democrats win whites in 2040.
Predicting the big switch.
The White Nationalist “Sailer Strategy,” promoted by Sam Francis, Tucker Carlson, and Ann Coulter, posits that non-white immigrants will never vote Republican, and will always vote Democrat.
Racial de-polarization, by contrast, predicts that blacks and Hispanics will stop voting Democrat, and finally go Republican. However, it also means that whites will (once again) begin to vote for Democrats.
Hispanic culture bends towards the norm of South Texas, and white culture bends towards the norm of Vermont. Hispanics assimilate into working-class white culture, while whites are becoming more educated, secular, and liberal. Education and ideology will surpass racial identification in determining party coalitions.
To help understand how such monumental shifts are possible, let us examine historical political realignments.
Catholics, Blacks, and Southerners
White Catholics voted Democratic on sectarian lines (Irish and Italian) until they finally broke for Nixon in 1972.
Why did the Democratic Party attract Catholics to its ranks, despite its anti-Catholic base in the deep south? This irony can be disentangled by examining the ideology of the Democratic Party during the 19th century.
The Democratic Party was friendly to the working class, socialism, the underdog, and wealth redistribution. This made it more attractive to low-status groups, including Catholics, and Italian, Irish, and Jewish immigrants. It also included Confederate veterans, who were stripped of their voting rights after the Civil War. This was an odd and contradictory coalition, but it became even stranger in 1940, due to a new addition: blacks.
After 1948, Democrats added blacks to their contradictory coalition. It took 16 years for the Republicans to finally seize on the opportunity of the “Southern Strategy,” which exploited the tension between white Southerners (traditionally Democrats) and blacks. Democrats were the driving force of change, and Republicans reluctantly picked up the left-behind crumbs.
The 2024 Realignment
In 2024, Democrats lost support among every single group, except one: the highly educated.
Education:
Democrats have increasingly done worse with non-white non-college educated voters, dropping from 83% of their vote in 2008 to 72% in 2020. In 2024, Democrats only won 64% of non-white non-college educated voters.
At this rate, Democrats will lose their majority among low-education non-white voters by 2044. But by then, it won’t matter, because they’re winning bigly among a growing demographic: college students.
More Americans are going to college than ever before, but the type of degree they obtain is changing. In the 1960s, the ratio of STEM degrees to non-STEM degrees was 1:2. Now, it is closer to 1:9. This dramatic shift, which doesn’t seem to be slowing down, has political implications.
Consider that in the year 2000, black Americans were 8% of all Bachelor graduates, and also 8% of all mathematics graduates. In 2021, the number of black Bachelor graduates rose to 10%, but the number of black mathematics graduates fell to 4%. This indicates that blacks are being drawn away from mathematics, and more toward other fields. It’s not that math has become less valuable in absolute terms, but that non-STEM fields have become much more attractive to black Americans in relative terms.
Conservatives blame this shift on DEI, affirmative action, and a “culture of consulting,” where the value of human resources is inflated beyond practical proportions. I see this in a different way.
America is recreating a clerical hierarchy to rival the medieval world. Just as 10% of medieval GDP went to the church, 10% of modern GDP is going to DEI. This isn’t “productive labor,” but neither was monastic prayer. It is “moral labor” which holds the social fabric together on a non-rational basis.
Between 1150 and 1250, the pace of construction of monasteries in England outstripped population growth. This was a direct result of the Catholic victory over secular1 imperialism with the success of the Gregorian Reform. The transition was extremely difficult and violent, and threatened civil war within the Holy Roman Empire and Papal States. The Holy Roman Empire can be thought of as “MAGA country,” resistant to reform, with Henry VI as Trump, while England of the time can be thought of as New England today, as progressive and reform-minded.
As a side note,
The English population collapsed from 5 million in 1300 to 2 million in 1400, and still had not recovered by 1500. The English population in 1300 was roughly equivalent to the English population in 1650. Despite the drop in population, the centuries from 1300 to 1665 were the most inventive and creative in all of history. This contradicts the pro-natalist position that “more people = more invention.” Death and disease inspire creativity more than anything.
Back to college education:
Democrats hitch their wagon to groups with growth potential, like secular college-educated immigrants, whereas Republicans and conservatives hitch their wagon to shrinking groups, like Evangelicals and whites.
