Between Two Majorities | The Cordray Administration

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

This is definitely one of the greatest alternate (future?) history timeline I've read. And I'm proud of writing my first post on this forum to praise you!

A question, though: you wrote that because WWCs are a core part of the Dem coalition, immigration laws remain super-restrictive until the 2040s. Considering that minorities (including Hispanics and Asians) are the other big part of the Dem bloc, how are race and immigrant relations in this timeline?

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

In regards to race and ethnicity, I'd also add that the White population could very well stay the majority going into the 2040's/2050's depending on if the children of Asian/White and Hispanic/White couples start identifying themselves as White down the line. The interracial/interethnic marriage rates are fairly high among Whites and Asians/Hispanics and I believe that they're increasing.

From personal experience, most of my multiracial friends identify with both sides of their identities - not always equally, but they'd never describe themselves as only "white" (or any one race); they more often identify as "multiracial." Though I don't know if identifying as "white" is more common in other parts of the country.

It would also depend on if the Dems encourage multiracials and minorities to assimilate into being "white" (if the WWC base presses them to), or if they encourage multiculturalism as they do now.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Love that you mention climate change in your latest discussion. However, besides domestic impacts, you also mention foreign impacts, like drought driving the Syrian Civil War. Since resource conflicts like that, as well as severe natural disasters, will only increase infrequency, it'll likely drive migration patterns. Wouldn't that serve to increase populist nationalism and social conservatism in the developed world, thus helping the GOP (even if Pence abandons that aspect)?

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Wait...if a Democrat gets reelected in 2020 but the Crisis happens during his or her term, won't that discredit the Dems' economic message and screw up (or even stop) the realignment?

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Wait...if a Democrat gets reelected in 2020 but the Crisis happens during his or her term, won't that discredit the Dems' economic message and screw up (or even stop) the realignment?

Potentially but I don't think the Democrats are gonna come back until the crisis so…

Considering that Trump is faring very poorly even against "bad" Democratic candidates (source), it's likely (even if not certain) that he'll lose in 2020. Interestingly, that would place them in a no-win situation again - either they lose in 2020, or they win and face the Crisis, continuing the Reaganite era for who knows how long.

That said, I'm looking forwards to your analysis of globalization and the working class, especially that of China and India. Conventional wisdom says that they were the winners of globalization, free trade, and neoliberal economic policies (at expense of the Western working class), so it'll be interesting to see how much you'll support or disabuse of this notion.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Wait...if a Democrat gets reelected in 2020 but the Crisis happens during his or her term, won't that discredit the Dems' economic message and screw up (or even stop) the realignment?

Potentially but I don't think the Democrats are gonna come back until the crisis so…

Considering that Trump is faring very poorly even against "bad" Democratic candidates (source), it's likely (even if not certain) that he'll lose in 2020. Interestingly, that would place them in a no-win situation again - either they lose in 2020, or they win and face the Crisis, continuing the Reaganite era for who knows how long.

That said, I'm looking forwards to your analysis of globalization and the working class, especially that of China and India. Conventional wisdom says that they were the winners of globalization, free trade, and neoliberal economic policies (at expense of the Western working class), so it'll be interesting to see how much you'll support or disabuse of this notion.

You know he has Pence as the nominee in 2020 right?

I was thinking in real-world terms, as I personally don't think that Pence will replace Trump before 2020. That said, even if Trump is removed or resigns, that doesn't mean Pence is certain to win the presidency again, especially if the fallout from a Trump failure casts a shadow over his run.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

I found this interesting article connecting today's events involving the Paris Agreement with the broader battle between cosmopolitanism and tribalism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In this timeline, you alluded to this conflict between tribalism and cosmopolitanism, concluding with a hard-fought victory for the latter. What's more interesting is how the battles will play out in the nearer term. The great and future Democratic realignment is seen by most as a vindication of the cosmopolitan vision, but as your timeline demonstrated (e.g. regarding immigration) it doesn't have to be.

But I'm with the consensus that the Democrats will be the party of cosmopolitanism, at least in the near term, as their base is expanding to encompass the college-educated intelligentsia and heavily-immigrant minority groups. In your timeline, you moderate their influence by realigning the white working class, but I (as I explained before in previous conversations with you) am skeptical because of how the dynamics between the two worldviews play out.

