American politics, now more than ever, is facing generational change. Leftists know it, though they might not be able to bring themselves to figure out why. But they surely realize that the next generations of American children will be ever more conservative than their generation. That scares them as badly as a hunter scares an animal by first wounding it, then cornering it. And that one fact makes the American left more dangerous than ever. Already the left is trying to settle the political debate the hard way – through physical violence. But if American patriots stand firm, they can defeat even that kind of campaign.
The engines of generational change – education
About a century ago, the American left sought to bring about generational change by capturing American education. This institutional capture applies to K-12 schooling and to college and university. It has always been the most powerful weapon at their disposal. (Capturing the mass media works only until their targets on the Right develop new media they can’t capture. Schools require a little thing called accreditation that makes institutional capture easier.)
Last year saw the centennial of the most important court case that relates to educational capture. That case was State of Tennessee v. John T. Scopes. Scopes, a biology teacher, introduced the theory of evolution, as Charles Darwin most thoroughly articulated it, into his classes. Authorities arrested him and haled him into court. Attorney Clarence Darrow famously defended him – by challenging the prosecutor, William Jennings Bryan, to a debate by hostile-witness examination. Bryan submitted to this examination – whereupon Darrow changed his plea from “Not Guilty” to “Guilty” to avoid examination by Bryan. The court imposed a trifling fine on Scopes, and the Tennessee Supreme Court invalidated the penalty on a technicality.
But the real damage was the introduction of the theory of evolution into education, and the total rejection of any lessons that might possibly rely upon the existence of God. Case after case followed that erased God from mention in school at all. And so began the training of children to be functional atheists – and, therefore, leftists.
Disclaimer
Not all atheists are leftists, but libertarian and especially conservative atheists have a problem. Their problem is that, without God, no objective reason remains to prefer a morality forbidding first use of force. The late Ayn Rand tried to assert such a reason, but in reality that becomes a mere personal preference.
Furthermore, the late Nathaniel Branden reported that Rand once betrayed a key weakness of her own philosophy. In “The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand,” he wrote:
[S]he became very quick on the draw in response to anything that even had the superficial appearance of irrationalism, by which I mean, of anything that did not fit her particular understanding of “the reasonable.” With regard to science, this led to an odd kind of scientific conservatism, a suspicion of novelty, an indifference -- this is only a slight exaggeration -- to anything more recent than the work of Sir Isaac Newton.
I remember being astonished to hear her say one day, “After all, the theory of evolution is only a hypothesis.”
I asked her, “You mean you seriously doubt that more complex life forms – including humans – evolved from less complex life forms?”
She shrugged and responded, “I’m really not prepared to say,” or words to that effect.
I do not mean to imply that she wanted to substitute for the theory of evolution the religious belief that we are all God's creation; but there was definitely something about the concept of evolution that made her uncomfortable.
That something was the notion that human beings had nonhuman – indeed, non-rational – ancestors. Her philosophy of Objectivism teaches human exceptionalism – a thing Darwin denied.
Leftists have no problem with denying human exceptionalism.
A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.
Ingrid Newkirk, founder, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
In fact they decry human beings as lower than the animals, and a blight on the Earth. But that has led them to the existential crisis they now face.
A more powerful engine of generational change: anti-natalism
Anti-natalism – the notion that the earth would be better off if no more children are born – is now the rage. It wasn’t always so obvious. The left couched it in terms that appealed to the shortsighted selfishness of young women. Feminism taught women that marriage and childbirth held them back. (In its most extreme articulation, it held that childbirth was a killer disease.) So leftist women began to have children later in life. Or – even more problematically – they waited too long to have children. A man can sire children well into senescence, though spermatogenesis does slow down. But oögenesis happens entirely before birth, after which a girl’s eggs start to die. (Doctors call this atresia.) Eventually the last egg dies, and menopause sets in.
So if a woman wants children, she’s under a deadline.
At least some on the left realized the implications. Francois Truffaut and Jean-Louis Richard, adapting Ray Bradbury’s novel Fahrenheit 451 to the screen, wrote dialog in which suburban women wondered idly about the human species dying out. (None of these women had children.) But no one seems to have paid attention.
Then the feminist movement made its worst mistake: plumping for abortion on demand. Sarah Weddington took to the Supreme Court the case of a Dallas, Texas woman who wanted an abortion. On January 22, 1973, feminists got their wish. But for forty-nine years, they didn’t realize that conservative women would keep having children.
What goes around, comes around
The 2021 Term of the United States Supreme Court, coming after the “election” of Joe Biden, shocked the Left. Reversal of abortion as the federal law of the land was bad enough. (So also was the invalidation of any “natural progression” of gun control.) But the Court also invalidated willful discrimination against religious institutions, and the disallowance of prayer on school grounds by faculty and staff. Those two cases will set precedents for even greater movements, moving forward.
