Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

kweer t1_ivtppbk wrote

It's smart because it's true. The basic idea of progressivism is continued change, and the conservatives are generally resistant to change.

Having kids causes people to value stability much more than they did before they had kids. The idea of a sudden societal shift or revolution is much more terrifying to parents than to childless people.

Edit: recent study that might be relevant

158

Bull_City t1_ivtuo2t wrote

It’s also that areas that it’s easier to have kids lean more republican. The denser a place is, the more liberal, but also less kids people have due to cost/difficulty. Opposite for less density. Also some cultural values are prolly in there. Ever seen how anti kid Reddit generally is? It’s also very left leaning. I’m very left leaning and even in surprised how anti kid the general consensus is here.

So I think it’s a correlation thing (republican places/attitudes generate more kids) than a cause (kids make you republican). I say this as a liberal new father. I want all the social safety net shit I wanted before twice as hard now. But who knows, that’s why correlation and causation are so hard to pick apart.

This article goes into it a bit. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/republicans-more-kids-democrats-lot-183722934.html

61

kweer t1_ivtz9q6 wrote

>So I think it’s a correlation thing (republican places/attitudes generate more kids) than a cause (kids make you republican).

I don't disagree with anything you said but I will say that there's not reason it couldn't be both correlated and causitive.

6

JohnGalt123456789 t1_ivvhpjk wrote

About to be new dad Republican here. Thank you for your comments, you have a lot of good points!

3

PanOfCakes t1_ivts23g wrote

That’s true. Childless people aren’t leaving anything behind so if all of society shifts what do they care? But if you are seeing a future your child has to live in you become a lot more cautious and picky with societal change. It’s extremely common for people who have their first kid to say that their whole outlook changes and shifts to focus around the kid and it’s future.

It also plays out in the birth rate when broken down along political lines. Conservatives have about 41% more kids than liberals do.

17

Tamaska-gl t1_ivttkz9 wrote

If that’s true why don’t conservatives care about climate change? It’s easily the biggest factor in the lives of the next generation.

8

lupadim t1_ivwa857 wrote

  1. Unlike what reddit loves to say, politics are not as simple as "conservatives want to keep things frozen in time, progressives want to advance society". Both sides want to advance, and I'd say the main difference is that conservatives tend to prefer cautious bottom-up changes while the progressives love radical top-down changes when it is for what they consider a good cause.

  2. It's not true that conservatives don't care about climate change. It's just that on a political level in North America the left has dominated that field for so long that the right can't even set a foot in it.

But if you look at global conservatism (in Europe for example), they do care about climate change, they just disagree with the left about how to approach it. The left usually poses that capitalism and consumerism are the problem, and propose global treaties that attack it on a global scale. Conservatives disagree that capitalism/consumerism are to blame and propose that instead of letting the problem rest on the hands of international committees, you approach it on a community level, fostering local sovereignty, holding ordinary people accountable while also empowering them to act better and protect the environment in their own neighborhood. See "Green Philosophy" by Roger Scruton. He explains that sometimes we are stuck thinking about global co2 emissions while not realizing that we are destroying our own homes.

Conservatives are also rarely fans of solar energy and the likes. They usually push for nuclear energy.

7

Joe_Baker_bakealot t1_ivwet0d wrote

As far as American conservatism goes, I never see conservatives arguing for change unless it's tax breaks for the rich. Otherwise it's always about either stopping change or undoing change that's already been done. Repealing laws that make guns harder to get, undoing precedents allowing women to receive abortions, undoing legislation that keeps corporations in check.

If you want to be super generous I see American conservatives argue for better veteran protections sometimes, but they often vote against it when given the chance.

Maybe it's different in other countries, and maybe it was different before I was an adult and paying attention to politics, but from my observation I don't ever see conservatives tryingto advance things in either direction, just undo or stop change.

−2

kweer t1_ivvnpsy wrote

>If that’s true why don’t conservatives care about climate change? It’s easily the biggest factor in the lives of the next generation.

Likely true in the long run, but still that is a much longer timeline than, say, a labor revolution, which historically happens in a few years. That is the sort of drastic change that terrifies parents.

2

SleestakJones t1_ivug9lp wrote

I think its because they see it as something that wont effect current kids WHEN they are kids. When they get older they can deal with it but right now they value the paycheck that keeps their kids fed over a shift in our energy economy. That is the argument anyway.

There are lots of idiosyncratic issues that ended up on one side of the political spectrum with little direct correlation to the advertised philosophy of the group. In the case of Climate this is due to heavy investment by fossil fuel within the media right leaning people consume.

1

PanOfCakes t1_ivtwqsk wrote

I’m not going to speak for everyone who is a conservative. But I personally see the link between population and climate change but I also don’t see it as a contingent link. As in, increasing population doesn’t necessarily mean more climate change, due to adoption of things like nuclear energy, wind, solar, etc.

One could also see the US heavy adoption of natural gas and subsequently being in the lead of dropping CO2 emissions in 2019 by absolute numbers and the western world in general as positive steps on climate change.

