Natalism?

David Brooks of NYTimes jumps ahead of the curve with his discussion of "natalists", which he says is a new movement. Some of the statistics are compelling:

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.

Is natalism a cause or an effect? If it is merely an effect of other socioeconomic factors, then Brooks is wrong to call it a movement. However, he makes an effective argument that the serious life decisions of parents with 4+ children are based on their desire to be parents.

Are natalists merely holdovers from history? Most baby boomers have embraced the giant "I", and their childbearing choices are dictated by their chosen lifestyle, rather than vice versa. I would answer my own question in the affirmative: looking at history, only those wealthy enough to banish their children to nannies and boarding schools lived fashionable lives. Birth control and widespread wealth has made dandies of us all, and only those who for religious, cultural, atavistic, or accidental reasons have many children remain in the cultural paradigm of history. More evidence that America is a nation of unnatural and unhealthy wealth.