Now the media elites are examining this phenomenon of flyover country as if it's some sort of exotic species that must be dissected, though perhaps not exterminated.

David Brooks, one of the few voices of sanity at the New York Times, summarizes the issue: "They are having three, four or more kids. Their personal identity is defined by parenthood. They are more spiritually, emotionally and physically invested in their homes than in any other sphere of life, having concluded that parenthood is the most enriching and elevating thing they can do. Very often they have sacrificed pleasures like sophisticated movies, restaurant dining and foreign travel, let alone competitive careers and disposable income, for the sake of their parental calling."

Oh, the agony of missing Hollywood's "sophisticated movies." Heavens, could there be people who'd rather raise their children than catch a double bill of "Kinsey" and "Saw"?

"People on the Great Plains and in the Southwest are much more fertile than people in New England or on the Pacific coast," Brooks says.

"You can see surprising political correlations. As Steve Sailer pointed out in The American Conservative, George Bush carried the 19 states with the highest white fertility rates, and 25 of the top 26. John Kerry won the 16 states with the lowest rates."

'Too Old and Tired'

In Orlando today, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., hectored the aging members of Democratic National Committee that "you aren't doing enough to replace yourself when you are too old and tired to keep going."

Somebody named Ginan Rauf, "a Ph.D. candidate at Harvard University" and "an Arab-American worried about the direction of her country," lashes out at Brooks' analysis on a Web site called Muslim Wakeup.

"The natalist enclave is proudly provincial in its wholesome rejection of all things foreign with the possible exception of consumer products like Chinese toys, German SUV’s, Japanese cameras, and of course Arab oil so that all those self-sacrificing moms can keep driving their precious kids to more soccer—oops, football--games. Gotta protect them from all that 'bad influence' as Brooks tells us people with money are wont to do," she fumes.

"And since when has there been a direct correlation between the number of children a family has and its moral values? ... Perhaps we must all submit to the fertility God instead? Or does that only apply to the red states where white fertility rates are higher? How easily the natalist slips into the nativist rejection of all things foreign and a celeberation of, dare I say it, 'racial purity.'"

Yet the liberal New Republic frets: "Democrats swept the largely childless cities - true blue locales [such as] San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Boston and Manhattan have the lowest percentages of children in the nation - but generally had poor showings in those places where families are settling down, notably the Sun Belt cities, exurbs and outer suburbs of older metropolitan areas."

USA Today notes that President Bush won 474 of the nation's 573 fast-growing micropolitan areas (places too urban to be rural but too small to be metropolitan).

Brooks offers his latte-sipping readers a bit of reassurance: "Natalists are associated with red America, but they're not launching a jihad."

Wow. Someone at the New York Times admits that heartland America is not identical with Islamic terrorists. At least the paper has one progressive. Now if only Maureen Dowd would second him.