The Democratic Party has always been more diverse than Republicans: religiously, ethnically, and sexually. However, at the core of the Democratic Party there has always been an academic and ideological elite which is white and Jewish, an elite which determines the tone and tenor of the party. It is this elite which pushes policy and then disseminates ideology to the masses of the coalition who often have wildly diverging interests.
Irish Catholics in 1916 had different views and priorities from Jews, communists, and southern segregationists. And yet somehow, the elite core of the party was able to keep it all together, and lead the coalition to victory. There have been periods where the coalition became too incoherent and the white nativist Protestant party (Republicans) made a come-back. Sometimes victory resulted from leaning into a particular faction of the coalition (JFK in 1960, Obama in 2008) or by moderating the message (Clinton in 1992, Biden in 2020).
white liberal elites:
Even when non-whites do become intellectual figureheads on the far left, their audience is largely white. 65% of gender studies professors are white, and 70% of African Studies professors are white. This isn’t much different from the overall percentage of white professors at 72%. It is almost identical to the readership of the New York Times, which is 71% white. Just like college professors, New York Times readers skew 91% Democratic.
It’s also instructive to look at the leadership of the New York Times:
For the News and Opinion section, the staff is 66% white, but the leadership is 70% white.
For the business section, the staff is 55% white, but the leadership is 67% white.
While 64% of Democratic voters were white in 2022, 84% of Democratic senators were white.
I would also add that many of the non-whites in prominent positions in liberal ideological spaces were raised in a relatively white context or have chosen white partners. Ta-Nehisi Coates is an atheist feminist who grew up playing Dungeons and Dragons. AOC’s boyfriend is a ginger. At 8 years old, Kamala Harris spent her weekends in Palo Alto, which was 3% black, and then when she was 12, she moved to Montreal, which was 2% black.2 She married Doug Emhoff, which makes her relatively unusual as only 4% of black women are married to white men.
This isn’t to say that the vast majority of non-whites aren’t liberal — they are, at least moderately so. But among ideologically committed and leading liberals, those who self describe as “very liberal” or “extremely liberal,” most of them are white or are embedded culturally into the white community. These are the liberals who are most important, because they help to shape policy and the media landscape.
Smart (neurotic) people win.
Conservatives have difficulty understanding the concept that smart people who control institutions tend to win political struggles. This was the case in medieval Europe during the investiture contest, and also explains the success of Boasian anthropology or Lacanian psychoanalysis. These once-fringe ideas were able to gain funding and influence because their adherents were intelligent and organized. Conservatives, by contrast, are more interested in grilling.
Conservatives try to obscure this fact by pointing out leftist beliefs that they think are “stupid.” For example, they claim that “there are two genders, and if you can’t see that, you’re an idiot!” Alternatively, they claim “Biden and Kamala are stupid, therefore, the left is stupid!” This kind of argument by anecdote does not address the larger structure forces that animate the left.
Large political shifts, like religious ones, often span centuries. As a result, they are not uniform or linear in their progression. The reformation resulted in the counter-reformation. Protestantism in Poland was successfully beaten back by the Catholic Church. However, overall, Protestantism was a success, and Protestant countries like England, Germany, and America became much more powerful than Catholic countries like Spain or Italy.
Similarly, the 2024 election could be viewed as a “counter-reformation” against wokism. But this is very short-term thinking. The institutional capture of universities by the left has spanned the better part of a century, and a Trump victory is not likely to reverse that trend in the long term.
Conservatives tend to be agnostic or uncomfortable answering life’s big questions. Why are black people poor? Why are men in more leadership positions than women? Why do gay people have higher suicide rates?
Conservatives have two approaches to these questions:
Ignore them.
Provide genetic or biological explanations for historical systems of oppression (racism, sexism, homophobia).
99% of conservatives prefer the former, because they are conflict avoidant and prefer to “get things done” rather than engage in moralization or revolutionary agitation. They don’t like to “shake things up,” but prefer practical stability. Liberals, on the other hand, are more prone to seek out moral conflict in order to compete for status in social hierarchies. Conservatives attack this as “signaling,” but signaling is important for recruiting, reinforcing, and energizing moral movements.
