Have I been threatening to hide under my desk, weeping, more than usual lately? Because it so often seems like an appropriate response.

It's easy to prove that nothing ever changes, that nothing can ever change, but if you think back you realize that things are changing all the time, and sometimes, even for the better.

The first part was more convincing. I don't see how demographics doesn't force some sort of change from the current coalitions at some point. Unless the Republicans can somehow get elected without majority support.

I don't see how demographics doesn't force some sort of change from the current coalitions at some point.

Burke's fellow optimist Kotsko had a thing about this recently.

I agree that free market fundamentalism is, like militarism, almost certainly going to be part of the consensus regardless of any realignments. Unless I'm misreading him, Burke seems to think that the current political divisions will be retained (across most issues), and any hope of a demographic influence is as unfounded as the hope that liberals will all move to Canada, leaving behind a conservative paradise.

4:The Kotsko has a link in comments to a Jacobin piece by James Livingston that is the kind of thing I actually enjoy reading. Livingston is popular over at USIH.

Yves Smith posted today a piece by Lynn Parramore:"Why Can't Democrats Talk to Southern White Males" that gets a lot of pushback in the comment section.

I am not a Southern White Male. Rustbelt all the way. I have been noticing more African-Americans on my block, with the Latinos I barely see any whites anymore.

The blacks are probably moving back to this downscale neighborhood, having been foreclosed in the new developments, their hopes dreams futures and possibilities for their kids smashed by Geithner and Obama.

How long have we been hearing predictions of the impending demographic collapse of the Republicans, anyway? Certainly The Emerging Democratic Majority (2002), probably much earlier. I thought earlier this year it might show itself with Republicans revolting over Romney, but if we've learned anything it's that nihilism conquers all. Very much an "in the long run we're all dead" thing, or as good as.

Even if it does happen, it might in retrospect not seem that big a thing. It happened in California, but things stayed dire because of minority veto power and majority tax-resistance, and I suspect the same would operate through different mechanisms at the federal level.

Suppose Republicans collapse and then recover by capturing enough of the Latino vote. Yes, that probably means we'd see better immigration policy and less racism, but I don't see how it would alleviate the basic splits over economic policy, women's rights, etc.. We will need to be girded for mostly the same battles for a long time to come. Or until the waters rise, at least.

The fact that nobody was selling coffee to the freezing New Yorkers on line to vote this morning is the most convincing refutation of free market fundamentalism I have ever experienced.

I think the idea of demographic doom for the GOP is so persistent because, in addition to its obvious appeal ("The problem will solve itself!"), it just seems so logical. Shouldn't a party that is basically dedicated to pissing on everyone except 40+ aged white men eventually have troubled attracting enough supporters to stay viable?

It never seems to work out that way, though.

Argh. Very cheery. You can add to the causes for pessimism the fact that almost all successful popular movements from below in American history have involved some form of criminal activity. The authoritarian machinery we have put in domestically makes even nonviolent forms of disobedience harder and more punishing. (I appreciate Bob but have not joined his party; I am no fan of blood in the streets but think of e.g. the GM sit-down strikes. A matter for Homeland Security today).

But there's still room for the right kind of incrementalist politics to make a real difference. I guess I have to believe that, but I do. Making union organizing easier, building a consensus for gradually ramping down Empire (while retaining the firepower to destroy the planet of course), opening up new revenue sources beyond the 'Clinton-era tax rates for $250K+' which is insufficient, and something something global warming. Those would make a big difference and don't seem like crazy utopian dreams although who knows, maybe they are in our current system...

The issue with the demographic solution is that the more the Democrats get identified with minorities/immigrants/women the bigger the Republican advantage among white males gets. Straight identity politics, sort of disconnected from actual policy at this point.

I do actually believe that this next four year cycle is when the old white man constituency will fundamentally fall apart for the GOP.

Chrysler giving all workers the day off. That's kind of neat.

McMahon dirty tricks in CT, wow.

13.1: Romney will call it a temporary layoff.

12: I've mentioned this before, but shouldn't it be possible to quantify that, to figure out state by state when elections would start flipping based on demographic change?
13.2: Oh?

McMahon dirty tricks in CT, wow.

She hit Murphy with a folding chair when his back was turned.

13.2: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/linda-mcmahon-pulls-out-dirty-tricks-election-day

12: I'm putting that in my commenter-predictions file.

That's not really a seriously dirty trick. Sketchy, but endorsing the other party's presidential candidate and running away from your own party is more disloyal than actually deceptive. (I mean, someone could be confused into thinking she was the Democratic candidate, but they'd have to be ripe for confusion.)

||

And my office has heat again! Or, I'm told that it has heat. I wouldn't know it by direct perception yet.

|>

19: Well she is on the ballot as the Independent Party in addition to Rep. But yes, I was willing to go with "Good Bad news for John McCain Mitt Romney angle.

but shouldn't it be possible to quantify that, to figure out state by state when elections would start flipping based on demographic change?

I feel like I've read this sort of thing with respect to Texas, at least.

Frex, this claims that Texas will be a swing state around 2020. (Latino turnout is much lower in Texas than nationwide.)

"Shirts designed to resemble those worn by SEIU organizers" seems very... quaint. I mean, it might have an impact, but if that were the scale of the dirty tricks going on, I'd be happy as a pig in clover.

Great posts; I love Burke (though sometimes I'm in more of a McManus mood). Of course, splitting up the country into five or so smaller nations would help immensely (particularly with the empire problem).

