Predicting the Realignment – Part 2

The Republicans Go Homeless

Getting to write this article after the Trump-Harris debate last night was a helpful development. Trump stuck to his guns, but what was new and exciting in 2016 is now priced in and understood. The race is in no ways over, but I’m starting to see what some of my colleagues are talking about when they say it isn’t the same Trump as 2016 or even 2020. Regardless, Trump is still Trump and has my support. Yet last night showed me that he, like me, is still just a man and possesses the finitude of a man.

This display of Trump not as weak but as settled, firmly in his final form, gives me a glimpse at what an inevitable future without him will look like. In Part 1, I looked at the short-term bad but longer term good future for the Democrats post Trump. In this essay, I will give my much more grim prognosis for the Republican Party.

The Republican Party was once a serious political contender, but after the Obama years it had been willingly relegated to the loyal perpetually out of power opposition. It’s likely the party would have been well on the way to death as its unsatisfied constituency lost further and further faith in it, especially after the Tea Party was hung out to dry. The era of Trump and his subsequent takeover and re-programming of the party is remarkable in how long it has extended the life of the GOP, but the coalition dies with Trump.

Since 1968, the GOP has based its national electoral strategy on the solid South, which until now (and likely will in the future) has always voted in bloc. The rural and (at least situationally) conservative nature of the region flavored the Republican party in the Reagan years and afterward, particularly with the rise of the Bush family. Trump also appealed to many rural southerners, but as we’ve established the South is getting less rural, and by consequence less blue.

So what exactly is the Trump coalition? Dissatisfied whites mostly, of all social strata. The only reason that Trump is called a populist is because all whites are seen as dispossessed lumpenproles, and the man who appeals to their disaffection is an outsiders outsider because the consensus in the East is that whitey must go, unless his daddy gives eight figure amounts to Harvard. 

But make no mistake, Trump is not a populist (which itself is a bit of a dated term) in any economic sense; he has as many supporters amongst the middle class as the working class. But we live in a strange circumstance where a single demographic has actively aided and abetted its own disenfranchisement, and any appeal to that demographic’s grievances is seen as low status. Which leads us to the problem the Republican party will face after Trump:

Once the south starts to flip, the Republicans will have a constituency without a geographic base. The Democrats starting to steal states from the solid south will by no means mean that New England or the PNW or California or the Midwest will start voting Blue. The Republicans have a tenuous hold on Ohio and Indiana, which is no base. They’ll retain the Mountain West except for the one state that matters there: Colorado. They’ll have Florida secured forever but Florida is no base. This is not to say that a good chunk of voters in all of these regions don’t and won't vote Republican, they absolutely will. But when you’re the party of the White American, the browning of America ensures your future irrelevancy.

This is the real answer for the question. For better or worse, and more often for worse, the Republican party is the party of the White American. The problem is that white people are not allowed to be racist or talk about race in any context, which renders the Republican party redundant. They’re been forced to talk about the Economy, or endless foreign wars, or trade disparities, or energy policy, or how wokeness goes against meritocracy. But they cannot for one second talk about the actual problem their constituents face because it’s a taboo; they aren’t allowed to in the feminized United States. J.D. Vance, who makes occasional dog whistles to it, is crucified daily in the media for doing so– though the fact he’s gotten this far gives me a sliver of hope.

Barring a massive reorganization of state borders (Gerrymandering was a soft attempt to check the race issue, which has diminishing returns,) this situation will continue. The South being the last region where a rural white majority has kept a white majority (in power at least) region is quickly fading. Unless the Republican party organizes something like what occurred in Florida (mass white relocation,) they will become an eternal minority party like the constituency they represent.

Which brings me to the issue of hispanics. Within the mental geography of your given Latino is the two poles of his character: Spaniard and Indio, and he must tend towards and eventually choose one. The ones who choose white resolve their schizophrenic worldview when they make it to the United States (as opposed to the remittance class, who have chosen the Indio pole) and can therefore categorize themselves as such. This is the open spiral, and the deal goes something like this:

“Alright Hans, if you man the walls for a few generations you can be white.”

