The 2024 presidential election should be seen as part of a longer-term political conflict that will end with either the eradication or the restoration of the country’s historical racial hierarchy. The Republican Party’s lurch toward authoritarianism and pursuit of minority rule cannot be understood in any other terms.
CAMBRIDGE – The “crisis of democracy” across Western countries is generally attributed to rising inequality, the hollowing out of the middle class, and the politics of mass migration. But another major factor is demography, especially in the United States, where the threat to democracy tracks developments affecting white voters. Moreover, since demographic trends cannot be easily reversed, America’s growing dysfunction is likely to be a persistent factor in global politics for a long time.
By 2044, white Americans will represent 49.7% of the US population, down from 70% today and almost 90% in the 1960s. This change could be immensely consequential from a political and psychological standpoint. For the first time in the country’s history, white Americans will be a minority – even if they remain more numerous than Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, and other cohorts. Already, white voters’ waning political influence is creating a sense of lost status and marginalization, as partly reflected in surveys showing that nearly 60% of Republicans “feel like a stranger in their own country.”
Against this backdrop, the 2024 presidential election should be seen as part of a longer-term political conflict that will end with either the eradication or the restoration of the country’s historical racial hierarchy. Simply put, today’s Democrats embrace the idea of a multiracial democracy, whereas Republicans want to make the country “great again” by re-establishing elements of the old white supremacy.
This conflict predates Donald Trump. Republican presidential candidates have garnered a majority of the white vote in every election since 1964, the year that Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, won the White House and went on to sign the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts. More recently, Barack Obama’s victory in 2008 was a moment of reckoning for the white electorate, many of whom began to grapple with the implications of the country’s changing demographic structure.
After Obama’s re-election in 2012, the Republican National Committee drafted a report acknowledging the need for the party to focus more on attracting minorities. But at the state level, Republicans moved in the opposite direction, doubling down on their appeals to white voters through voter-suppression measures and racially gerrymandered congressional districts. Then, in 2016, Trump tapped into white discontent to win the Republican Party’s nomination.
Another Trump presidency would intensify the battle to restore America’s historical racial and political hierarchy, given Trump’s plans to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. But even if Trump is defeated, the fight will continue. Trumpism is likely to survive, because the “Make America Great Again” doctrine now permeates a Republican Party that has rid itself of moderate conservatives.
As the US presidential election nears, stay informed with Project Syndicate - your go-to source of expert insight and in-depth analysis of the issues, forces, and trends shaping the vote. Subscribe now and save 30% on a new Digital subscription.
Subscribe Now
It might seem suicidal for a party to bet its future on a demographic cohort whose political weight is fated to decline– even if support from non-white voters has increased in recent years (reflecting effective messaging about reviving sectors of the economy where ethnic minorities also find employment). But the US Constitution provides one explanation for this strategy. As Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt of Harvard University point out, the US system includes several counter-majoritarian institutions that were meant to ensure stability, but that also can empower a political minority.
What counts in the presidential election, for example, is not the popular vote but the Electoral College. That is how Trump won in 2016, despite receiving fewer votes than his opponent. Similarly, each state is assigned two seats in the Senate regardless of the size of its population. By 2040, roughly 70% of Americans will live in just 15 states, while the disproportionately whiter and older remaining 30% will elect 70 senators.
The combination of demographic trends, a Trumpified Republican Party, and counter-majoritarian constitutional rules will make American democracy highly dysfunctional in the years ahead. While its strong institutional foundations can help prevent the US from succumbing to autocracy, it seems destined for periods of heightened political tension and conflict.
In this context, it is not far-fetched to imagine constitutional crises involving the federal government and state legislatures over the management of elections and voting rights; or between Congress and a far-right Supreme Court over civil rights; or between Congress and a polarizing president.
There are no quick fixes. Any constitutional amendment to eliminate the Electoral College or reform the Senate and Supreme Court (which has no term limit for justices) would be dead on arrival, because it would need supermajorities in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. Could Americans converge to the center and marginalize the far right and the far left? It doesn’t look likely any time soon.
This year’s election will not yield a binary outcome. A victory for Vice President Kamala Harris will not save American democracy, and a victory for Trump will not suddenly kill it. Instead, it will be yet another installment in the longer-running demographic conflict that started six decades ago, and which shows no signs of ending.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
The World Trade Organization's precipitous decline into irrelevance should serve as a warning to the International Monetary Fund's shareholder governments, its management, and everyone who values multilateral economic cooperation. In a rapidly changing world, global institutions must reform or die.
propose incremental changes to keep developing and emerging economies on board and engaged.
