Interesting slant, that birth rates influence voting patterns.

With the caveat that I'm not very sophisticated or knowledgeable at political thinking, my general impression is that there are a lot of theorists who have tried to link voting patterns to group identity in some sense, and that the history of this effort has been only partially successful.

The Marxists link choice with class identity and economic status. The religious conservatives and "progressives" link it with their particular versions of "values" identity. The racialists link it with race identity.

My unqualified suspicion is that while these are sources of leverage we draw on for political power, they may not be the reasons why people vote the way they do. For example, it seems to me that I can vote my "socio-economic class," I can vote my "race," I can vote my "values," and so on. These may lead to different votes. It all depends on how the issues have been framed and what options are open to us.

For example, given the choice of two very unappealing candidates this past presidential election, the party leaders and media successfully framed the issues in the way that best polarized and brought dramatic attention to the candidates, even though they were nearly equally conservative in general political terms and each has qualities that to me should have made neither one very attractive compared to a hypothetically optimum candidate.

Steve seems to be arguing between the lines that all whites are actually striving for genetic "white power" but that liberals just aren't being honest about it. Their point of contention, he asserts, is that liberals are angry at conservatives for their lack of racial solidarity with them. For example, he argues that gun control is about disarming dangerous urban minorities specifically. In other words, his goal seems to me to be to translate all of politics into issues of racial identity and support it with biological arguments. TO me, that frames these complex issues in a very unrealistic and undesireably narrow way, and in some ways really misses the point. But as I said, I'm not very sophisticated in this area.

I agree with him on what I think is a basic underlying assumption that political belief, like much belief, is socially motivated, but I think he is making some oversimplified assumptions about what motivates it and how, in looking for connections to broader biological explanation.

A different and compelling argument about the red and blue states, also from statistical evidence, can be found in "Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America." by Morris Fiorina. I posted a review on Amazon with some further thoughts.

kind regards,

Todd