mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
demographic transformation
America’s Majority-Minority Future Approaches
Features Icon
show comments
  • Anthony

    “Much of the fire fueling Trump’s populist campaign comes from those who fear mass immigration is changing the racial and ethnic balance of America in ways that will leave them marginalized and powerless….”

    Well, WRM, that’s part of the conventional wisdom (anecdotal perhaps) reportage but let’s put some data (stats) to what you identify as a monster not to be underestimated. That is, go here:

    • M Snow

      Interesting link. Thanks

  • rheddles

    Much of the fire fueling Trump’s populist campaign comes from those who
    fear mass immigration is changing the racial and ethnic balance of
    America in ways that will leave them marginalized and powerless in a
    country that used to be theirs.

    Wrong! It comes from those who understand that the imposition by the establishment of multiculturalism means we have to accept immigrants and their progeny who won’t assimilate because we no longer believe in the superiority of our culture. If they want to immigrate to become Americans, as many, if not most, do, we should welcome them. In my experience enthusiastic immigrants know more about the history and philosophy of America than many natives and are truly happy to be here. But if they just want to recreate the place they came from here, return should be made attractive.

    Throughout its history, American society has been tolerant of and even
    supportive of the identity politics of various minority groups, from the
    Irish and Italians a century ago to Hispanics and Asians today.

    Funny, lots of my friends whose families came from those places don’t recall that tolerant and supportive reception. Might have been the No Irish Need Apply signs.

    • Hateful Heretic

      Liberals: “We need to marginalize the evil white male and strip him of his power!”
      White males: “I’d rather not be marginalized or disenfranchised, thanks.”
      Liberals: “Hahahaha, you are so stupid for thinking you will be marginalized and powerless!”

    • Jim__L

      And yet, now everyone enjoys St. Patrick’s Day. I suspect my grandchildren will participate in Holi celebrations every year. What kids wouldn’t love a holiday where everyone gets together wearing white clothes to throw brightly colored dyes at each other?

      As for the quote, here’s how I see it:

      “Much of the fire fueling the Democrats’ anti-white campaign comes from those who fear (what’s left of) white privilege will leave them marginalized and powerless in the country they find themselves in.”

      It’s the Democrats who are stoking paranoia.

  • dwk67

    One major party constantly trumpets what America supposedly owes to the rest of the world for all its horrible past misdeeds and how we will bend over backwards to accomodate anyone who wants to come and ride the American gravy train, so how can anyone whose forbears had to work hard and struggle to prove their worth in America possibly welcome this current posterior smooch-fest and the entitled mentality that springs forth from it? The current immigration ideology does nothing but fan the flames of resentment from those new to America as well as those who’ve been here for generations. The ensuing Balkanization is deliberate and traitorously manipulative of the American population and history will look back on this era as a truly despicable one as a result….

  • QET

    If you see a rise in “white identity politics,” it won’t be for the simple reason that there are more non-whites here now than ever before, but because each non-white identity group specifically, purposefully and belligerently targets whites for blame, shame, disparagement, and aggression. It is not the mere presence of non-white populations, but their actions, or, rather, the actions of a dedicated subset of each of them, that produce the phenomenon. White identity politics had effectively died off in this country until the Left realized it could not cohere without it and so dug up its corpse, like Cromwell’s, so it could publicly execute it.

    The old Soviet-era quip is entirely appropriate to the situation of whites in the US today: you may not be interested in racial identity politics, but racial identity politics is interested in you!

    • Anthony

      Now so-called white identity politics has never died down (though you qualify phrase with “rise’) in America; its categorical inclusiveness expanded since country’s settlement and made for some the idea more cherished (primarily because construct has had fluidity incorporating previously excluded “whites” – Italians, Jews, Eastern Europeans, et al into the rising category). That said, charging an amorphous left with responsibility for nativism, groupism (political hives) or the phenomenon discounts human inclination towards self-interest – now I am in no way dismissing our ability to transcend self-interest and lose ourselves in something larger (American Greed perhaps) than ourselves. Humans if I may (of whatever color you choose to designate) have a groupish overlay (not necessarily induced by left or right). Under the right (which I trust you will work to enable), the American task (not left or right per se) remains finding (utilizing) the right mechanisms to enhance, sustain, and facilitate outside-group coordination and cooperation – no one says such is easy. Soviet sloganeering is convenient when it lends to point of view but America is not Russia (as Soviet Union of which you refer exist no more).

