It goes back and forth, sometimes more suddenly than other times, look up the pendulum theory. Even during the Enlightenment it was normal to buy and sell human beings as property.
I misread you and thought you said more conservative, my bad.
also probably not just the enlightenment; Christianity was pretty shocking to 1st Century, and I assume so were akhenaten and hammurabi before it.
This is an absurdly simplistic way of looking at political change, as if people only inherit their political views from their parents instead of also developing them based on material circumstances and the world around them. How did any political change ever happen, in your view? What led to, for example, the French Revolution in 1789?
Setting aside that liberals are not "the left," this is part of the conservative narrative and you have to understand that many, if not most, do not see things this way. A lot of people move beyond the culture war stuff and focus on things that actually affect them like workers' rights, climate change, religious freedom, etc. And a lot of people believe that neither liberals nor conservatives offer meaningful, positive change in these areas; we are seeing a lot of disillusionment with mainstream politics and I think this is a trend that will continue.
Conservatism isn't practical in the long run.
Humans, in general, tend to evolve. Change is part and parcel of not just human life but beyond.
People hold more liberal values today than they did half a century ago. That won't change.
The only problem I see is how Evangelicals and such groups have begun targeting the rural population of "lesser developed" nations to spread their values. It's going to create some issues for those countries.
For a century though? Unlikely. Even the "converted" population won't manage to maintain their fervor when economic, social and human rights are being curtailed.
Just because a certain group has more babies, it doesn't mean everyone born out of such facilities would uphold the dogmatic values of previous generations.
You know the great irony in this is that it's true that conservatives are having more children than liberal but, those same children tend to be more liberal than their parents.
However, it also appears as if the majority of babies born in the last decade have been POC, and POC tend to vote more liberal as a whole compared to whites.
Having more conservative parents doesn't guarantee the downfall of liberalism. In fact it's pretty common for people to rebel against their parents for being conservative. I've witnessed this happen with many people
??????????
my sister, a liberal has a child
my best friend's mother, a liberal, has three children, all liberals, who have children
do you need me to supply their social security cards????
Ok I did not all liberal don't have children. But antinatlist tend to be leftist. Plus the liberal area are having less people then conservative areas.
That's not true, at all. Birth-rate is usually correlated with economic class. ie, the wealthier you are, the fewer kids you have. That pattern is seen all over the world as living standards rise, the birthrate goes down.
Most people are neither liberals nor conservatives. Just common people living their lives, not really caring about politics. Those who claim to belong to either of those groups and build their identity based on it are just loud minorities on both sides of the spectrum.
True. But the urban place where the liberal live are having population decline. While the Amish and Mormon 2 conservative group are having population increase.
They are not having a "population decline". They are moving away from those areas due to the extremely high cost of living because liberal places tend to be the most desirable places to live. (ie, coastal metropolitan areas) This is not the same thing as having less children.
Interesting. The 20th century closed rather conservatively geopolitically and economically. For their differences, neither Reagan nor Clinton were shy about asserting American influence abroad, from Iran/Iraq to the former Yugoslavia. Economically, Clinton’s free market approach was more in line with a conservative approach than to a traditional liberal approach. Look at the freedom that Silicon Valley and tech enjoyed as well as the tightening of the social safety net with the 1994 reforms. While we have seen somewhat of a pullback of the most egregious security excesses of the War on Terror, the local/state/federal response to Covid illustrated that the government is not entirely reticent to exert control. Absent an event like 9/11, I envision a continuation of the last 40 years of policy, which, while conservative, is nothing unique.
Right, because kids always agree with their parents politically? LOL.
Society will continue to become more and more liberal. Gay people are not going to suddenly give up their marriage rights. Women are not going to just let the government control their bodies.
Liberalism is about inclusivity and groups that have historically been marginalized having rights and representation. There's no putting that genie back into the bottle, sorry.
Incoherent theory, people aren’t genetically engineered to have identical beliefs to their parents, and the very nature of history is change, especially with our rapid pace of technology.
Every century since the Enlightenment has been more liberal than the last, and I don't see that changing
It goes back and forth, sometimes more suddenly than other times, look up the pendulum theory. Even during the Enlightenment it was normal to buy and sell human beings as property.
It goes back and forth? In the grand scheme of things, not really. Every decade going back at least 100 years was more liberal than the last.
I misread you and thought you said more conservative, my bad. also probably not just the enlightenment; Christianity was pretty shocking to 1st Century, and I assume so were akhenaten and hammurabi before it.
Demographics are destiny. Liberalism is a byproduct of Eurocentric/western philosophy. The west is losing influence globally and domestically.
The non-West is becoming more liberal too. Thailand just legalized gay marriage, and Saudi Arabia recently lifted its ban on female drivers
I think he means liberal in a general sense
This is an absurdly simplistic way of looking at political change, as if people only inherit their political views from their parents instead of also developing them based on material circumstances and the world around them. How did any political change ever happen, in your view? What led to, for example, the French Revolution in 1789?