For example, in your timeline the WWC realigns because they become disillusioned with Republicans during the Crisis. But that is only one scenario; it's likely (and I think it's more likely) that the Republicans will double down on nationalism and racism (the "third stool," in your terms). Why? Because to nationalist Trump supporters, the rise of minorities and the "New America" is a twin threat with that of economic devastation. And fear of the latter may very well exacerbate fear of the former. It's easy to hate minorities; it's not so easy to hate the ruling class (even Marx knew the difficulties in teaching the proletariat "class consciousness"). And with the one stool remaining, the GOP may as well double down on that.

That won't preclude a realignment; I still agree with you on that, since minorities and liberal whites will continue to outnumber the tribalists. And I actually hope that you're right and I'm wrong; nothing is worse than one of America's two great parties become one of racism and tribalism.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

I also want to point out (I don't know if others previously did) that I fundamentally disagree with your predictions on international events. Or rather, I disagree with Friedman's predictions on international events. It's okay if you don't know this (especially since you have said that international relations is not your forte), but Friedman's work is generally dismissed as fantasy in the IR community. In fact, any prediction that far out in the future will be treated with a lot of skepticism, simply because of the inherent impossibility of making such predictions.

But I'll have my own take on the future regardless. My most important disagreement with you (and with some others on this board) is that I think China will not collapse. Quite the opposite; despite their problems, I think they are on track to be a second superpower that can rival the US.

1. I think that any notion of Chinese collapse is quite sensationalist and unfounded. First, the Chinese people are very nationalistic and want a singular China, even if they don't like the government at any given moment. Second, I would imagine that most provincial leaders (even if they wern't completely loyal members of the CCP - which they are) would know that a divided China would mean less influence and power in a globalized world.

2. Even without a collapse, China can (and will) face problems. One potential problem is that China could face the "Middle Income Trap," where their GDP per capita stagnates like Brazil's and Thailand's did. I think this is unlikely, mostly because China has a pretty good education system relative to most developing nations. (The rural areas do have a lot to be desired, but so does every developing country; in the urban areas, the education is pretty good by global standards.)

3. Others say that China will face the consequences of an aging population, just like Japan and South Korea, but at a lower level of development. I think that this can be mitigated via the proliferation of AI (China is one of the most forward-thinking countries in terms of AI) and possibly by increasing immigration. Overall I think that this problem will unfold slowly enough for the CCP to handle.

That doesn't mean that China will not face any problems. The current asset bubbles are a big one right now, and there's no certainty that China will avoid the Middle Income Trap or a demographic crisis. But I have confidence that China's relatively forward-thinking leadership will surmount these problems, just like America surmounted the Great Depression and went on to defeat Nazism. So it's likely that America will have the share the naming rights to the 21st century with the Middle Kingdom.

But hey, what do I know? Predicting the future is hard.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

But I'm with the consensus that the Democrats will be the party of cosmopolitanism, at least in the near term, as their base is expanding to encompass the college-educated intelligentsia and heavily-immigrant minority groups. In your timeline, you moderate their influence by realigning the white working class, but I (as I explained before in previous conversations with you) am skeptical because of how the dynamics between the two worldviews play out.

I am incredibly skeptical of this assertion. Millennials are the most college educated generation in American history yet the economic data that's been collected on them shows that their economic standing is worse than that of Gen X and baby boomers at the same age. The WWC trend in TD's timeline likely stems mostly from the younger white Gen Xers and white millennials who will continue making up an increasing amount of what's been designated as the "WWC" in the United States.

I've never really understood this mentality. There's this pervasive view that the WWC is primarily blue collar and former factory worker baby boomers. In reality, this view of the WWC is shortsighted since it excludes the younger Xers and millennials; the majority of whom are white, college educated, and yet are struggling with student loan debt and in a worse economic standing than prior generations. I suspect that this is the group that causes the WWC Dem trend in TD's timeline. And since many within this generation are college educated, live in cosmopolitan areas, and are far more likely to have grown up with a peer group that was racially and ethnically diverse, I strongly doubt that they'll be enticed with a xenophobic, racist, anti-immigrant, and nationalistic GOP. Hillary Clinton for example did quite well with this group even though she was the worst possible Democratic candidate to court them.