“Ja, ist ein deal.”

“Alright Seamus, if you man the walls for a few generations you can be white.”

“It’s a deal boyo.”

“Alright Giuseppe, if you man the walls for a few generations you can be white.”

“Is a deal signore!”

“Alright Pedro, if you man the walls for a few generations you can be white.”

“I will keep those filthy indios south of the Rio Grande, señor.”

This is why hispanics who come here with the intention of staying develop a rabid hatred for their (seemingly) blood fellows. But ethnogenesis crosses blood barriers, and while many are called few will listen. This is much played up on the right, particularly around the idea of castizo futurism. The problem is they didn’t stop to ask the Castizos, who want to excise the 25% Indio from their blood within two generations. Therefore I put forth that despite the “More conservative” tendencies of hispanics which is often touted (and I agree they are slipping from the dems at the margins,) it won’t matter because they already get too much patronage as part of the mystery meat coalition, and only the most motivated aspirational whites will give that up for a chance at what they see as a status increase.

But being white is low-status in the minds of all but the aforementioned aspirational hispanics right now, and will remain such until J.D. Vance’s dog whistles start to become more explicit. Perhaps this requires a degradation of circumstances to become normal. It happened in the U.K. (though from the last time I checked, it’s been more or less stamped out,) and perhaps in the U.S. something similar could be much better facilitated in locales where such would be possible. But unless there's a white nationalist deep state planning a military coup, or Trump is that coup and we’re all left with egg on our face, I don’t see a top down fix to this problem. Trump really is the last chance for a truly national whiteness in the United States as currently constituted.

It could even be too late. If “White Guys For Harris” is any indication, most white men have been so utterly buck-broken that they functionally act like minorities with paler skin. Because of such, they might even be welcomed into the multiracial coalition (with quotas, of course,) and given back a semblance of what they once had. The Democrats usually get to the change first. But they don’t always stick.

Now, this rather grim prognosis has a single bright spot, though it requires the dear reader to suspend their disbelief for a moment. Remember back to Part 1 where I said that California has more white Republicans than Texas does. In many rural California counties, the sheriffs and County Gov’ts exist in such a state of non-enforcement that some residents have more de facto freedom than in a place like Alabama. As a matter of fact, the state Government of California is so weak that it can only act in the major urban areas, much similar to the State Governments of neighboring Oregon and Washington State.

Now, while considering this, also consider that Trump’s Ace in the Hole is a coterie of dissident tech billionaires who, while not the entirety of Silicon Valley, will give it an excuse to follow them away from their once-patrons-now-vampires. If Silicon Valley flips, California flips. And if California flips, even if it isn’t enough for a base, significant pressure could start to be applied to the PNW. And then Colorado. Etc.

Last time I made a big point about how the South is a historically Democrat region, and America since 1968 has been somewhat inverted. The Republican Party on the other hand is a historically Western party, with its first President coming from Illinois, which was the California of the mid 1800s. Perhaps now America is correcting itself, returning to a historical normalcy, and the Republican party will have a set future as a minority. But if they are to be a minority, perhaps they ought to set their sights west where they can reestablish a geographic base for their constituency, the White American.

I’ve said before that California and Texas are two different responses to the browning of America. Texas is taking the Mexico approach of mongrelization, while California is closer to a Peru, Chile, or Brazil in which a white minority is preserved at the top of a caste system. But this is only in the urban areas around LA and SF. LA is a dying city of waning relevance, and SF could very likely flip if the PayPal Mafia gets their way.

Perhaps if the Republican Party, the inheritor of the Hamiltonian Aristocratic Federalist tradition, takes its new blood (us) seriously once Trump is gone, it will have a future beyond a perpetual 46% of the vote share. And now that the barrier of entry for the aristocracy (in the literal sense) is white skin, then the white man’s party will have a future in the place the white man’s future has always been:

The West.