Same with the faux-ballot. Not illegal, not precisely untrue, just deceptive. The kind of trick that is allowed in a world with laws and norms.

14: Good Times! Ain't we lucky we got 'em?

Thank you. That was just hanging there and I couldn't move on until somebody did that.

I guess I'm pretty much 99% in agreement with Burke. I don't believe that significant change can come from electoral politics. I think though that what we DO see in US history is that much greater changes can occur as an adjunct of electoral politics than directly within them. The Civil Rights movement, for instance, was based in large part around demands for voting rights, but the struggle wound up changing the nature of US race relations on a number of levels.

The Three Most Important Factors In US Politics:
1. Oil
2. Oil
3. Oil

It all depends on how quickly Republicans can turn around and welcome Hispanics. Burke is right that all sorts of other fundamental divides will continue to exist in our society, most importantly, the divide between the extremely wealthy and everyone else. The 1% will remain a huge base of power for the Republican Party.

But the Republicans will be at a temporary disadvantage while they try to bring in Hispanics and lose the racist goon portion of their constituency. (What hardcore racist goons do when they give up on electoral politics is another matter.) The demographic shift isn't victory. It is a small window of opportunity.

I don't know how this is going to work out, but I have a hard time picturing how a Republican rhetoric works that's really not about racism at all. They need to have some reason for not using the government to help working-class people, and that's always been racism -- without that, there's a real risk that they'll tip the working-class into voting their economic interests.

When I put it this way, it sounds as if I'm convinced that everything is going to be great in just a couple of years, and I'm certainly not sanguine. But I'm really interested in how the Republican party is going to handle the change.

Somehow Hispanics have to become white in order to make it into the Republican coalition. It's possible but a bit tricky since Hispanic includes a bunch of decidedly brownish people.

The 1% will remain a huge base of power for the Republican Party.

People keep saying this, but I haven't seen billionaires successfully buying themselves elected office that often. Huffington, Whitman, Romney and his backers. They spend a lot, but they don't win. Fame seems to work, but money not as much.

Bloomberg, Corzine. It works sometimes.

Somehow Hispanics have to become white in order to make it into the Republican coalition.

They could use the strategy outlined in How the Irish Became White.

Hispanic is a very fuzzy-at-the-edges category, of course. Matt Yglesias is going to be treated as white by most measure, regardless of Cuban ancestry, and Sally and Newt certainly know some blue-eyed kids who play hockey (okay, there's only two hockey players) and are nonetheless Latino. So a Republican coalition could absorb a lot of Latinos without becoming non-racist, if they were focused on skin-color rather than identification-as-Latino.

36: Yglesias is a special case because he's Jewish. Jew trumps all other ethnic identities except black.

Burke strikes me as making a pretty banal point: The likely paths of change are incremental. Reagan needed W to makes many of his dreams into reality, but he is still correctly lionized by the Tea Party types.

but I have a hard time picturing how a Republican rhetoric works that's really not about racism at all.

You need to get out more.

It can work the way it works in almost every other country in the world, including very homogenous ones.

"Pork for you, taxes on them. Vote for me."

American exceptionalism is such a bore.

Thankod this seems to be satire. It was hard to tell at first, such similar stuff is out there.

It all depends on how quickly Republicans can turn around and welcome Hispanics.

You can almost certainly bank on Marco Rubio being the next GOP frontrunner.

Can anyone name me a country which has racial minorities larger than in the low single digits where racism isn't a big theme on the right? Not France, not Germany, not Switzerland.

41 Jeb's probably a better choice for Latino outreach. Rubio is Cuban.

42: You create or designate an "other" in order to make 39 work, and avoid nationalizing/generalizing issues which can create solidarity.

Catholics vs Protestants worked in Europe for centuries.
Worked several times in America.

42 is trying to create an "other" for the purpose of an efficient politics. Fine, I understand, you can't have anything approaching a politics without a "them."

36, 37: No, no, look at the dude's last name, it's all weird 'n' shit -- that trumps Jewishness. Bill Richardson is the model for how Latinos can be white. Also, Jews who share surnames with pre-WW2 German immigrants are provisionally white.

Back when I was a kid, the fight was against "racism" and liberals had to do stuff like the War on Poverty, Affirmative Action, Civil Rights Act.

Now the battle is against "racists" and all Obama and Democrats have to do is humiliate the designated bigots.

Real cheap politics.

It was 68 degrees with a 64 heat index (low dewpoint and humidity). UV was 4, wind from the W at 7 mph. Dogs deserved a walk, so went down to the school, and pulled a straight "D" like every other time since 1972. Fuck it, fuck it all. I don't know why, its all a fucking joke. Why not. Pissed and depressed no matter what I did.

But then I cried.

You don't have to believe me, and I hope nobody says anything.

Here is the James Livingston from Kotsko's that I liked so much.

JL takes the opposite tack from me, in that he says the culture wars and social issues should have priority over economic contention. He also says we all should try to maximize consumption.

OTOH, what is interesting is how close in starting position he is to the communisation crowd, in that he says the Revolution has happened and that socialism, imperfect and incomplete, is already here.

And his mottoes "Against Thrift" and "Fuck Work" are very similar to to tiqqun/TC position of ceasing to produce, both commodity production and social reproduction (Don't Organize! It only creates a product and target) as a disruption to post-capitalism.

Yes, it's hard to explain, but the Euro-Left are twenty years of theory past the squatters. Like embracing precarity.

Precarization as Political Constituting ...Isabell Lorey 2010

My credibility is shot to hell now anyway.