 1.92 children for the average non-Hispanic white voter. Because 87.7% of black respondents voted for Gore, removing black voters from the analysis lowers the birthrate of the average Gore voter.

The average Hispanic voter had 2.03 children, only slightly more than the average white voter. Interestingly, the higher Hispanic birthrate favors the Republican Party. Hispanics who voted for Bush had 2.31 children compared to 1.82 for Gore. (The story is the opposite for blacks. The few blacks who voted for Bush had fewer children than those who voted for Gore. Probably, only the higher social class blacks vote Republican.)

A much higher percentage of Hispanics voted for Bush than did blacks. Hispanics are more religious than non-Hispanic whites. 39.2% of Hispanics believe that the Bible is the actual word of God compared to only 28.4% of whites. I am certain that it’s the Republican Party’s Christian message which appeals to Hispanics.

Non-Hispanic blacks are the most fundamentalist of all, with 57.2% believing that the Bible is the actual word of God. But blacks have such a strong tradition of voting Democratic that the Republican Christian message doesn’t pull them in.

I predict that as long as the Republicans field Christian candidates, more Hispanics will vote Republican until the Republicans command a majority of the Hispanic vote. But people who favor libertarian economic policies shouldn’t be so happy about this. Hispanics are more in favor of socialist policies than whites. 52.3% of Hispanics believe that the government should reduce income differences between the rich and the poor, compared to 42.7% for whites and 54.3% for blacks.

The Republican Party is a coalition between Christians and people with libertarian economic views. Political pundits are so used to this that they think it’s natural for these two philosophies to go together. In fact the opposite is true; more libertarian people are less religious. As more Christian voters with socialist economic views join the Republican party, candidates who support libertarian economic policies will no longer win primaries, and suddenly the platforms of the two parties will undergo a radical shift. The Republican Party will become the party of religious socialists, and the Democratic Party will be the party of secular libertarians. The good news is that this will result in the leftist wing being kicked out of the Democratic Party. The bad news is that the Republican Party will probably command more votes than the Democratic Party and we will see the country become more socialist, and at the same time abortion will be outlawed, prayer re-introduced to the public schools, etc.

This is the future and it is inevitable.

Comments

[SFG]

Nothing's inevitable.

Further, it's not clear that secular libertarians defecting to the Democrats would cause the expulsion of the leftist wing; you might just see a secular-values coalition between liberals and libertarians. Recall that lefties right now are much more exercised about social than economic issues; look at this immigration mess. Not that this would help libertarians promulgate their policy. But being in the same party as the liberals, you might get laid more ;)

[SFG]

BTW, since most of the country's socially conservative and economically liberal, anti-libertarian as it is, it is in some sense the will of the people.

[Peter]

This is the future and it is inevitable.

Don't bet on it.

[David Alexander]

BTW, since most of the country's socially conservative and economically liberal, anti-libertarian as it is, it is in some sense the will of the people.

If Canada doesn't muck up, they may end up getting another citizen to add to their population.

[mtraven]

The present Republican party has very little to do with libertarian views. It is run by authoritarian corporatists.

For instance, the Bush administration believes it has the power to detain citizens without trial, wiretap without court supervision, and (just recently) deny US citizens the right to re-enter the country, making them stateless persons.

Please explain to me how this attitude (amply documented in John Dean's recent book) has anything to do with either Libertarianism or Christianity.

There is also no chance at all of the Democratic party adopting Libertarian principles, at least no further than Clintonism. Certainly they are the last hope of secularist common sense, but given their core base of unions, government workers, and the working class in general they are not likely to be advocating minimal government any time soon.

Your analysis is not even internally consistent. If the Democrats are a minority party they will not be in a position to kick out their own left wing.

[Austrian]

The only libertarian* politician in the Republican party is Ron Paul. Which is one more than exists in the Democratic party. The war is over, the socialists have won.

* - you can replace this with "person who understands the Constitution and thinks it should actually be followed" to get the same outcome

[Steve Sailer]

Thanks.

[Jack]

The Republican party will not become the socialist party because they need money from big businesses. Without money, no party can be competitive.