      “We are conditional hive creatures (we want to fit in with the prevailing group or the way it votes). We are likely to mirror and then sympathize with others when they have conformed to our moral matrix than when they have violated it.” This may be left/right for some (or some other) but in a country of 320 million the force of segmenting ourselves against other people benefits whom – fear, resentment, anxiety, constructed identity.

      • QET

        To the extent I can understand what you’re saying, I reply thus: (i) I disagree with you about white identity politics not having died down. I believe it to be inarguable that exactly the reverse is true. (ii) the Left, in its activist, politics-driving manifestations, is not amorphous at all. It has a very apparent, discernible form. I have read enough of your comments to know that you do not believe the Left/Right categories are useful as analytical tools. Obviously I disagree with you there, as well. (iii) We live our lives in very particular social configurations that cannot be readily understood solely by the most abstract truths concerning human beings generally. The actual manifestation of eternal human qualities is different in every age, and we who live in that age must, when engaged in politics, address ourselves to that specific manifestation. I do not for one moment deny the truth of your description of generic humanity, only its sufficiency as a guide to real politics (as opposed, say, to political theory). (iv) your mention of the enormity of this country’s population is apt. Political unification of such a large number cannot be achieved except coercively. People are different and want to remain different, and differing morals are part of that difference that people do not (usually) willingly give up. The United States long ago ceased being a unity, a whole, and became an aggregate. The Left (yes, I said it) has worked diligently for over a century to undermine the idea of “American” that we tell ourselves bound together the early generations of Americans into a union. It is absolutely the case that blacks, historically, were never properly acknowledged to be a part of that union. But the method of the Left has been to attack the principles of that union rather than, or in addition to, the principles by which blacks were excluded from it. It is the Left that has sought to drive blacks further away from all things “American” rather than working to bring them within its compass. And the example of African-Americans has for the Left been a model; it has inspired the rest of the non-African-American population to pattern their identities after that one: the identity of being a distinct minority, unappreciated, unloved, excluded; and their analysis after that of black race writers: that they are actively oppressed, by some Other. The Left has encouraged this disintegration into discrete political quanta which, far from embracing what has been traditionally understood to be “American,” purposefully, deliberately, turn their backs on it and refuse, out of principle, to participate in it.

        In other words, the politics of the Left absolutely require an Enemy, and where one does not exist they do not hesitate to construct one. How else to account for all of the many recent examples of racism hoaxes and college rape hoaxes, just to name two? One might argue that these represent a minuscule quantity compared to the instances of “real” racism and rape, but what one cannot argue is that they are uncritically adopted by, they receive immediate and sustained publicity from, an actively complicit Left media apparatus (which apparatus today extends to social media networks which we now know actively suppress and disparage all right-of-center viewpoints on our most pressing political questions). So it is my contention that the so-called “white identity politics” of the so-called Alt-Right, a/k/a Trump supporters, is not a natural phenomenon, is not a recrudescence of the white racism of the 1880s, 1920s or 1950s, but is a pure production, an intentional production and a theoretically and practically necessary production, of the active Left political element.

        • Anthony

          qet, you wrote extensively but quite unnecessarily. The construct is indeed a construct (we’ve been here before and there’s no need to retread covered ground) whether you are inclined to belief is unimportant as we disagree. Our view regarding left/right is equally known between us so ditto; now the philosophical context though understood misses point of my reply and extends beyond your cry of white identity and its conditional reformation.

          No offense intended (as I respect your input) but I did not read all but briskly reviewed key words. At bottom, we humans produce rationales that we believe account for our judgments (as a human I certainly am not exempt) but the rationales may sometimes be ex post rationalizations – despite configurations. Simply, my initial response is Trump neutral as well ethnicity neutral – I was and am addressing an artifice.

      • Jim__L

        What you’re advocating (if I understand your post properly) is assimilation.

        If “Studies” programs concentrated on assimilating to American culture (bringing some of one’s own culture along too), then that would be one thing. Italians, Jews, Eastern Europeans — and to some degree Asians nowadays — were concerned with not looking “fresh off the boat”. My own ancestors also decided “we’re in America now, our children will learn English and not the language we used to speak.”

        The successful assimilation you describe requires this sort of attitude. The Left requires Balkanization, which is diametrically opposed to it.

        If the Left triumphs — or even comes close so that the victory over the Left is Pyrrhic — America will destroy itself.

