In contemporary America, a curious pattern has emerged around attitudes toward Manifest Destiny, that nineteenth-century doctrine which held that the United States was destined to expand across the North American continent. Public opinion surveys consistently show that more Americans today view this historical ideology critically than support it, yet those who embrace its principles tend to have significantly larger families than those who oppose it.
The opposition to Manifest Destiny has grown substantially over recent decades, particularly as educational curricula have increasingly emphasized the devastating consequences of westward expansion for Indigenous peoples. Most Americans now recognize that the doctrine served as moral cover for the displacement and destruction of Native American communities, the seizure of Mexican territory, and the propagation of slavery into new territories. This critical perspective has become the dominant view in universities, mainstream media, and among younger generations who have been taught to view American expansionism through a more questioning lens.
However, demographic data reveals an interesting countertrend. Those who maintain a positive view of Manifest Destiny, often correlating with more traditional or nationalist political orientations, have fertility rates considerably above the national average. These individuals and families frequently hold religious beliefs that encourage larger families, maintain more conventional views about family structure, and often live in regions where having multiple children remains culturally normative. Many belong to religious communities, particularly certain evangelical Christian and Mormon groups, where four, five, or six children per family is common rather than exceptional.
In contrast, those critical of Manifest Destiny tend to cluster in urban areas, hold more progressive political views, and prioritize career development and personal autonomy in ways that often result in delayed childbearing and smaller family sizes. The average family size among this demographic frequently hovers around one or two children, significantly below replacement level fertility.
This creates a fascinating long-term question about cultural transmission and ideological persistence. While contemporary critics of Manifest Destiny dominate current intellectual discourse and shape educational content, the supporters of these traditional nationalist narratives are reproducing at rates that could substantially shift future demographic and political landscapes. Children generally, though not universally, adopt worldviews similar to their parents, particularly when raised in tight-knit religious or ideological communities.
The implications extend beyond mere numbers. Communities that embrace Manifest Destiny’s underlying principles of American exceptionalism and territorial ambition often create robust institutions for passing these values to subsequent generations through homeschooling networks, religious education, and community organizations. These structures can prove remarkably effective at maintaining ideological continuity across generations, even when the broader culture moves in a different direction.
This demographic divergence raises uncomfortable questions for those who assumed that progressive historical revisionism would simply continue its forward march. If current trends persist, the numerical balance between those who view American expansionism critically and those who celebrate it may shift dramatically over the next several generations, not through persuasion or debate, but through differential reproduction rates.
The phenomenon illustrates a broader tension in modern societies between intellectual consensus and demographic reality, between winning the argument in universities and winning the future through fertility. Whether this pattern will continue, intensify, or reverse remains one of the more intriguing questions about America’s ideological future.