But why the Court decided those cases as it did, should interest people more. In forty-nine years, the electorate underwent the beginning of a generational change. Liberals – especially women – who might have elected Al Gore instead of George W. Bush – and Hillary Clinton instead of Donald J. Trump – did not so vote because they did not exist. They literally had never been born. Their would-be mothers either aborted them away, or refused to conceive them to begin with. But conservative women did have the current generation of voters who – tellingly – elected Donald Trump in 2016.
So when Justice Antonin Scalia died (or was murdered), Donald Trump appointed another Originalist – Neil Gorsuch – to replace him. Likewise, Trump replaced one Institutionalist – Anthony Kennedy – with another, more consistent one – Brett Kavanaugh. Finally, Ruth Bader Ginsburg – an Equitarian – died, and Trump replaced her with an Institutionalist – Amy Coney Barrett. These three appointees joined with the two other Originalists to change the orientation of the Court.
But how?
Christian Heiens, who once called himself The Oracle of Virginia, explains.
https://x.com/ChristianHeiens/status/2018743494550880761
The math behind this is actually really fascinating, and it explains why the Left has to rely so much on institutional capture and mass migration to remain alive.
The children of Liberals adopt their worldview 89% of the time, while Conservatives see their kids adopt theirs 81% of the time.
But this advantage on the Left is dwarfed by the fact that they’re essentially an anti-[natalist] movement.
(Heiens posted his essay to X by smartphone, and that device’s “auto-correct” function somehow changed “natalist” to “catalyst.” In a subsequent post he explained that error.)
Heiens showed the anti-natalism of the Left, and its consequences, using an article from the Institute for Family Studies. Brian Wilcox and Grant Bailey published “The Left’s Family Problem: Marriage and Kids Cratering among Liberal Young Adults” last year. Wilcox and Bailey begin by citing multiple articles discouraging women from marrying or having children. Until recently, conservatives and liberals alike had fewer children. But beginning in the 1980s, conservatives, male and female alike, reported marrying more often, and younger, and having more children. These conservatives talk “family first,” and practice it. Liberals, in contrast, practice self first.
The statistics – to which Wilcox and Bailey turn next – show the result. Significantly more conservatives than liberals marry, and become parents. In fact, motherhood among conservative women is trending higher. Among liberal women, it is trending lower – much lower.
Wilcox and Bailey do report that the left is winning converts among young women. But these young women are avoiding childbearing as a result of that conversion.
Result: the children of the current child-bearing generation will be, on average, more conservative.
Generational change is one of two costs
Wilcox and Bailey report two costs of this mindset to liberals. First, they admit they’re lonely. Not only would it be nice to have the same adult to come home to, but it would also be nice to have a child in one’s life. Liberals who avoided marriage and childrearing “to get richer” missed out on both, and now they are admitting it.
But nearly a year and a half ago, Anastasia Berg, writing in The New York Times, sounded a more dire warning – for her side. First she admits how easy it is to dismiss low birth rates as strictly a conservative worry. But then she warns her side that, if they don’t have children, conservatives will.
We also have to realize that the possibility of a better future is conditioned on the possibility of having a future at all. That means, some people have to be having children. And if you want those children to share in the values that you yourself hold, you probably want some of those people [i.e., the mothers and fathers of those children] to be the kind of people that you yourself are.
In other words, if the children of the next generation are not yours, neither will their values be yours.
Heiens did cite some figures suggesting that value retention is less for conservatives than for liberals. But the liberal advantage in that regard is only slight. Furthermore, conservatives overcome that by having more children to begin with.
The TFR Advantage
Wilcox and Bailey cite another article from their Institute, clearly showing a Total Fertility Rate (TFR) advantage for conservatives. See Grant Bailey and Lyman Stone, “The Trump Bump: The Republican Fertility Advantage in 2024.” TFR went up in any given county, with the percent of the vote for Trump in that county in 2024.
Recall that TFR is the total number of children a woman can count on having in her lifetime. In a civilized country, the replacement level for TFR is 2.1. This is because:
A woman must replace herself and her husband, and
One in ten women must replace the child who never makes it to (or out of) puberty.
Lines of regression in scatter plots of TFR v. percent voting conservative have gotten steeper with every passing election from 2012 onwards. Furthermore, as a county swings conservative, its TFR rises.
But does it rise to replacement level? It might. Other studies have shown that TFR can rise as high as 2.4 among cohorts that all vote conservative. Furthermore, families with children are moving out of “blue” States into “red” States. They want the benefits of better education systems.
From Heiens:
If you ended all immigration and dismantled their dominance over education, the Left would be extinct in 20 years.
In fact Trump has caused a net emigration rate to hold in America today.