        • Anthony
          • Jim__L

            It was amusing to read Yascha working herself (himself?) into tizzy over all this.

            Institutions have no claim to the adjectives “democratic” or “liberal” if they make a point of paying no attention to the voices of the populations they represent and the liberties (speech, religion, etc) that those populations want.

            Seriously, Yascha is surprised that “Across North America and Western Europe, the number of citizens who say that it is important to live in a democracy is shrinking”? Has he ever considered that when the government turns against your religion, your culture, and everyone of your color or gender (if you happen to be a white guy), that it doesn’t feel like there’s much reason to support for what passes for “democracy” these days?

          • Anthony

            I think you are echoing his point: “we are entering (perhaps) a new political era – one in which popular support for core institutions of liberal democracy can no longer be taken for granted.” Regarding your specific queries, he can be reached at New America (Yascha Mounk).

  • circleglider

    Throughout its history, American society has been tolerant of and even supportive of the identity politics of various minority groups, from the Irish and Italians a century ago to Hispanics and Asians today. This tradition has been good for the country, overall, in that it has encouraged assimilation while making our society more dynamic. But if we are moving toward “majority-minority” status in many states and localities, we should probably expect to see a rise in white identity politics as well. It’s hard to argue that this would similarly salutary, or that the balkanization of American society along racial and ethnic lines will make the country a better place.

    I honestly don’t understand how anyone with even a minimal level of intellectual integrity could write this paragraph. Either identity politics is “good for the country” or it isn’t. The identity of the group practicing it simply can’t determine its value.And throughout the rest of human history, “identity politics” is called tribalism.

    • Herb

      It is quite simple if you understand the basic leftist formual:

      Non-white good, white bad.

      So, non-white identity politics good, white identity politics bad.

      Actually, there has been a push to create white identity but the expectation was it would be an identity of guilt (see academic “whiteness studies” programs). Anyone who expected that knows nothing about human nature, however, and having got what they wanted they are falling back on the color version of the Animal Farm motto.

  • FriendlyGoat

    Many, if not most, of the real elites of America are in the same party as the so-called monster.

    • CapitalHawk

      Well, I don’t like Hillary that much either, but calling her a monster is a bit over the top.

      • FriendlyGoat

        See last paragraph of the article for awkward definition of the monster I am referring to.

        • CapitalHawk

          I see that and I presume you are trying to say the Republican Party (a) is full of racists and (b) has most of the elites in America in it. I would agree that most white racists are in the Republican Party, while most racists of other colors are in the Democratic Party. As to the elites, I guess we don’t agree on what are “elites”. I think there are probably four or five kinds of elites in a country – political; military; financial; business; media and entertainment. Political – probably evenly split between R and D. Military – Leans R. Financial – Split. Business – leans D. Media and entertainment – strongly D. Overall, I think there are more “elites” in the Democratic Party than the Republican.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I have one definition of “elite”—–makes or has enough wealth to be above the concerns which bedevil those who must constantly worry about how to “get by”. I believe there are more of those folks in the GOP camp than in the Dem camp, although we possibly do have an overweight of those wealthy from entertainment businesses.

          • Tom

            That explains a lot–your definition of elite is almost specifically structured to not include anyone who isn’t independently wealthy.
            As to your assessment of the entertainment industry, don’t make me laugh–if they actually thought that way you wouldn’t be able to figure out who the real villain was in a work by figuring out who the most stereotypically right-wing character is. A far more likely explanation is that actors, being in a business based purely on appearance, are much more inclined to believe that appearance is reality.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I never mind making you laugh. It’s not just actors in roles. It is also musicians, authors, athletes, and anyone who performs for money. Most of them know who is paying and they would like to pay back with something other than, “look, little person, if you weren’t a lazy bum, you’d get a job”. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

          • Tom

            Not really. I realize this is difficult for you to comprehend, but most people don’t like being insulted whenever they turn on their televisions or radios. That’s why liberals don’t listen to Limbaugh, and why conservatives tend to dislike Matt Damon.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Watching old (old) re-runs is a good way to do TV. Most of those are much lighter and they’re free. With radio, stay off the AM dial.

          • Jim__L

            AM 740 in the Bay Area is mostly useless, I’ll admit.

