"Super-Natural Selection"

American politics are funny, aren't they? Isn't it ironic that the party that believes in Darwinism doesn't subscribe (supposedly) to social Darwinism, but the party that believes in social Darwinism, rejects Darwinism proper? These are generalities of course, but they confirm not only the incongruity of political alliances but also the superficiality of our political discourse. Speaking of political Darwinism... below I'm excerpted a Wall Street Journal article from last year: "The Empty Cradle Will Rock." The actual article contains nine tables of supporting statistical data, but I've included only the most essential textual conclusions. It boils down to this: liberal democrats have the most abortions and their population is hardest hit by this abominable blight. Liberals claim to stand up for the "little guy." That was at least true long, long ago, but has degenerated into platitude. They have hypocritically sold out the voiceless "littlest guy"——the unborn child (not to mention the women victimized by the abortion industry), and have fallen into their own trap. "Step right up, Messrs. Kerry and Edwards, and receive your Darwin Award!" The point I'm trying to make is that nobody can escape the natural law that binds the cosmos. Nature prefers fruitfulness and genuine self-giving. In this age of "planned families," generous people will tend to have more children, and selfish people less. So over time the population will increase in generosity. I came up with this idea in the mid-1990's and call it the Principle of Super-Natural Selection——not because there's anything truly "supernatural" about it, but because it operates above Darwin's Principle of Natural Selection (on the level of what I suppose the neo-Darwinians call "memes").

God always forgives; man sometimes forgives; nature never forgives.[1]

There's no escaping nature.

---

[1] source unknown

---

The Empty Cradle Will Rock How abortion is costing the Democrats voters——literally. BY LARRY L. EASTLAND (WSJ, Monday, June 28, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT) Here's what we know from several generations of social science research about children:

• • They tend to absorb the values of their parents. •
• They tend to have the same political views as their family (parents, siblings, immediate relatives) and share common views on political causes. •
• They tend to develop the same lifestyle as their family....

Democrats have lost 5,848,000 more voters [to abortion] than the Republicans have.... Examining these results through a partisan political lens, the Democrats have given the Republicans a decided advantage in electoral politics, one that grows with each election. Moreover, it is an advantage that they can never regain. Even if abortion were declared illegal today, and every single person complied with the decision, the advantage would continue to grow until the 2020 election, and would stay at that level throughout the voting lifetime of most Americans living today.... By combining party and ideology, an even sharper contrast comes into focus.... Liberal Democrats are having both more abortions——and more abortions as a percentage of their ideological and political group—than either of the other groupings. As liberals and Democrats fervently seek new voters and supporters through events, fund-raisers, direct mail and every other form of communication available, they achieve results minuscule in comparison to the loss of voters they suffer from their own abortion policies. It is a grim irony lost on them, for which they will pay dearly in elections to come.

---

Similar analysis, but post-mortem of the 2004 election: Baby Gap: How birthrates color the electoral map By Steve Sailer (The American Conservative, December 20, 2004) [Sailer is one of the few journalists today who does solid quantitative analyses.]