The Perils Of Having Fewer Babies
At the end of November, former New York Times op-ed writer Wajahat Ali went on a race-baiting rant intended to rattle the MAGA cage with race-based insults. The Pakistani-American taunted “white supremacists”—a designation he assigns with a broad brush to all Trump voters—with the prospect of his fellow “brown people” overtaking them demographically, in Trojan-horse fashion, via their much higher birth rate.
That dig hit home among Trump voters. American women, with a total fertility rate (TFR) of 1.6 (and heading downwards), are having babies below the “replacement rate” of 2.1 babies per woman. As that “1.6” figure includes blacks, browns, and Asians, it indicates that the TFR for white women (what the GOP’s concerned with) is even less than 1.6., given that birth rates among the major non-white groups in this nation are equal to or higher than white birth rates.
Contrast that with a population-weighted average TFR for the Middle East and North Africa—the region whose “brown” immigrants Ali was referring to—of approximately 3.0 births per woman. Taking this into account, as well as the fact that most immigrants to the US are now non-whites, the U.S. Census Bureau projects that in about 20 years whites will no longer be in the majority. For those who see the United States as a white, Christian nation, this will be—no pun intended—a dark day.
Population decline’s a worldwide problem. Global fertility is now below replacement level in virtually all of the 38 OECD countries, putting humans on track for the largest sustained population decline in history, with the exceptions of war and plague. While this trend is welcomed by eco-friendly types leaning left/progressive, it could push entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare towards insolvency. Labor and military force reduction would lower both GDP and defense capabilities (conscription may become necessary), and the US and other Western nations might end up facing Japanese-style (Japan has a 1.26 TFR), long-term stagnation. Moderate population growth is a net positive for the US, but it won't be coming from American women.
The diversity-embracing Democrats are less concerned than Republicans about the population shift away from white people. Many of them openly embrace the trend. But the issue goes beyond race, extending into religion and fertility-rate-related population decline. Far from being the vocal proponents of Christianity that conservative Republicans are, progressive Democrats’ rhetorical support of the religion is lukewarm at best, and often critical, especially in light of the evangelical alignment with Trump. While the concern among conservatives over the upcoming demographic shift does have a race-based component, there’d be considerably less anxiety if the brown people (“breeding people,” to quote Wajahat Ali) who are “replacing” whites were Christians rather than Muslims.
Among powerful Republicans, JD Vance, concerned with the influx of “childless cat ladies” on the Left, is the most outspoken. He views low birth rates as a "civilizational crisis" tied to cultural, economic, and family values. The VP often voices opinions that align with the pronatalist (pro-child birth) positions of Elon Musk, who’s doing his best to populate the planet in a “hands on” way, perhaps acting on his belief that low worldwide birth rates are a greater threat to the earth than climate change.
Republicans as a whole are doing more than the Democrats in fending off that particular challenge, although not close to enough. Data shows they have more children than their less traditional, less religious political rivals.
Vance’s ideas focus on financial incentives, tax reforms, and cultural shifts to encourage marriage and childbearing among American women. Key proposals include tax incentives for parents (including higher taxes for childless people), low-interest loans for married people, support for fertility treatments like IVF. Vance has also called for a couple of curveballs—allowing parents to cast additional votes on behalf of their minor children, and banning pornography. In order to avoid accusations of demographic engineering, the Vice {resident has stated that his anti-abortion stance is distinct from his fertility goals.
While the Democrats don't refer to low birth rates as a “civilizational crisis” tied to a breakdown of the family structure, they've tried to make it easier for couples to have children for years, advocating for more affordable housing, extended paid leave, increased tax credits, and erasing student debt. In line with their current emphasis on “affordability” instead of “equity,” it's all about economics with the Democrats. They see the Vance/Musk-endorsed pronatalism agenda as a coercive effort to produce submissive Stepford Wives, and link its tenets to eugenics and the “great replacement theory.”
Democrats and progressives in the U.S. support adopting key elements of the Scandinavian (Nordic) model—generous paid parental leave, universal affordable childcare, etc.—as the silver bullet to encourage higher birth rates without coercion or restrictions on reproductive rights. There's a problem with that dream. While Nordic nations have paid leave of up to 18 months, free or low-cost childcare, universal healthcare, and gender-equal work cultures, their fertility rates have been steadily plummeting, hovering around 1.4-1.6 in 2024.
Extensive evidence indicates that nations cannot spend their way out of population decline. Achieving a mere 0.1–0.2 increase in TFR often costs billions annually, with diminishing returns. Hungary spent heavily and saw TFR rise from 1.3 to 1.6 temporarily, but recent data show those gains didn't last. South Korea has spent $270 billion since 2006, and its TFR is an alarming 0.78. French programs have been “successful”—not factoring in how much money was spent—but the nation's TFR, while the highest in Western Europe, is only 1.8, an expensive, below-replacement-level figure to maintain.
It's possible to see the above numbers as supporting the GOP-backed pronatalism approach to population decline, but there's a harsh reality that conservatives need to consider: low fertility, rather than being a glitch, is now looking like a fundamental, irreversible preference shift. In highly-educated societies like the US, women are much less interested in having children than they used to be, even if economic incentives are offered. Some view motherhood as incompatible with personal fulfillment. Other women cite climate instability, although in many cases that may be a convenient excuse. Women with successful careers see the opportunity costs for child-bearing as too high.
A 2024 Pew Research Center survey found that among US adults under 50 who say they're unlikely to ever have children, 57 percent cite "I just don't want to" as a major reason, far outpacing factors like finances or work-life balance.
Since producing more native-born babies is now looking like a failed technocrat’s pipedream, it's time to reframe the narrative. Sweden has decided to replace its population via immigration, a choice that will face major GOP opposition in this country. The other alternative is making adjustments to mitigate the negatives of population decline. Japan, a nation not built for mass immigration, is turning to robotics. The US must emphasize investing in automation, AI, and productivity gains so growth isn’t dependent on population size. As for Social Security, the retirement age will have to be raised unless higher wages and productivity per worker can be achieved, thus stabilizing payroll tax revenue even with fewer people.
If immigration is to be a part of the American plan to handle depopulation, a points-based immigration system designed to select immigrants who are most likely to integrate quickly and contribute economically should be instituted. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand use versions of this. These systems are race-neutral and merit-based. While equity-loving progressives often see “merit-based” as “racist,” some hard choices will have to be made.