SIGN UP - IT'S FREE!
SEARCH FSM
| National Debt Clock |
A million seconds pass in 12 days.
A billion seconds pass in 31 years.
A trillion seconds pass in 31,688 years!
September 17, 2009
Saving Western Civilization One Toddler at a Time – Or – What Worked for Levittown Can Work Again
In August 2004 I moved to New York City and almost by accident chose the Battery Park area, a small enclave on Manhattan’s southern tip (just west of the Wall St. financial district) built on landfill from the twin-tower excavation. It is a moderately upscale area with a breathtaking Hudson River promenade view and a handful of restaurants and small businesses. What I did not realize was that this choice would offer an insight into saving Western civilization. Honestly!
Let me explain and bluntly so. Western civilization is slowly disappearing as better educated people fail to reproduce themselves; the magic number is 2.2 (the .2 is for those unable or disinclined to have children). In much of Western Europe the fertility rate is less than 1.40 and this low figure already includes impoverished, large-family immigrants from Muslim nations who seem unwilling or unable to assimilate into the prevailing First World culture (and some who wish to destroy it altogether). The US fertility figure is higher (but still less than 2.2) with a troubling pattern similar to what occurs in Europe. Make no mistake, there are – thankfully – many exceptions in the influx of newcomers but they are generally outnumbered by those who remain, sometimes for generations, mired in the non-Western culture of Algeria, Turkey or El Salvador.
Unequal fertility rates are race neutral; it has to do with the demographic balance between those inclined to receive superior educations and lead productive economic lives versus those disproportionately disposed toward welfare, chronic unemployment, crime and similar behaviors antithetical to a First World existence. It applies equally to Yuppies and Buppies (Black Urban Professionals). While some immediately yell “Nazi” when managing demography comes to the fore, this seriously misconstrues matters. Nazis practiced negative eugenics, killing or forcing sterilization on those deemed to be unworthy. Our argument concerns what is called “positive eugenics”-- encouraging selective population growth, and it is absolutely respectable and commonplace. Home mortgage deduction and tax exemption for children illustrate positive eugenic - both policies encourage larger families. College tuition tax credits are another example - they help only families with smart kids.
In a nutshell, birthrates are a battle between the First and Third World. The long-run consequences far outshine, say, the war on terror or economic bailouts, yet this demographic disaster is discussed only privately and cloaked in euphemisms.
Unfortunately, the standard pro-growth population policies embraced by European nations - cash payments for newborns, favoring large families in allocating subsidized state housing, free education and the like - have the counter-productive impact of attracting Third World immigrants for whom a few dollars more a month plus copious social welfare benefits encourages ever more childbearing. A similar pattern exists in the US thanks to policies of easy citizenship for newborns and family access to subsidized benefits.
The trick, then, is to entice smart people, regardless of race or ethnicity, to marry and have larger families while not drawing those anxious to add a sixth to a family of five for an extra $50. It is the selective nature of incentives, not being “pro-family” per se. This is a troubling quandary and, at least in the US where charges of racism and xenophobia pop up immediately, the quest appears unreachable if not unspeakable (less squeamish nations like Singapore and Canada simply exclude those likely to join the permanent under-class).
Back to Battery Park. I first became aware that Battery Park was not the typical New York City neighborhood when efforts to rent a three bedroom apartment came up empty. I was told that local buildings were designed for singles or childless couples and thus few had three bedrooms units and many of these were merely two bedroom conversions. And the waiting list was years. Moreover, as I settled in I saw youngsters everywhere, packed playgrounds and businesses catering to infants and toddlers on nearly every block. My own hallway now had a scooter and bicycle problem. Nearby schools resemble 1950s Levittown suburbia though with a UN potpourri of nationalities and ethnic hues —packed classroom, split sessions, new schools promised and when finally built, they too quickly became over-crowded. The close by athletic field is hopelessly inadequate and frustrated parents clamor for more (even mighty Goldman Sacks had to appease parents worried that construction of their new zillion dollar World Headquarters might disrupt Little League). To be a bit crude, the local yuppies were breeding like prized blue-ribbon rabbits.
What might account for this fecundity? There is no government make-babies incentive program and, if anything, these young New York City couples pay horrific taxes to support family-related social services for others. Though a bit speculative, I eventually alighted on two seemingly paramount factors: physical safety and top-quality schools, the very factors that instigated the baby boom in post-World War II suburbia.
