Conservatives are Having More Babies Than Liberals

The White House is in a full-blown baby boom.

Second lady Usha Vance, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, and Katie Miller, wife of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, are all pregnant. It will be Vance’s fourth child, Leavitt’s second, and Miller’s fourth. White House deputy chief of staff James Blair and his wife, Sam, are expecting a baby come March, according to Louise Perry, writing for The Wall Street Journal.

Perry notes a partisan gap in birthrates: “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.”

REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.

“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,” Perry continues.

In the United States, the partisan birthrate gap emerged a little before 1980, according to John Burn-Murdoch, columnist and chief data reporter for the Financial Times. Trend lines are on the decline for both conservatives and progressives, but the birthrate among progressives has plunged below replacement level.

Marriage rates have fallen since the 1980s among both sexes and both parties. But marriage is more resilient among conservatives.

About 60% of conservative women aged 25 to 35 have ever married, claims the Institute for Family Studies, drawing on 1980 to 2024 data from the General Social Survey. About 44% of liberal women aged 25 to 35 have ever married. Among conservative men aged 25 to 35, about 57% have ever married. Among liberal men of the same age, about 35% have ever married.

Marriage between a man and a woman, despite the best efforts of liberal social engineers, remains the best foundation for childrearing. Even women with “open-minded” views on the matter might be personally reluctant to bear a stranger’s child, or a boyfriend’s child.

The left’s anti-natalist, anti-family messaging probably drives certain otherwise willing women away from marriage and motherhood. Other women might use those ideological pretexts to avoid what they see as a frightening and burdensome endeavor.

Then, there’s the positive feedback loop in left-wing circles: One is exposed to fewer marriages and babies, so getting married and having a baby seems a more remote possibility. The opposite sort of contagion effect might be at play in the White House.

The left openly despises the family. They have for quite some time. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels called to abolish the “present family, the bourgeois family,” belittling so-called radicals who winced at the idea. Marx and Engels charge the bourgeois parents with exploiting their children, the bourgeois husband with exploiting his wife.

Then came World War II, posited by some as definite proof of the evil of any right-of-center politics.

Where does the massive Republican fertility advantage come from?

Conservatives are willing to speak unabashedly about the value of children, starting at the very top.

That probably does more to raise birthrates than any policy, but most liberals just won’t talk up childbearing. https://t.co/7b8ObwYKJD pic.twitter.com/xuJhEeCTH3

— More Births (@MoreBirths) January 24, 2026

 

Beginning in the late sixties, Germany authorized and funded the intentional placement of “neglected children in foster homes run by pedophiles,” according to Rachel Aviv, writing for the New Yorker. This, at the behest of “sexologist” Helmut Kentler, an openly homosexual man who believed sexual contact between children and adults was harmless. Kentler had three adoptive sons and one foster son.

“Kentler’s career was framed by his belief in the damage wrought by dominant fathers … Like many of his contemporaries, Kentler came to believe that sexual repression was key to understanding the Fascist consciousness … The trials of twenty-two former Auschwitz officers had revealed a common personality type: ordinary, conservative, sexually inhibited, and preoccupied with bourgeois morality,” writes Aviv.

Consider the 1950 sociology book, “The Authoritarian Personality,” which suggested a child at the receiving end of too much discipline and structure (especially from the father) might turn out an authoritarian.

“In the late sixties, educators in more than thirty German cities and towns began establishing experimental day-care centers, where children were encouraged to be naked and to explore one another’s bodies,” Aviv continues.

She then cites historian Dagmar Herzog: “There is no question that they were trying (in a desperate sort of neo-Rousseauian authoritarian antiauthoritarianism) to remake German/human nature.”

For Marx and Engels and Kentler, the family was an obstacle to reproducing their left-wing worldview.

For the modern, anti-natalist left, the problem of reproducing their worldview is particularly tough. An anti-natalist movement is hard to sustain by its very nature. Consider the Shakers, a Christian sect founded in the mid 18th century. Procreation was forbidden. Consequently, there are about three living Shakers. They had to recruit by other means — conversion and adoption, primarily.

In the same fashion, modern leftists grow their ranks via education. The indoctrination might start as early as kindergarten. One is never too young to learn his parents are fascists.

LifeNews Note: Natalie Sandoval writes for Daily Caller. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience.

The post Conservatives are Having More Babies Than Liberals appeared first on LifeNews.com.