For example, in medieval Europe, if someone blasphemed Jesus, calling him “just a guy,” it would be the liberal-minded who would be “triggered” and call for the execution of the blasphemer. This is because liberals are more neurotic, and neuroticism creates a greater sensitivity to moral violations, and a greater impulse toward social activism.
Because whites and Jews are more neurotic than non-whites, they tend to be more sensitive to moralistic competition, and thus, more ideologically leftist. This fact is obscured because non-whites lean more Democrat than whites. However, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians are massively underrepresented among ideological liberals.
The term “woke mind virus” is pejorative, in that it claims that wokeness is inherently harmful. A more neutral term would be the “woke ideological meme.” The success of this ideological meme will not be determined by a single Republican victory. If anything, the victory of Trump in 2016 led to more wokeness, not less. Republicans have not demonstrated their ability to significantly undermine woke institutions, culture, or social media trends.
Francisco Franco was a fascist, and he controlled Spain for about 30 years. When he died, Spain immediately became a liberal democracy. What happened? Well, all of the liberals and leftists in Spain were forced underground for 30 years, totally deprived of funding and public recognition. However, they continued to covertly spread their ideas among students and activists, waiting until the time was right. Even if Trump were able to “make woke illegal,” he would likely not outperform Franco. Spain today is one of the most left-wing countries in Europe.
Again, I am not saying that Republicans won’t be able to successfully change policy. They might limit abortion, immigration, and trans-gender surgery for minors. However, ideologically, I do not see any indication that Republicans are developing a sufficient religious response to the woke ideological meme. They are attempting to ignore it, suppress it, defund it, and stigmatize it, but they have not introduced an alternative to it, other than warmed-over ecumenical Judeo-Hinduism. Whereas wokism is sharp, powerful, direct, and bold, conservative ideology is tolerant, weak, non-confrontation, and grill-pilled.
The one possible threat to woke ideology would be a shift in the priest class. If college professors, TikTok influencers, and Hollywood producers started rejecting LGBTQ and racial reparations, that could eventually result in a long-term defeat for the left. That would require conservatives to seize hold of all universities — not just public universities, but private ones too — and to nationalize the internet and Hollywood, like China has done. Conservatives do not have the will to do this. They believe in freedom, which means they will continue to lose the war of ideas. The Republican Party can compensate for this by embracing “based and normal” trans-women, but this isn’t the ideological victory that conservatives pretend it is.
Final numbers:
Despite running an absolutely atrocious campaign, Kamala Harris won 43% of white voters, which was 1% improvement over Biden in 2020. Assuming that whites are ethnocentric, we should expect they would be much more likely to vote for a white person (Biden) than a non-white person (Harris). Yet Harris did as well with white voters as Obama in 2008!
The fact that Harris improved over Biden suggests that Democrats made huge gains with white voters, which were hidden by the unique disadvantages of Harris (non-white woman). It is reasonable to assume that if Democrats ran a white man, they would have made bigger grains with white voters, similar to Clinton’s 44% in 1996.
If Democrats consistently run white men going forward, we should expect them to be able to double the 1% advantage of Harris and achieve a 2% gain per cycle. That means 45% in 2028 (the best since 1976), 47% in 2032, and 49% in 2036. Finally, by 2040, Democrats will finally win back the white vote. This will be due to increased education, decreased church attendance, and increased LGBT identification. If Democrats continue to run non-white female candidates, this process might take twice as long, stretching out as far as 2052. But the underlying structural and ideological trends remain the same.
This doesn’t mean that Democrats will become “pro-white,” but that Republicans will become so Hispanic, Asian, and black that white voters will no longer see Republicans as the “implicitly white party,” and will judge the parties on the merit of policy (abortion, education, healthcare, foreign policy, and infrastructure). Democrats lose on culture (race and identity) war issues, but win on policy. As Republicans adopt the culture of the left (homosexuality and non-religiousness), the culture war (“identity politics”) will lose relevance and elections will become more policy oriented for whites.
By “secular imperialism,” I don’t mean to say that the emperor Henry VI was an atheist, but that anything outside of or parallel to the power of the church was considered secular.
In 1973, there were 14,710 black people living in Montreal out of 1.1 million people, which gives a total of 1.3% black.