It is impossible to exaggerate the role of physical safety in childrearing. No sensible parent consciously wants to bring children into a Hobbesian world of all against all. Mothers with young children are the most vulnerable humans and it is no accident that women are hard-wired to mate with strong males able physically to protect them. Absent everyday security, not even a local daycare hiring armed guards might ease powerful maternal instincts. And how could any mother permit her offspring to mingle in parks with gang-bangers or druggies? My own overly-protective Jewish Mother happily let me unaccompanied ride the NYC subways when I was ten; a few years later we fled to a safer New Jersey when our upper West Side neighborhood deteriorated. In the hierarchy of human instincts, the craving for safety, especially for the vulnerable young, is non-negotiable.
The second powerful incentive is good schools. And by “good schools” we do not mean what today’s educators say, e.g., superficial attributes like new buildings, computers, special classes, certified teachers or sparkling science labs. This might help but only at the margin. Good schools, to be politically incorrect, means schools overflowing with smart kids whose obedient behavior makes top academic achievement possible. Here junior is absolutely secure and has “good” well-behaved friends from other well-educated families. Perhaps the world’s most powerful birth control device is to tell a young woman that if she does have a child, he or she will be bussed to a hellhole, out-of-control school filled with foul-mouth rambunctious pupils from dysfunctional families. This possibility might even encourage abstinence, just to be on the safe side.
There is good news here. Safety and good schools (as defined here) are basic government functions and the recipe is hardly rocket science. Equally important, these enticements are irrelevant to those see America just as a cornucopia of free social services. In the case of Battery Park, some of these happy circumstances are accidental. To wit, the neighborhood is physical distant from crime-prone environs so a garrison state is unnecessary. Not only is there no crime (save what occurs in Wall Street offices) but of the utmost importance, there is zero human urban blight: no aggressive panhandlers, sleeping drunks, street corner loiterers and all the rest that tacitly sends the “don’t breed” message. This physical separation also means that schools are genuine neighborhood institutions and, thanks to high rents and convenience to Wall St., they exclusively cater to smart kids from educationally motivated parents. They are, predictably, academically outstanding.
Though speculative, however awkward to express, important lessons are to be learned here. Having a family with children may be deeply imbedded in our DNA, but the urge is not government-proof. Social engineering and “enlightened” liberal policies can kill it off. Smart, perceptive women (and their husbands) will not permit nature to take its course if this means raising a family where junior has to be escorted to and fro kindergarten lest he is mugged by feral classmates. The costs of avoiding this – 24/7 supervised daycare, expensive private schools, etc. etc. – are seldom attractive alternatives given the already high burdens of marriage and raising a family in Manhattan. Pro-reproductive policies can hardly guarantee a First World society, but absent a welcoming atmosphere, our already low fertility rate among the better-educated, more productive members of society will decline yet further.
What is ironic about the personal-safety-good-schools recipe is that this is government’s raison d’être and requires no glitzy billion-dollar innovations or bloated bureaucracy. Just make sure the most intelligent, economic productive people are sufficiently unencumbered by those “good intentioned” policies that make building a family so burdensome.
To this end, let me propose the 2010 Preservation of American Family Act whose purpose will be to ensure that the US is able to sustain an intelligent, industrious population (the parallel are the laws targeting endangered species):
Whereas, America’s survival depends on a high birthrate among families of above average intelligence so vital to remaining a First World nation;
Whereas, current birth rates among this populace are insufficient to achieve this goal, the following law shall be enacted.
Title 1. Areas where this fecundity presently occurs will be declared “selective demographic breeding sanctuaries” and no government agency shall be permitted to disturb such localities by, among other policies, but not limited to them, of inserting low income housing, forcefully enrolling academic below-average students in local schools, or preventing police departments from enforcing “quality of life” laws.
Title 2. All cities of over 500,000 will be required to create crime-free, children-friendly enclaves and academic top flight schools so as to encourage “nesting” by those residents able to afford privately constructed housing whose rental cost will be ten times the local poverty figure (or the equivalent in home ownership real estate value).
Title 3. Government actions pursuant to Preservation of American Family Act shall be immune from prosecution from all civil rights laws, anti-discrimination laws and all other statutes whose social engineering intent is inconsistent with preserving America as a First World nation.
Title 4. Congress shall have the power to enforce this statute by appropriate legislation.
In short, what’s good enough for the Spotted Owl should be good enough for America.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Robert Weissberg is emeritus professor of political science, University of Illinois-Urbana and currently an adjunct instructor at New York University Department of Politics (graduate). He has written many books, the most recent include The Limits of Civic Activism, Pernicious Tolerance: How teaching to "accept differences" undermines civil society and the forthcoming, Bad Students, Not Bad Schools: How both the Right and the Left have American education wrong (early 2010). Besides writing for professional journals, he has also written for magazines like the Weekly Standard and currently contributes to various blogs.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0) | Sign Up for FSM Updates!