          • Boritz

            Your explanation of the mindset of entertainers strikes me as accurate when discussing the struggling, low end of the industry. For the elite entertainers I think there is a different explanation.
            If you asked Rush Limbaugh if he really truly believes he is worth a five year, $400M+ contract he would give a very simple answer. Yes. Because the willingness of the market to pay that = he is worth it. Being a capitalist at heart as well as in practice he really believes that and would graciously apply the same standard to people he doesn’t particularly care for like Tom Cruise and people he really, really doesn’t care for like Barbara Streisand who he refers to as “BS”. Cruise and Streisand being the anti-capitalists they are at heart if not in deed don’t accept this explanation at all. They believe, no, they know that their careers are shambolic, a lie, and posing. Their lifestyle of $20M paychecks for a few months work flys in the face of the income inequality problem they want to see solved yet they are among the worst offenders in existence. In short they are eaten up with guilt at how easy it is for them to make their money. Brando, one of the great actors of all time ,carried the additional shame of believing that acting wasn’t appropriate, manly work for a real guy. Interviewers found it extremely difficult to get him to talk about acting because he really wanted to keep his tormented thoughts about the whole thing to himself. Limbaugh by contrast sleeps like a baby.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I was speaking of the entertainers who are exhibiting a sense of economic empathy for “everyone else” and why they might be doing so. Rush Limbaugh is not in that group and never has been. We are acutely aware that he has a high opinion of himself and his market value while seriously damaging a whole country, maybe even a whole planet.
            We would probably draw a negative reaction from Rush to even call him an entertainer. I believe he sees himself as an oracle and some kind of an educator—–“Talent on Loan From Gawd”, as I recall.

          • GSR

            I get the impression you spend way too much time thinking about Limbaugh. Why?
            Yes, he’s biased to the right but nearly all other media is biased to the left. Do you equally complain about that?

          • FriendlyGoat

            Just like I now visit conservative written commentary to stay abreast of its content and impact, I actually listened to Rush many times while driving here and there many years ago. I listened enough to form my own opinions of his “shtick” and “business model”. I think he has developed “addicts” and I think back to my own travels and the “wonder what Rush is thinking today?” curiosity which can pop in the minds of people situated to have their radios on while working or otherwise doing something (in my case driving). Even I found myself thinking that and have no problem UNDERSTANDING how he has held the attention of so many for so long.

            The thing is, I think that his regulars will have been altered and changed away from normal human empathy by their daily (daily) experience with him. It is not a good thing to allow ones’ self to be made coarse and callous from dwelling on the daily three-hour rant. In the case of Rush addicts, the AM dial is on all day and there are a parade of shows all pretty-much on the same theme—manipulating minds. Leaving that radio on all day could take what used to be a church Christian and turn him or her into a full-time hater. It’s my opinion that talk radio has done that with perhaps millions of people, and, no, except for the very small audience that might be watching MSNBC all day, I don’t the left in media has any real equivalent.

          • Jim__L

            The people who want to get by are supporting Trump in large numbers.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Trump supporters never knew what hit them. Still don’t.

          • Jim__L

            Strictly speaking, not much will “hit” until he wins the presidency.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I’m of the opinion that high-end tax cuts started hitting the opportunities of workers beginning in 1978 and the negative effect has been gaining steam for almost four decades. Trump supporters and other Republicans think more high-end tax cuts will increase their value in the marketplace for workers. The opposite has been occurring and will continue to occur. As for Trump, he has not won yet and there are many paths to why he probably won’t.

          • Angel Martin

            College and university academics and administrators – 100 percent D.

          • Jim__L

            Financial leans heavily D, with a few L’s here and there.

  • Dude1394

    I have to disagree with your attempt to racialize trump supporters. What this trump supporter at least sees is a country that has become lawless, accepting of corruption and rewarding those that are in the know or the good club. It also hates religion, hates anyone who has different opinions and is forcing more and more groupthink on the country. The media is corrupt and in the game, the large corporations are now in the game ( it is amazing that the actions of these corporations would have been decried by democrats in the past ) by promoting a one-sided politic and culture.

    There are so many things that many trump supporters are attempting to change that your trivializing it to racial identity is pretty lazy.

    • SDN

      Corporations are in business to make money. If going along with Fascism lets them do that, the generation raised to view morality as useless will.

  • Jim Dahmus

    What a foolish article. When were immigrants ever supported by the majority of people already here? Irish and Italians were discriminated against for decades until they were assimilated, as were every other group who came. And the majority of people now who resist immigration do so against those who have no interest in assimilating. Why should we be in favor of allowing unlimited numbers of people to come here who don’t believe in equality, don’t believe in democracy, and don’t believe in the rule of law? What kind of idiots would favor that kind of immigration? Finally, what do you think the Iroquois or the Comanche or Sioux would do if they had the ability to go back in time and warn their ancestors about the dangers of unlimited immigration?