>I am predicting that Hispanic culture bends towards the norm of South Texas, and white culture bends towards the norm of Vermont. Hispanics are assimilating into working-class white culture, while whites are becoming more educated and liberal over time.
Actually, I'm not sure about this. On the ground level I have noticed an absence of hispanics in uni, but I recollect an old Alt Hype video where he mentions that minorities are actually more enthusiastic about college than White people. This seems backed by the data.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cpb.pdf
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_rea.asp
Hispanics steadily increased their college participation rate over the past 2 decades, while Whites have stayed fairly constant. If Colleges continue to decline in prestige, and colleges continue to be liberal, then they will continue to become browner even if racial preferences in admissions have been prohibited on paper.
Also, White people are not going to become more like Vermont because White Vermontese don't have enough kids. In fact, educated White people in general are vastly below replacement while White conservatives are actually among the more fertile groups in the country. Political views are mostly explained by genetics and family upbringing, so it is reasonable to assume that each subsequent generation will be genetically more conservative. Not to mention, stupider. Because, you know, that's also highly heritable and selected for (among all races). So, less college-goers.
>More Americans are going to college than ever before, but the type of degree they obtain is changing. In the 1960s, the ratio of STEM degrees to non-STEM degrees was 1:2. Now, it is closer to 1:9. This dramatic shift, which doesn’t seem to be slowing down, has political implications.
I'm glad someone pointed this out! STEM majors have a long history of being more Republican (or more accurately, more centrist than the uber-lib humanities)
>America is recreating a clerical hierarchy to rival the medieval world. Just as 10% of medieval GDP went to the church, 10% of modern GDP is going to DEI. This isn’t “productive labor,” but neither was monastic prayer. It is “moral labor” which holds the social fabric together on a non-rational basis.
I recall listening to a lecture on Neo-Confucianism. The saying of the Buddha-Skeptics went something like this: "Back in the day, there were four social classes and four corresponding households -- the bureaucrats, the blacksmiths, the farmers, and the merchants. Now there are six social classes -- the bureaucrats, the blacksmiths, the farmers, the merchants, the Buddhist monks, and the Taoist monks. We are now feeding two more households with the same amount of grain". Because, you know, the Blacksmith gave in return for food something tangible, while the Monk gave nothing in particular in return to the peasant, and something intangible to the curious well-to-do man. Before the Buddhists came, the scholars and the bureaucrats were the same class. The people who were writing poetry and operating government, who were discussing metaphysics and were managing irrigation, were the same people. This is how it was in China. In Europe, it was the captains of the battlefield and the burghers who were simultaneously philosophers. But suddenly this class of "professional introspective people" came about and their sole purpose was spreading the meme of Buddhism or Taoism. Not necessarily a bad thing -- if you're a Buddhist aristocrat, it makes sense to consider this the greatest possible use of your leftover coinage. But, it is quite similar to the "cathedral" in modern Amerikwa.
Monasteries were a little bit more productive. Monks did produce a lot of value in the economy, because they didn't really have much to do but work. And they became extremely wealthy, because the money of the monastery stayed in the monastery. You couldn't "invest" in it. You don't get a dime if you take off the robes, and you can't give anything to your illegitimate children if you have any. Monks didn't spend all of their time meditating or praying, they also did some practical inquiry and that's why half of Europe's great cheeses come from some monastery (lol) among other things.
Not sure what the Buddhist monks were up to. Probably training for the Tenkaichi Budōkai. On your topic of the English population, I think it's because the Black Plague kept coming in waves for a century or two after the "big one" ~1350. Also, the hundred-years war. coincided with the first few bad bouts of plague, making the crash even worse.
>Because whites and Jews are more neurotic than non-whites
Not sure if this is true. Whites are more depressed than non-whites and maybe on paper more anxious, but a lot of evopsych people talk about how neuroticism is r-selected and beneficial in such environments. Not fully on board with r-K in humans but their arguments made sense that being a neurotic is quite beneficial in a low-IQ, low-trust society.
Gdp growth,techno optimism and beneficial AI implementation could become the new right religion with youth being less religious.Ramaswamy and Musk promoting Emil type hereditarians might attract east Asian EHC in the coming years,they did get both Bezos and Zuck to disassociate with the Dems, they have a chance winning the culture war.