About education – and how generational change might work out
Dismantling the Department of Education, to remove the weapon Biden last wielded, is a good start. But conservatives who still have children in public schools, can and should “push the envelope” on what their children learn in school, just as Trump has “pushed the envelope” with what the law and Constitution let him do. In fact, many teachers are pushing against a mindset of explicit atheism. Coach Joe Kennedy, who famously won his right to pray on his high-school football field, has his imitators.
Private schools, thus far, can still teach religious values if they so choose. Their communities can cite the Carson case to end discrimination against them by State and local governments. But taking the public schools back to pre-1947 and even pre-1925 days would work even better.
CNAV can therefore predict the final result of this generational change. America’s population will decline, then bottom out as the current generation produces a more family-oriented one. They’ll vote for family-friendly policies – and conservative lessons. In another generation, the Supreme Court will have a majority that will see no harm – and indeed great good – in teaching a more Godly curriculum.
This will happen because the same value system that emphasized atheism, hedonism, and other ills, devalued the idea of having children. Liberals aren’t having children; conservatives are.
The leftist and secularist empire strikes back
This is why people on the left – both in office and in the rank and file – are fighting so hard. They actually are fighting to keep illegal aliens in the country, regardless of the additional crimes they might commit. The Minnesota Insurrection – which, sadly, is now spreading to other “blue cities” – is part of that.
But so also is the effort to:
Deny that anything untoward happened in the Election of 2020, and
Leave in place the policies and procedures that made those untoward things happen.
To that end, Senate Democrats vow never to pass the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility for America, or SAVE America, Act. “Jim Crow 2.0!” cries Sen. Charles M. Schumer (D-N.Y.), their Floor Leader. (Never mind that Jim Crow was a Democratic program, not a Republican.) SAVE America requires, among other things, that all States:
Remove from their voter rolls, any voter registrant who is not a citizen of the United States,
Ask for proof, not mere declaration, of citizenship from all voter registration applicants, and
Require all unit election clerks to require photographic identification of anyone showing up to vote.
In addition to opposing these commonsense measures, the left demands that the Bureau of the Census continue to count illegal aliens for purposes of determining Congressional representation allocation among and within the several States. They also often violently oppose efforts to remove illegal aliens – even those who commit Big Four offenses. (Which are: murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.)
Stand firm and secure the win
In the face of that, Americans must push back against movements that promote gender dysphoria, Alphabet Soup orientation, and atheism. Likewise, we must not rest until the Census Bureau stops counting illegal aliens. And of course we must advocate for the removal of illegal aliens so that no one can possibly count them.
The United States Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship case will come to oral argument on April 1, 2026. Birthright citizenship directly affects how quickly the generational change will occur. Globalists are bent on changing American culture by using mass migration as a weapon. They will turn to birth tourism if the removal campaign succeeds.
Beyond that, Americans must strive to take their school systems away from secular humanists and Alphabet Soup activists. They must also reevaluate their perception of the need for and utility of a college education. And if college is to have any benefit, a new kind of university must arise to replace those that have chosen to promote globalist, “woke” and Alphabet Soup values.
Link to:
The article:
https://cnav.news/2026/02/07/editorial/talk/generational-change-american-politics/
Video:
Branden N, “The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand”:
https://www.starways.net/lisa/essays/benefits1.html
Fahrenheit 451 (1966), dir. Francois Truffaut, on the Internet Movie Database:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060390/
Previous CNAV articles in the order cited:
https://cnav.news/2022/07/01/foundation/constitution/supreme-court-2021-term/
https://cnav.news/2022/06/24/foundation/constitution/roe-v-wade-fallen/
https://cnav.news/2022/06/23/accountability/judicial/second-amendment-win/
https://cnav.news/2022/06/22/foundation/constitution/supreme-court-repudiates-blaine/
https://cnav.news/2022/06/27/accountability/judicial/prayer-wins-how-much/
https://cnav.news/2018/07/05/accountability/executive/antonin-scalia-murder/
https://cnav.news/2026/01/27/accountability/executive/minnesota-insurrection/
https://cnav.news/2026/02/01/accountability/executive/election-2020-case-breaking-wide-open/
https://cnav.news/2025/12/08/foundation/constitution/birthright-citizenship-headed-scotus-2/
https://cnav.news/2019/05/24/civilization/education/college-need/
Christian Heiens’ X post:
https://x.com/ChristianHeiens/status/2018743494550880761
From the Institute for Family Studies:
https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-trump-bump-the-republican-fertility-advantage-in-2024
Anastasia Berg’s warning:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/16/opinion/anastasia-berg-falling-birth-rates-liberals.html
Declarations of Truth:
Declarations of Truth Locals Community:
https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/
Conservative News and Views:
Clixnet Media