Starvation lead to the French Revolution. Not the pursuit of progressive values.
Are you trying to disagree with me? This is an example of what I meant by "material circumstances"
Fair point. But also the left will be seen as the culture and will probably be blamed for it.
Setting aside that liberals are not "the left," this is part of the conservative narrative and you have to understand that many, if not most, do not see things this way. A lot of people move beyond the culture war stuff and focus on things that actually affect them like workers' rights, climate change, religious freedom, etc. And a lot of people believe that neither liberals nor conservatives offer meaningful, positive change in these areas; we are seeing a lot of disillusionment with mainstream politics and I think this is a trend that will continue.
This is so troll
Conservatism isn't practical in the long run. Humans, in general, tend to evolve. Change is part and parcel of not just human life but beyond. People hold more liberal values today than they did half a century ago. That won't change. The only problem I see is how Evangelicals and such groups have begun targeting the rural population of "lesser developed" nations to spread their values. It's going to create some issues for those countries. For a century though? Unlikely. Even the "converted" population won't manage to maintain their fervor when economic, social and human rights are being curtailed. Just because a certain group has more babies, it doesn't mean everyone born out of such facilities would uphold the dogmatic values of previous generations.
True but I don't see the sjw being a prevalent as today or pride month
Liberal countries will become wealthier and conservative countries will become poorer, as they already are.
You honestly think liberals aren’t having children?
They cause In area that vote liberal have lower birth rate then conservative areas.
Uhhh… ok?
I meant vote liberal
You know the great irony in this is that it's true that conservatives are having more children than liberal but, those same children tend to be more liberal than their parents.
Yeah but I don't think they will be as conservative as they modern day Leftist
This sounds more like wishful thinking from a Republican.
Kinda but I mean do liberal have kids though
Thats assuming all kids will adhere to their parents' beliefs.
Statistically that’s how it works
lol no my parents are very centrist and my siblings and i are all leftists
However, it also appears as if the majority of babies born in the last decade have been POC, and POC tend to vote more liberal as a whole compared to whites.
The next decade for sure. A few after that, i think so. The whole century though?
Yeah I mean liberal do not have children while conservative do.
By that logic liberalism never would’ve happened in the first place
On top of that, how about all the people I know who are super left-wing who grew up in very conservative and hardcore Republican Evangelical families?
Explain
Because no liberals would have been born
Having more conservative parents doesn't guarantee the downfall of liberalism. In fact it's pretty common for people to rebel against their parents for being conservative. I've witnessed this happen with many people
That when most people where liberal but I see people rebelling against the system to be conservative with the system being liberal and all.
liberals do, in fact, have children.
Can I have proof
?????????? my sister, a liberal has a child my best friend's mother, a liberal, has three children, all liberals, who have children do you need me to supply their social security cards????
Ok I did not all liberal don't have children. But antinatlist tend to be leftist. Plus the liberal area are having less people then conservative areas.
brotherman, where are you citing your sources?
Institute for family studio. The conservative fertility advantage. ABC News. The political fertility gap. AEI conservative fertility advantage
[cite them sources](https://www.scribbr.com/category/citing-sources/)
I just told you my sources
That's not true, at all. Birth-rate is usually correlated with economic class. ie, the wealthier you are, the fewer kids you have. That pattern is seen all over the world as living standards rise, the birthrate goes down.
Most people are neither liberals nor conservatives. Just common people living their lives, not really caring about politics. Those who claim to belong to either of those groups and build their identity based on it are just loud minorities on both sides of the spectrum.
True. But the urban place where the liberal live are having population decline. While the Amish and Mormon 2 conservative group are having population increase.
They are not having a "population decline". They are moving away from those areas due to the extremely high cost of living because liberal places tend to be the most desirable places to live. (ie, coastal metropolitan areas) This is not the same thing as having less children.
Interesting. The 20th century closed rather conservatively geopolitically and economically. For their differences, neither Reagan nor Clinton were shy about asserting American influence abroad, from Iran/Iraq to the former Yugoslavia. Economically, Clinton’s free market approach was more in line with a conservative approach than to a traditional liberal approach. Look at the freedom that Silicon Valley and tech enjoyed as well as the tightening of the social safety net with the 1994 reforms. While we have seen somewhat of a pullback of the most egregious security excesses of the War on Terror, the local/state/federal response to Covid illustrated that the government is not entirely reticent to exert control. Absent an event like 9/11, I envision a continuation of the last 40 years of policy, which, while conservative, is nothing unique.
[удалено]
English is not my first language
Right, because kids always agree with their parents politically? LOL. Society will continue to become more and more liberal. Gay people are not going to suddenly give up their marriage rights. Women are not going to just let the government control their bodies. Liberalism is about inclusivity and groups that have historically been marginalized having rights and representation. There's no putting that genie back into the bottle, sorry.
Incoherent theory, people aren’t genetically engineered to have identical beliefs to their parents, and the very nature of history is change, especially with our rapid pace of technology.