The Strange Destiny Of Demographics

The 2024 election upends prior notions of how racial politics will work in a diverse America

“Demographics are destiny” is a widely-held view in American politics. Lonely voices on the Dissident Right predicted that rapid demographic change would doom the Republican Party as the Democrats would embrace a solidified rainbow coalition against white America. But these conditions would offer some hope to conservatives. According to this theory, demographic change and rising anti-white racism would force whites to act as a unified ethnic group and counter the minority coalition at the ballot box. The GOP could seize this opportunity simply if they championed identity politics–for whites. 

Mainstream figures shared this belief in demography but made different conclusions. Liberals saw America’s increasing diversity as a political gift that could give them a permanent political majority. Establishment conservatives, like the Dissident Right, saw this phenomenon as a death sentence for their party. But they didn’t feel this situation called for white identity politics. Quite the opposite. Many “cuckservatives” felt the answer was for the GOP to pass amnesty and pander more to minorities. More populist types argued that the party needed to advocate for “economic populism” to win over the “multiracial working class.”

Donald Trump’s victory last week upended these predictions. The former president won the biggest victory for the GOP since the 1980s with an authoritarian, anti-immigration message. His largest gains weren’t among whites; it was with non-whites, a group to whom he neither offered amnesty nor wonky economic populism. Instead, he offered nativism and absolute hostility toward liberals, who he deemed communists in this election. While whites head to minority status and face more discrimination, they aren’t moving towards group solidarity. Trump received less of the white vote in 2024 than he did in 2016. America’s primary political divide remains between whites, not between whites and non-whites. Non-whites (with the exception of blacks) choose sides on this divide rather than form their own coalition against whites.

The election calls for a reassessment of demography’s destiny and what it means for America’s political future.

The clearest takeaway is that Republicans should give up past notions of how to win over minorities. Following Mitt Romney’s loss in 2012, the party establishment and Conservative Inc. both determined that Republicans must take up amnesty, criminal justice reform, and other methods of pandering to have any hope in future elections. The election autopsy stressed that the party must present a tolerant, kindly face to America’s minorities and ditch any hint of racial insensitivity. Trump’s 2016 campaign blew up these plans, but the old guard still stuck to them. They worried that their new leader would forever ruin them with racial minorities.

That’s no longer a tenable belief after last week’s results. Trump won 46 percent of Hispanics, 39 percent of Asians, and 21 percent of black men with an anti-immigration message that stressed law and order. Trump didn’t hold back on this topic. He argued that migrants were eating our pets and poisoning our blood with drugs. He said many of them have bad genes that make them criminals. While Romney apologized for the milquetoast suggestion of “self-deportation,” Trump touted mass deportations at every possible moment. The convention even handed out signs declaring: MASS DEPORTATIONS NOW. Reports show that many of these non-whites voted for Trump because of this nationalist message, not in spite of it.

The election was also a defeat for fans of the respectable definition of multiracial populism. For Sohrab Ahmari, American Compass, and others, the future of the GOP was combining left-wing economics with social conservatism that avoided the identity issues and Trump’s vitriol. Trump’s campaign wasn’t this version of populism. He stuck to the identity issues and the vitriol over economic wonkery. Much of his economic message, besides trade, was in-keeping with traditional conservative concerns about low taxes and regulations. He even brought out billionaires like Elon Musk to campaign for him. Musk was arguably the second-most popular man among the MAGA faithful. His strong aversion to unions, regulation, and taxes makes Elon almost an antichrist to economic populists. Yet, Trump’s coalition loved him. 

Trump’s coalition seemed to prize free enterprise and getting the government off their backs. What united them was a desire to deport all illegal immigrants and crack down on criminals. This is better seen as multiracial nativism than multiracial populism.

It’s abundantly clear Democrats aren’t getting their permanent political majority from changing demographics. Both liberals and white nationalists felt that non-whites would form a unified coalition against whites. Both were mistaken. Rather than being the party of all minorities, Democrats are seen as the party for illegal immigrants, blacks, and AWFLs (affluent white female liberals). This is not an attractive reputation to many Hispanics and Asians. Neither group benefits from reparations or criminal justice reform. In fact, they both would have to pay for reparations and suffer the consequences from letting criminals out of jail. Illegal immigrants take their jobs and housing  and then they have to foot the bill for it. Asians are particularly hard hit by affirmative action, while Hispanics don’t gain as much from it as blacks do. 

A majority of both groups still voted Democratic for a variety of reasons, but they are too divided to make liberals happy. The divisions among Asians and Hispanics align with the divisions among whites. Those who identify with either blacks or affluent white liberals vote Democratic; those who align with Middle American whites vote Republican. Unlike blacks, Asians and Hispanics don’t operate as monolithic groups. 

That’s especially true for whites. Even though anti-white racism is at an all-time high and the Great Replacement is felt in small towns throughout the country, whites aren’t starting to turn into a solid ethnic bloc. Class and partisanship still divides them. Real-world whites aren’t advocating for themselves on an explicitly racial basis. Trump’s policies will undoubtedly help whites. Restricting immigration, curbing affirmative action, and eliminating DEI are all “pro-white” ideas. But Trump didn’t advocate for them as explicitly pro-white. He simply said these ideas are great for America, which apparently worked.

Some aren’t satisfied with this implicit white identitarianism. Despite Trump’s huge victory on a staunchly right-wing platform, a number of “dissident” voices complained that the next president didn’t specifically thank whites for his win. While it would be nice if Trump gave more shout-outs to whites, the reason he doesn’t is that it sounds strange to whites to do so. For better or for worse, whites wince at signs of explicit racial identification. They would be weirded out if Trump said “Thank you whites.” The only people who demand such notice are online nationalists who have an odd tendency to marry non-white women. It’s not a constituency in the offline realm. 

There is a racial element to this, but it’s not a stark divide between white and non-white. It’s rather a conflict between those who think whites suck and those who think whites are good. Anti-whiteness vs. pro-whiteness, in effect. We aren’t moving to the post-racial utopia promised by Barack Obama. It’s a more complicated picture that will likely become clearer over time. 

Whatever happens, many Americans will want to live in a country where immigration is controlled, crime is punished, merit is rewarded, reparations aren’t made, and the historic American nation is celebrated. 

America’s increasing diversity will create many problems, much of which will require answers from the cultural and social spheres. But it will not mean a political death sentence for the Right.