I appreciate your clarification. Yes, by "white working class" I did have in mind "blue collar white baby boomers." In fact, I was particularly focusing on whites who harbor racial resentments (among other cultural anxieties). Obviously, not all "blue collar white baby boomers," let alone all "working class whites," have this mentality and will likely form an important part in a Cordary-esque coalition, but we do have to remember the actual tribalists (for lack of a better term). They won't be attracted to any economic populism when there's competing right-wing populism, and they will remain an important part of an increasingly nationalistic and embattled GOP.

And I should clarify that the tribalists will also include white college-educated folks who may or may not have fallen on hard times.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

We now have a Table of Contents thanks to NJ is Better than TX. Thank you to him! I've updated the first page with full credit to him.

You're welcome.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Who are all the possible people who can preside over a realignment? I remember you (or maybe TD) saying that you have three people in mind, including Sherrod Brown, who fit your necessary qualities (experience, ability to build coalitions, etc.). Because I don't think Cordray is going to be that President (as he's not even running for Governor anytime soon) so who else could take that mantle?

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Who are all the possible people who can preside over a realignment? I remember you (or maybe TD) saying that you have three people in mind, including Sherrod Brown, who fit your necessary qualities (experience, ability to build coalitions, etc.). Because I don't think Cordray is going to be that President (as he's not even running for Governor anytime soon) so who else could take that mantle?

If they're not from the Midwest then look to Texas. The Castro brothers along with Beto O'Rourke should be to watch for - though they'd likely have to run in 2024 since 2020 would be too soon for any of them.

Also Russ Feingold running in 2020 is another option as is Minesotta Governor Mark Dayton.

Isn't Feingold largely considered a washout though? Of course, it would fit with the "realigning presidents must experience failures" idea, but it seems like their failures largely occur early in their careers, not close to their presidential victory (with the exception of Thomas Jefferson). As for Dayton, he's 70, so unless he builds up popularity Sanders-style he'll probably be too old to do anything.

EDIT: Now that I think of it, if we're sticking to Midwesterners Tim Ryan could also be a potential realigning president, given his experience in the House. Though preferably he should win the Speakership first.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

v9:

Wow, when they say Iowa would be one of the most R states in the nation, they mean it. It's more Republican than Kansas!

Also, why did you color the Twin Cities and Madison as lean/likely R? I would think that there would be Democratic support in the city centers, which would have high minority populations. Do the suburbs that happen to be in these counties outvote the central cities?

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

From these maps, it looks as if the Republicans still win the majority of counties nationwide. That doesn't seem like much of a realignment to me, merely a shifting (or tinkering) of today's voting patterns.

Granted, we still haven't seen most of the South and especially Appalachia, where the biggest shifts will happen.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Sorry for being MIA, guys. I had some personal business to work out requiring me to take a sabbatical from Atlas to handle them. Then life kind of happened and I have to deal with full time school, plus a full time job, and a new place and assorted various things. So yeah, I haven't had the time to devote to this as I did in the past.

Maybe next year, I might do more stuff here but right now, I don't really have that much time. I am on Discord, where I annoy Technocratic Timmy unduly and the walrus. I am really proud of what they've done regarding the work in BTM, especially walrus. You guys have done a fantastic job building on BTM.

And yes, I know North Korea has been in the news with increased speculation about a military strike. Yes, I know the timeline predicts Trump to order a military strike on North Korea tomorrow. I'm painfully aware.

I appreciate the overall concern though.

Ayyy

The God Doctor has returned to us.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Every single realignment in American history has had a segment of the former majority shift to the new majority. That’s partly why it’s called a realignment. The idea that no former Federal republicans will vote for the new realigning Democratic majority is pretty silly.

Ah, but what if it's not the WWC that's the segment that shifts? Already, we're seeing upscale suburbanites trend from Republican to Democrat. Many had been staunchly R before, so they would count as part of the "former majority." Or perhaps upscale white Republicans don't shift but upscale Hispanic and Asian Republicans do (e.g. if the Republicans go full and explicitly Bannonite), ensuring that both groups go from 70-30 D to being as D as Blacks?

These are both alternative possibilities for the realignment, don't you think?

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Every single realignment in American history has had a segment of the former majority shift to the new majority. That’s partly why it’s called a realignment. The idea that no former Federal republicans will vote for the new realigning Democratic majority is pretty silly.

