Donald Trump and the Death of White Identitarian Politics

“But wait,” I hear you saying, “Isn’t this the beginning?”

Mainstream American conservatives (perhaps all conservatives) are essentially reactive. Not reactionary, mind. That word has a different meaning in this context. Just reactive.

Liberals come up with new ideas, and conservatives react by opposing them. Liberals are high-class, in-party; their ideas make it into university curricula and influence the nation’s movers and shakers. By the time conservatives (who do not usually run in liberal circles, nor read much from university presses,) notice a liberal idea, it has already become quite widespread. And nothing makes an idea seem old and passe quite like having it suddenly associated with the out-party, the politically low-class and uncool folks who vote Republican.

BTW, if you are the “homophobic uncle” or “racist grandma” at family functions, try to turn this into a secret power: make ideas sound bad just by talking about them. Global warming? Caused by immigrant-driven population growth! Rising wealth inequality? Clearly capitalists would rather hire illegal immigrants than pay blacks a living wage–build the wall! You support Hillary Clinton because she voted for the Iraq war! Etc.

Report back to me if it works. I’m curious.

But back on subject: the upshot of this is that by the time the Republicans notice something and start making a big deal out of it, it is already too late. The trends are already in place and moving inexorably against them.

Back in the ’80s, we witnessed the rise of the “Christian right;” throughout the 90s, “conservative” and “Republican” were synonymous with “Evangelical Christianity.” They ran on platforms that included banning abortion, reinstating prayer in school, replacing the theory of evolution with Biblical creationism in school textbooks, and general opposition to “Godless liberals.”

They have failed pretty spectacularly. While they have made some piecemeal hacks at abortion, it is still basically legal through out the country. Creationism and “Intelligent Design” have both been struck down as unconstitutional due to being blatantly religious. And you probably know the story on prayer in school even better than I do.

(This is a little disappointing coming out of a party that could count among its recent accomplishments normalizing relations with China, nuclear reduction treaties with the Soviets, and overseeing the peaceful collapse of the entire USSR.)

Conservatives of the ’80s and ’90s could tell that the country was becoming increasingly secular, and reacted accordingly by trying to force it back to religiosity. Unfortunately for them, increasingly religious => fewer and fewer people who are even interested in their religious agenda. Despite the fact that abortion is still legal and school prayer is still illegal, even conservatives have moved on to other priorities.

During Bush II, Republicans launched a big push to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The measure failed; gay marriage is now not only legal, but constitutionally protected.

No one bothered with passing an anti-gay marriage amendment back in the ’50s, when Republicans could have actually gotten the numbers necessary to do it. Since the vast majority of people thought homosexuality was immoral, there was no push to legalize gay marriage, and so no one would have bothered with passing amendments against it. Once enough people were in favor of gay marriage to put it on the national agenda, the trends were clear: soon the majority of people would favor gay marriage, and an amendment did not pass.

It was the last, desperate thrashing of a cornered beast.

Today, people have noticed–finally–that America’s demographics are changing.

Of course, the time to do something about this was before the demographics changed. In 1900, the US was about 88% white, 12% black, and <1% Hispanic. Today, whites are 64%, blacks are still 12%, and Hispanics are 16% of the population. (Asians and others comprise an additional 8%.)

According to the census bureau, in 2012, American infants were 50% white and 50% non-white–about 25% of American children are now Hispanic.

The time to care about changing US demographics was 1965, when LBJ and Ted Kennedy’s Immigration and Naturalization Act quadrupled the number of (legal) immigrants per year from 250,000 to 1 million. 1975 and 1985 would also have been good years to start caring.

In 1950, there were 500,000 Hispanics in the US. Today, there are 5o.5 million. Even if you built a wall between the US and Mexico yesterday and deported 11 million illegal immigrants, that would still leave 39 million newcomers and their children whom you cannot get rid of.

By 2050, the US will be less than half white, and American children will be only 40% white.

Interestingly, the last time a Democrat won a majority of white votes was 1964–LBJ. Republicans have been the “white” party–though they may not have realized it–since 1968.

But this does not mean that whites vote overwhelmingly for the Republicans. Even blacks occasionally vote for Republicans–about 5% of them voted for Bush II. As whites near 50%, even 10% voting for the Democrats will consign Republicans to the losers, while an identifiably “white” party will have difficulty attracting non-white voters.