    • Jim__L

      How about the Hellenic Greeks who used to live in what is now Turkey?

      Genocide follows too often when this sort of immigration is not opposed.

  • pca2002

    Could not be more off base. We don’t oppose mass immigration because the immigrants aren’t white and will change the ethnic makeup of the country. We are opposed to mass immigration done without any vetting, without having any idea who is coming or why, as well as the mass immigration of people who have no intention of joining the American melting pot.
    Our current immigration policy under Obama is not to have one. That’s where the anger comes from.

    • GSR

      Ah, many of us do oppose non-White, non-Western foreigners settling here. But this is all happening by plan. The government and business elites have wanted it for decades.

  • Hateful Heretic

    Black identity politics: “good for the country, overall.”
    Hispanic identity politics: “good for the country, overall.”
    Muslim identity politics: “good for the country, overall.”
    White identity politics: “hard to argue that this would [be] similarly salutary”

    So “pro-diversity” really is just code for “anti-white.” How about that.

    • Jim__L

      Try not to accuse people of Dog Whistle Politics — remember, if you can hear the whistle, you’re the dog.

  • Chance Boudreaux

    if the “immigrants” would assimilate it probably wouldn’t be a problem, but most don’t. Add to that the happy tune of these “end of White America” stories and whites feel put upon. There is no Magic Dirt. Importing Third Worlders leads to a Third World America.

  • Donald Campbell

    Personally, I fear mass immigration because there is no control or screening (note the rise of ‘eradicated’ diseases in the USA) and the simple fact that breaking the law to illegally enter the country is *not* a good start for future American ‘citizens’. Unwillingness to learn English is bad, but demanding we provide information in their language is beyond the pale. “Press 1 for English” is a low-level annoyance, but collectively, how much time does America waste for this ‘accommodation’?

    • Jim__L

      We’d waste less time and money providing English classes to those in need. Many charities do this already.

  • Angel Martin

    the forced change in American demography was deliberate, and started when Democrats realized they were having more and more trouble getting real Americans to vote for them. So they decided to import their majorities from the third world. At first legally (1965 Immigration Act) and now illegally – unenforced southern border and “amnesty”.

  • elHombre

    Unchecked immigration is an illegal Democrat voter registration drive.

  • ToursLepantoVienna

    “Much of the fire fueling Trump’s populist campaign comes from those who fear mass immigration is changing the racial and ethnic balance of America in ways that will leave them marginalized and powerless in a country that used to be theirs.”

    That is the opinion of the pompous political elite.

    Many of us fear that the white people who built mankind’s crowning glory – western civilization – are being replaced by people whose decrepit homelands demonstrate their inferiority, to the detriment of historically white nations.

    The notion that America’s success is strictly a function of its founding documents, and not primarily attributable to its founding people, is monumentally obtuse.

  • GSR

    It’s too late and mainstream neocons like WRM are never going to get it.

    Race/ethnicity/culture do matter. That’s why the British and the Germans and the Japanese are so successful and Kenyans and Mexicans not so much.

    There is no “magic dirt”. The US was founded by White, Judeo-Christian Brits and West Europeans. Change the population to a brown one and you’ll get brown results.

    But as I said, it’s too late. This is want the left elites have wanted for decades. They, including the UN, have thought the USA was too White, too free and too wealthy. Who are you to have a single family home and two cars?

    Dissolution of the USA into smaller, “culturally homogenous” nations is one possible solution.

  • delta 5297

    “But if we are moving toward “majority-minority” status in many states and localities, we should probably expect to see a rise in white identity politics as well.”

    This is a true disappointment. Yes, white Americans were here first (well not counting the Native Americans) and yes the country used to be “theirs”, but that also means that whites of all people should have absorbed the values that this country stands for…and their support for Donald Trump clearly shows that they haven’t. Also the idea that whites are being “left marginalized and powerless” is hogwash. Equality means just that, equality, it does not mean reverse discrimination. If the day should ever come where whites are discriminated against, such discrimination must be put to an end, just as discrimination against other people had to be stopped. But as of the present, “reverse discrimination” is not a reality, it is a paranoid delusion.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service