Ah, but what if it's not the WWC that's the segment that shifts? Already, we're seeing upscale suburbanites trend from Republican to Democrat. Many had been staunchly R before, so they would count as part of the "former majority." Or perhaps upscale white Republicans don't shift but upscale Hispanic and Asian Republicans do (e.g. if the Republicans go full and explicitly Bannonite), ensuring that both groups go from 70-30 D to being as D as Blacks?

These are both alternative possibilities for the realignment, don't you think?

Yes these are alternative possibilities (not Latinos and Asians voting as D as blacks since that would make the GOP’s path to 270 damn near impossible in 2036 ). We won’t know who these groups are until they shift post crisis in 2024 (or 2020).

Romney-Clinton voters were primarily Swing voters and not ardent Republicans until Trump. 9 Romney-Clinton counties voted Obama in 2008 and many McCain-Romney counties that voted for Clinton last year were pretty close in 2008 (my home of Orange County only went for McCain by 3-4 points for example).

White working class voters do seem to have the most to lose in a crisis and are more easily incorporated into a populist Democratic Party than upscale republicans. Perhaps it’s my own bias here, but having lived in Huntington Beach and having connections to even more upscale republican Newport Beach, I just can’t see it. I could see them voting for a Cory Booker Third Way-ist Dem Party but a more populist economic centered Cordray one? Not happening unless they stop thinking money is the end all be all to life. I wouldn’t bet two pennies on them doing that.

That's why I suggested the Latino and Asian-centric realignment. Just like whites, many Asians also see money and success as the end all and be all (as I brutally experienced this Christmas ), and I suspect that it's the same for many upscale Latinos too. However, unlike with whites a fully Bannonist Republican Party will not be very friendly to them. While the WWC will lose more than upscale minorities in a strictly economic crisis (which working-class minorities getting doubly screwed), a racial crisis will target minorities regardless of economic status.

Which brings up another point: not all crises have to be strictly economic. They can have racial or other cultural dimensions to them as well. The Civil War - the Crisis - was about slavery, after all.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Funny you mentioned your Christmas experience. I’ve worked in Little Saigon for 2 years now at a counter where maybe 90% of our customers are Vietnamese (I’m the stockperson for them) and Jesus are the Vietnamese very money and white-centric (not too much fondness for latinos either). I think these voters are just waiting to jump onboard for a non-southern strategy GOP.

Why wait when you can already vote Trump like my relatives/family friends do!

That said, I think that Asians and Latinos may move in opposite directions. As post-first-gen Asians make up a larger share of the demographic, they'll become more Democratic, having been exposed to America's ugly racial inequalities and going beyond mere "survival-mode"-based monetary acquisition. However, Latinos become more Republican as they identify less with the label, intermarry with whites, and acquire wealth.

My guess; it may be wrong, so what do you think?

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

The problem with the idea that "Trump is a symptom of our economic problems, and that's why the WWC will flip" is that many, many studies have shown that racial and cultural resentment, not economic anxiety, is the root of Trump support. Of course, the two aren't completely separate, but how do you explain so many people overcoming their cultural anxieties to vote Democrat during the realignment?

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

TD, I wonder what are some stats for the Crisis in this timeline, e.g. % of GDP lost and maximum unemployment rate. It'll give people an idea of how bad it would be (and you did say that a lot of people underestimate it). (Also, it would give me a baseline on how bad to make the Crisis in my own timeline.)

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

So another Atlas poster had linked to this article, which predicts a realignment similar to this one (but using Californian instead of national politics as a guide). What do you all think?

Medium: California is the Future

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

TD, do you see a rising birthrate similar to what we had in the 1980s with the onset of the realignment?  And Democrats I assume are going to pass the 2013 immigration reform bill once they regain the trifecta, so do you also see immigration numbers going up as well?    

In the timeline, the Democrats make America's immigration laws "among the strictest in the world" to please their new WWC constituencies. So in that case, immigration numbers will go down.

But I don't see that happening in real life. Not only will America not have an immigration system like Japan (which is what TD would mean if the statement was to be taken literally), but any attempt by the Dems to do so will betray their core socially progressive, immigrant-descended base. So if the Dems go for more moderate immigration reforms, which is more likely IMO, then immigration numbers might go up, but not by too much.