No matter how much effort the Republicans put into attracting white voters (and likely they will put a great deal of effort into it over the next few elections,) the numbers are moving against them.

You can’t maintain a majority with a shrinking % of the population. (Though, of course, we are talking about a process that will take decades.)

But we live in a two-party system, and the system will re-assert itself with a new set of balanced coalitions that can win, perhaps a system that pits Hispanics and Asians against whites and blacks, or some other random thing. (I am not guessing.) But that won’t happen until the Republicans are weak enough that Democrats can safely split.


10 thoughts on “Donald Trump and the Death of White Identitarian Politics

  1. I don’t know if you are right on this. The identitarians exist in the first place as the bastard children of cultural Marxism. Now Trump may very well make them happy. People seem less race conscious if they are better off and don’t feel like they’ve been unjustly discriminated against.

    But if whites continue to be discriminated against, as they lose whatever power current demographics give them, the likelihood is identity becomes more important to them. Additionally, they won’t feel constrained by politics. Peaceful forms of resolution are preferred to violence, but if they don’t allow a peaceful resolution, violence still is an answer. It is particularly sad, for instance, that they didn’t have the sense to arrest the people who put on that sit-in in Congress. We keep getting the message that the government is content to have these idiots continue to subvert it to take away our rights.


  2. Great point about conservatives not noticing things until liberals have already popularized them. A real border and deportations would accomplish things exactly as you described.

    Immigration isn’t the sole issue at play, here. The forced subsidization of population growth is. To invert your supposition, if all illegals were granted amnesty yesterday, and 19 million new ones arrived, but productive whites were stopped forcing to associate with and fund the families of non-productive people, demographics would return to a large majority of whites. Blacks are only hovering at 12% because of ungodly quantities of reproduction subsidization; pull the plug to Hispanics (and Arabs, etc.), and their proportional numbers would begin to dwindle.

    Adding in domestic crime enforcement makes the numbers change even faster: if (actual, assault-style) rapists were sterilized, and robbery-murderers executed, the hungry ferals would dwindle away.

    Make-work government jobs, and retirement and disability subsidization, play large parts also. Eliminate welfare “jobs,” welfare “disability,” and twenty years of advanced cardiovascular care for drunk, obese seniors, and those demographics numbers would change, in less than a generation, to a white supermajority.


    • Mexicans in Mexico don’t get American-style welfare and still produce large families; Africans in Africa don’t get American-style welfare and still produce large families. The richest people with the best welfare and safety nets produce the fewest number of children. (Ironic, isn’t it?) Poor people with no safety nets produce children by the dozens (though often only half make it to adulthood.)


      • Firstly, both groups actually do get American welfare. I assume that at some point during your recent writings on immigration you’ve glanced at the numbers of the Mexican economy, in regards to what percentage of Mexico’s economy is based upon wire transfers sent from America? Even discounting church and charity aid, Mexico is reliant upon America. Africa, of course, I assume you already know about how much free food and supplies they get from America and Europe per year–the mistake there is not associating those gifts with their ability to avoid catastrophic depopulation.

        Aside from the presents of warehouses of food and medicine received by Mexicans in Mexico and Africans in Africa, consider also the source of the technologies they have available to them, which they of course did not invent, but more importantly (for our consideration of the future), which they cannot maintain over long periods of time without foreign assistance. Much of South Africa, for example, had a modern infrastructure that included nuclear power plants and hospitals capable of advanced cardiovascular surgery, and those are now largely unusable, if they haven’t been literally torn down.

        Absent welfare, those populations–in both Mexico and Africa–would collapse. If the ones already here were forced to compete with Europeans in a climate that didn’t include affirmative action and preferential criminal-justice treatment, they would crash. Consider that around 80% of the black population in America can’t feed itself without EBT cards. Take those away, and they’re starving to death in less than a generation (or, more likely, being shot by police in less than a year, as they try to loot the last remaining inner-city grocer). The numbers are better for Hispanics, but not very.


  3. Your scenario of white loss of influence assumes that fully race-aware and self-interested white people will try to contest for dominance evenly across what is now the United States. Percentages could be quite different if there is continent-wide white flight to specific areas & a dissolution of the U.S., either openly or de facto.


  4. Is skin color really the issue here or is it more about culture? I think white people who don’t identify with being racist are still more accepting of brown, black, or asian people who share their belief in Football and Hamburgers.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s