Single Nation v. E Pluribus Unum

When discussing long term competitive advantage, I often counsel my students to take into account demographics. Changes in age groups (think "baby boomers"), ethnic makeup (think "Hispanic growth"), and the like have profound implications for corporations.

And for political parties. Although to be honest, I never thought about the emergence of the so-called "Single Nation." (H/T The Cranky Professor)

Democrats have woken up to the huge political rifts that have emerged over the past 30 years—between married and single people, and people with kids and those who don’t have them. And save African Americans, there may be no constituency more loyal to the president and his party than the growing ranks of childless and single Americans.

In the short term at least, the president and his party are seizing a huge opportunity. Since 1960, the percentage of the population that is over age 15 and unmarried increased by nearly half, 45 percent from 32 percent. Since 1976, the percentage of American women who did not have children by the time they reached their 40s doubled, to nearly 20 percent.

Led by Sandra Fluke, no doubt, although why someone who can't draw a dozen people to a public appearance still merits press coverage is beyond me. Anyway...

And even as the president has slipped in the polls, the fast-growing Single Nation has stayed behind him. Unmarried women prefer Obama by nearly 20 points (56 to 39 percent), according to Gallup, while those who are married prefer Romney by a similarly large margin.

Interesting stat. I'm not sure how to explain it, other than the suspicion that unmarried women are more focused on the here-and-now, while married women tend to take a more global, long-term view, and hence are more concerned with the soaring debt burden dumped on future generations by obama's policies.

... In Germany and Japan, the demographic results of this—fewer workers to support more retired people—has led to difficult tax hikes to allow the remaining young workers to maintain the funding for a growing number of aging boomers. This is the Europe’s screwed generation: “the victims of expansive welfare states and the massive structural debt charged by their parents.”

Putting things into perspective:

(In America) there are now more houses with dogs than houses with children.

And in a lot of cases the dogs are better cared for and better treated than the kids. Just compare single women's spoiled mutts with the plight of inner city children.

The emerging “new politics” of the rising Single Nation could impact elections for decades to come, particularly in Democratic strongholds like Chicago, New York or San Francisco. These areas will be increasingly dominated by a vast, often well-educated and affluent class of voters whose interests are largely defined around their own world-view, without overmuch concern with the fate of offspring, along with the urban poor and the public workers who tend to both groups. Since the childless frequently lack the kinship networks that are obliged to provide for them in moments of trouble, they tend to look more to government to care for them in hard times or old age.

"they tend to look more to government to care for them in hard times or old age" instead of taking steps to take care of themselves. I'm 'married with children' (except Al Bundy has more hair) but my wife and I have long term disability and care insurance, prepaid burial plans, life insurance, and other plans to make sure we're not a burden on our children or society as we age. Too bad the Single Nation isn't as unselfish.

But the Single Nation’s grip on power may not be sustainable for more than a generation. After all they, by definition, will have no heirs. This, notes author Eric Kauffman, hands the long-term advantage to generally more conservative family-oriented households, who often have two or more offspring. Birth rates among such conservative populations such as Mormons and evangelical Christians tend to be twice as high than those of the nonreligious.

As a result, Kauffman predicts that inevitably “the religious will inherit the earth” and ensure that conservative, more familial-oriented values inevitably prevail...

That's the good news. The bad news is that the inevitability described above won't kick in for another generation or two. The worse news is that it will probably be too late to fix things, especially this election cycle.

But in the here and now, and especially this November, these long-term trends will not yet be evident. The tsunami of Chasidic and Mormon children are not yet eligible to vote, and won’t be for a decade or two. So even as the president loses among the married, the growing ranks of the Single Nation could still assure his reelection, and propel his party’s ascendency for a decade or more before the whole trend crashes against a demographic wall.

All we can do is hope that there are enough of us old farts, that we hang on long enough, and that we continue to vote in enough numbers to stave off the Single Nation until our kids become old enough -- and hopefully wise enough -- to vote intelligently.