You could also look at statements on the climate on the past hundred years and it goes back and forth between the earth is heating up and cooling down. And question why this current statement is any different.

There’s a myriad of reasons.

−1

mean11while t1_ivugqtg wrote

What? The question isn't "does population cause climate change?" The question is "why wouldn't you do everything in your power to prevent climate change since you know your kids are going to have to deal with it?" If parents are change-averse, preventing massive environmental shifts should be near the top of their priorities.

But we already know why there's a disconnect: the disinformation is myriad. For example, someone has lied to you about what science said about the climate over the past hundred years. There has been no "back and forth" in the scientific literature. If you don't believe me, go read the literature - it's right there. You wouldn't be making this argument if you were familiar with the literature. Even during the 1970s, when the idea of global cooling was most prominent, the vast majority (>90%) of climate studies, as well as the broad consensus, identified a broad and continuing trend of warming.

1

PanOfCakes t1_ivukmrj wrote

> What? The question isn’t “does population cause climate change?” The question is “why wouldn’t you do everything in your power to prevent climate change since you know your kids are going to have to deal with it?” If parents are change-averse, preventing massive environmental shifts should be near the top of their priorities.

That was one of the several potential reasons, I gave several….

Dude, you’re coming after me like these are my beliefs the only one I stated was mine was the first one, all I was doing was giving potential reasons that someone asked me for.

7

mean11while t1_ivvd7ze wrote

I don't care whether you believe the lies or not. Stop repeating them.

−5

PanOfCakes t1_ivvz59o wrote

So what? I don’t give the potential reasons when asked? I just say “well I would tell you but u/mean11while told me not to.” And because they’re in charge of me I can’t because they don’t believe that people can hear them without instantly believing them.

If you’d been less of an instant dickhole then I may feel more inclined to do as you demand, but currently I do not.

5

mean11while t1_ivyq1el wrote

In general, yes: you don't have to respond, even if you assume the question isn't rhetorical and the person is actually looking for an answer that they don't already know. Those answers are very easy to find and the major online resources do a decent job of debunking them.

But if you do decide that you really have to answer it, you need to be careful to clearly and systematically undermine each aspect of mis/disinformation that your response includes.

First, distance yourself from each incorrect belief: "they might think that...". I would even be inclined to add "but that doesn't make sense, because...". This addresses the faulty arguments.

Second, point out each individual factual inaccuracy as it's mentioned: "they might have been told that Earth has gone back and forth between heating up and cooling down in the last hundred years, but that's not true. Climate scientists have consistently been discussing global warming since at least the 1950s." This addresses the faulty factual claims behind those faulty arguments.

Science communicators and scientific skeptics have wrestled with this problem for decades: even the process of debunking an idea can help cement it in people's minds - and that's when it's clearly being debunked. Your intentions may have been good, but your comment didn't clearly distance the ideas and it made no effort at all to point out the inaccuracies buried under the argument.

Don't do anything because some random person online told you to - do things because you don't want to spread lies about the climate. I'm sorry that I was excessively terse. It seemed clear that all three of those statements were your opinions, especially since you said you were not going to speak for everyone who is conservative. That's a disclaimer that I only add before I present my opinions.

0

sethferguson t1_ivttzfr wrote

I already follow US politics pretty closely but my first child was born a few months ago. Thinking of the future my daughter has to live in has only cemented my position on the left. I don't want her to have to live in a Christian nationalist hellscape.

2

PanOfCakes t1_ivu16fw wrote

And conservatives wouldn’t want to live in a woke hellscape where their kids are being told they have original sin based on skin color. So I doubt you want a radical societal shift to the right, the same way they don’t want a radical shift to the left.

I never said it was more cautious and picky in either specific direction.

5

pallas46 t1_ivv3f9c wrote

It's funny that you described an actual tenant of the LDS church when trying to describe the "bad liberal" stuff.

−2

mickelboy182 t1_ivusyc5 wrote

This logic is arse backwards though considering the damage the right is doing to the planet....

−6

pnromney t1_ivtx9re wrote

I also think it’s reverse.

If you have more kids, you’re more likely to be Republican. https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/republicans-more-kids-democrats-lot-183722934.html

10

maxtardiveau t1_ivuq8e4 wrote

>> If you have more kids, you’re more likely to be Republican.

And/or if you're Republican, you're likely to have more kids. There's always tons of feedback loops in these explanatory webs. Trying to find one reason to explain it all is futile. Humans are darn complicated.

7

rammo123 t1_ivv7ru6 wrote

It's not particularly true. Exit polls from the midterms show there isn't much of a gap between parents and childless people (47% and 48% voted Dem, respectively).

The big predictor is marriage (41% Dem for married, 59% Dem for unmarried). Married women are more right-wing than unmarried men.