The old Europe of the Cold War sought comfort in the past and confidence in the solitary US leadership that defined the era. Unfortunately, when it comes to its own security, Europe seemingly remains in a time warp, stuck somewhere before 1989.
laments that nostalgia for US leadership unites a continent that must define the decisive action needed now.
CAMBRIDGE – The “crisis of democracy” across Western countries is generally attributed to rising inequality, the hollowing out of the middle class, and the politics of mass migration. But another major factor is demography, especially in the United States, where the threat to democracy tracks developments affecting white voters. Moreover, since demographic trends cannot be easily reversed, America’s growing dysfunction is likely to be a persistent factor in global politics for a long time.
By 2044, white Americans will represent 49.7% of the US population, down from 70% today and almost 90% in the 1960s. This change could be immensely consequential from a political and psychological standpoint. For the first time in the country’s history, white Americans will be a minority – even if they remain more numerous than Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, and other cohorts. Already, white voters’ waning political influence is creating a sense of lost status and marginalization, as partly reflected in surveys showing that nearly 60% of Republicans “feel like a stranger in their own country.”
Against this backdrop, the 2024 presidential election should be seen as part of a longer-term political conflict that will end with either the eradication or the restoration of the country’s historical racial hierarchy. Simply put, today’s Democrats embrace the idea of a multiracial democracy, whereas Republicans want to make the country “great again” by re-establishing elements of the old white supremacy.
This conflict predates Donald Trump. Republican presidential candidates have garnered a majority of the white vote in every election since 1964, the year that Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, won the White House and went on to sign the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts. More recently, Barack Obama’s victory in 2008 was a moment of reckoning for the white electorate, many of whom began to grapple with the implications of the country’s changing demographic structure.
After Obama’s re-election in 2012, the Republican National Committee drafted a report acknowledging the need for the party to focus more on attracting minorities. But at the state level, Republicans moved in the opposite direction, doubling down on their appeals to white voters through voter-suppression measures and racially gerrymandered congressional districts. Then, in 2016, Trump tapped into white discontent to win the Republican Party’s nomination.
Another Trump presidency would intensify the battle to restore America’s historical racial and political hierarchy, given Trump’s plans to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. But even if Trump is defeated, the fight will continue. Trumpism is likely to survive, because the “Make America Great Again” doctrine now permeates a Republican Party that has rid itself of moderate conservatives.
Go beyond the headlines with PS - and save 30%
As the US presidential election nears, stay informed with Project Syndicate - your go-to source of expert insight and in-depth analysis of the issues, forces, and trends shaping the vote. Subscribe now and save 30% on a new Digital subscription.
Subscribe Now
It might seem suicidal for a party to bet its future on a demographic cohort whose political weight is fated to decline – even if support from non-white voters has increased in recent years (reflecting effective messaging about reviving sectors of the economy where ethnic minorities also find employment). But the US Constitution provides one explanation for this strategy. As Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt of Harvard University point out, the US system includes several counter-majoritarian institutions that were meant to ensure stability, but that also can empower a political minority.
What counts in the presidential election, for example, is not the popular vote but the Electoral College. That is how Trump won in 2016, despite receiving fewer votes than his opponent. Similarly, each state is assigned two seats in the Senate regardless of the size of its population. By 2040, roughly 70% of Americans will live in just 15 states, while the disproportionately whiter and older remaining 30% will elect 70 senators.
The combination of demographic trends, a Trumpified Republican Party, and counter-majoritarian constitutional rules will make American democracy highly dysfunctional in the years ahead. While its strong institutional foundations can help prevent the US from succumbing to autocracy, it seems destined for periods of heightened political tension and conflict.
In this context, it is not far-fetched to imagine constitutional crises involving the federal government and state legislatures over the management of elections and voting rights; or between Congress and a far-right Supreme Court over civil rights; or between Congress and a polarizing president.
There are no quick fixes. Any constitutional amendment to eliminate the Electoral College or reform the Senate and Supreme Court (which has no term limit for justices) would be dead on arrival, because it would need supermajorities in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. Could Americans converge to the center and marginalize the far right and the far left? It doesn’t look likely any time soon.
This year’s election will not yield a binary outcome. A victory for Vice President Kamala Harris will not save American democracy, and a victory for Trump will not suddenly kill it. Instead, it will be yet another installment in the longer-running demographic conflict that started six decades ago, and which shows no signs of ending.