10

sifterandrake t1_ivwnqcc wrote

This election is a bit more of an outlier (although who knows if the trend will continue), since the view as the republicans being the "systematically stable" party has been tarnished lately. Overruling abortion was a big deal, pushing religion and abandoning civil rights discussions in class rooms is a big deal. Over the last two years, the democrats have swayed the status quo less than the republicans have.

2

Kraz_I t1_ivu12lr wrote

Disagree, it’s more that conservatives have kids younger and have more kids than liberals (spend more of their lives raising kids). They are also more susceptible to advertising and consume more media than older educated professionals having 2 kids in their mid to late 30s.

3

kweer t1_ivubdxw wrote

>Disagree, it’s more that conservatives have kids younger and have more kids than liberals (spend more of their lives raising kids).

I agree that conservatives have more kids, and have them when they are younger. I'm not sure how that disagrees with anything I've said.

> They are also more susceptible to advertising and consume more media than older educated professionals having 2 kids in their mid to late 30s.

Haha reddit moment

7

Kraz_I t1_ivubw3l wrote

I was just saying that having kids doesn’t turn people conservative. They were mostly conservative already.

> haha Reddit moment

Fair enough lol. Showing my bias.

3

kweer t1_ivudpgx wrote

I see what you mean, you are saying it may be that "conservatives are just more likely to be parents for various reasons, rather than people becoming more conservative after having kids."

Yeah I can agree with that, but why not both?

1

Kraz_I t1_ivul3hi wrote

Idk, I'd have to look up some studies on it.

3

kweer t1_ivwdagp wrote

I edited my original comment with one if you want to check it out.

1

tmart016 t1_ivty6bo wrote

This makes sense. Seeing how the other segments were finance/business I would have guessed they were going on the classic fiscal conservative campaign points. Blue team = higher taxes, we're for the working class, etc

Having a new child will definitely make you reevaluate your finances.

2

octopusboots t1_ivtv8zr wrote

A coup isn’t sudden societal change?

1

tico_pico t1_ivu8hg6 wrote

I think this last election, as well as common sense, has pretty much solidified that the vast majority of republicans do not support the events that happened on Jan 6th. Only Reddit and the generally very left leaning media with an obvious bias has continually tried to paint it that way. Sorry for reality, bud.

6

GISftw t1_ivvkgx4 wrote

> vast majority of republicans do not support the events that happened on Jan 6th

yet they still vote for the politicians that either supported Jan 6th or obstructed investigation into it.

1

octopusboots t1_ivube6j wrote

Ah, forget that that was 2 years ago, airight? Just moving on to the party of (checks notes) massive societal changes ala the supreme court.

My family are all Fox Republicans, bud. They don’t support Jan 6 only because it didn’t work.

−6

tico_pico t1_ivuin1z wrote

>My family are all Fox Republicans, bud. They don’t support Jan 6 only because it didn’t work.

And your anecdotal evidence about your family shows your obvious bias as well and apparently your inability to look at the data on it and see that the candidates that supported Trump's attempt at discrediting the election process did not do well in the midterms.

5

Woah_Mad_Frollick t1_ivuqx6a wrote

I think the GOP just got a historically unprecedented midterm result because they continually messed around with all that crazy shit and it turns normal people way off

2

octopusboots t1_ivvn0te wrote

Like selling arms to Iran to fund the contras? Or breaking into your presidential opponents office and then covering it up? Or inventing wmd’s to get the public to acquiesce to an illegal war? Wait, what year is this?

−4

Head-like-a-carp t1_ivuljba wrote

The far left gives you really alternative vibes on family issues. Gov. funded day care, Paid leave when a child is born for both parents. Great. On the other hand so many of the same people will be sneeringly dismissive of marriage or any of the traditional values and sacrifices people make. The rage and contempt is certainly noticed. News Flash; People are aware of what they are giving up to raise a family and make a lifelong commitment. Unfortunately with that tone it pushes people in the other direction even if that side is not offering viable solutions. Just very unfortunate.

1

StaceOdyssey t1_ivuxsma wrote

Do you think it’s actual contempt or do you think it’s just trolly people making noise online? I’m child free, so I really don’t have a gauge on that.

2

ElJanitorFrank t1_ivvayvd wrote

If you see two people with a strong negative opinion, and everybody else is neutral/not discussing it, then you're going to think the majority of people have that strong negative opinion.

1

StaceOdyssey t1_ivvdigl wrote

Maybe? I’m really not in a position to know either way, my bubble tends to mostly by child free as well.

1

k-phi t1_ivvbza4 wrote

So.... you are saying that after having kids people start seeing free healthcare and free education as not necessary?

0

kweer t1_ivvn7qr wrote

>So.... you are saying that after having kids people start seeing free healthcare and free education as not necessary?

If those are a drastic change from the existing system, yes.

Again, parents tend to favor stability and reject drastic changes to government, societal norms, and the economy.

1

Sketzell t1_ivuv94m wrote

The other thing is that once you have kids you generally have less time/energy to research and stay up to date with things so you are easier to manipulate

−3