There are quite a few signs that we are seeing something of a realignment, or at least, the initial flowering of one. I remember the taxonomy of the political coalitions back in my college classes, which were overlaid with the assumption that while we may see drifts here and there, the basic structure would remain. In a report, the Manhattan Institute cites one political science textbook from 1998 which details what were formerly considered the party distinctions:
I'm starting to think that "old-school liberalism" (meaning more or less: commitment to the rule of law and to civil liberties, free markets, tolerance of opposing viewpoints, proceduralism etc) is an outgrowth of Protestantism or at least was only made possible by societies rooted in Christianity, patriotism and communal norms/values.
Not that I'm in any way pimping for Christianism, but when you think of Joseph Henrich's WEIRDest People in the World (Western Educated Industrial Rich Democratic) all the qualities he mentions are major aspects of both "old-school" liberalism and post-Reformation Protestantism.
The 21st century American Empire is made up of an increasingly secular, almost totally deracinated population where all other gods are vanquished by "Progress" and the technology that sculpts our thoughts and discourse, mediates all our relationships, and now more or less raises our children.
Old-school liberals will be like a small sect left behind to argue among themselves while the future will be more of an Ottoman Empire free-for-all, where our tribes and their needs are paramount and a powerful State reigns to dole out benefits and keep us from killing each other.
Politicians etc will still be making flowery speeches about America and American values but secularization, globalization, mass immigration, plus things like social media are radically reshaping the country (and the world) and the values of 1776 will seem positively Neolithic by the middle of this century.
I don't think you are wrong on the merits, but I have to hold out hope that the old school liberal and liberal values will survive. At the moment my right wing friends are more sympathetic to freedom of speech, etc. I think that classic liberalism will never be in power, because it's values are always held by those without a hegemonic control over politics and culture.
Likely because they have no desire for said hegemonic control. The paradox of politics. Those who want power should never attain it. Those who should wield power justly have no desire for it.
"I think that classic liberalism will never be in power, because it's values are always held by those without a hegemonic control over politics and culture."
Do you think the Nordic countries, which are far more secular than the U.S. and have been for decades, are less classically liberal? Genuine question, not a leading one. I'm inclined not to think so, but curious about your thoughts.
Being from a Nordic country and reading the terminology through lenses of European political history, the use of the term “classic liberalism” baffles me a bit here at least.
Classic or classical liberalism for me sounds a bit anachronistic, since I mostly associate it with the 19th-century ideology it was. When I hear it in modern contexts, I guess the point is often to contrast not only liberal democracy but also some ideals of the night-warden state etc. with its later, kinder variant of “social liberalism”, sometimes to disparage the supposed excesses of the latter in the form of the “nanny state” or something like that — although in the Nordics at least, the welfare state and its critique would more likely be associated with “social democracy” rather than social liberalism (and just as another curiosity, “socialism” definitely isn't something we are accustomed to in describing the Nordic model or welfare state).
However, the above kind of distinction is probably not what we are discussing here, right? Although if it were, I could confirm that the Nordic countries would definitely not be *more* classically liberal in this sense. I think the confusion in terms here might have something to do with the American tradition of largely equating “liberal” with “left”.
I'm no expert on the Nordic countries, and definitely know very little about how close each country hews to classic liberalism, but I have been to Northern Europe and am always pretty skeptical about everyone's claims to being so "secular".
From my perspective as an American whose family are Southern European Catholics (Italian/Sicilian): Northern Europeans are very thrifty and frugal; have intense implicit forms of social shaming around rule-following, ostentation, wealth, boasting etc; seem to express guilt and the desire for public atonement about the sins of their ancestors while proclaiming a commitment to universal tolerance; and seem to be mostly solid citizens who pay their bills, keep their streets clean, keep their voices down etc.
I guess you can see my point already: Northern Europeans are DEEPLY inescapably Protestant, whether they believe in God or not. (Maybe Luther kept the faith but jettisoned the Papacy and modern Protestants kept the faith but jettisoned God?)
And, as liberalism and Protestantism track so well, I'd say Northern Europeans have liberalism in the blood, or at least it suits them more naturally than the rest of us.
Well, Luther dealt the death blow to Catholics and their Popes and priests about 500 years ago, so I would say 400ish years of deeply entrenched sacred and social beliefs do leave behind norms, values, forms of being, forms of thought, culture etc.
I think when the priesthood was abolished or reformed, it had the effect of investing authority not in a priest but in a whole community. So Protestants behave as if the have eyes of God on them at all times, even it is just in the form of strongly policed communal norms. Thus they are a mostly rational, tolerant, frugal, industrious, subdued/stoic people who eschew ostentation or the noise, clamor and passionate outbursts we Catholics are always making.
But this is just a personal lark of mine, only empirical in the sense of travel and reading, and I'm sure a million people could poke a million holes in it.
We all have certain words/ideas that we define strictly and certain words/ideas that we allow to be defined more loosely.
Even in our secular age, I think of the Germans/Northern Europeans etc I know (even if German-American) as Protestant (as I've said) because of a certain way they all carry themselves and the essential differences I perceive between them as a Catholic with Southern European roots (and friends). It's in the blood, is probably the best way to explain it.
But this is entirely subjective, so I understand if it doesn't suit others.
I think this is one of the best written sentence which is also true, because we have seen the left/post covid response recreate original sin. "God will be everywhere and nowhere. The atheists who hate Christianity will go to the Left, the atheists on the Right will go to church."
Predictions are always interesting; right now I'm a little doubtful that the Republican tent will be particularly wide; the party right now has embraced a number of cultural policies that are deeply unpopular (the Democratic party has too, but a much smaller number). If the recent RNC event is any sign, there's actually not that much diversity of thought either, with loyalty to someone who doesn't really believe in democracy almost necessary to attend.
My view of the left is somewhat more optimistic than yours; I think there's still a good chance that what I'll call the 90s-liberals, who control the party but not the culture of the Left, may come to dominate the culture again. That's what I hope for - I believe that liberal technocracy is the best path forward, but the 2005-onwards-progressives need to be booted from the camp or at least pushed back to the margins. Both because their ideas are bad and because their ideas scare people away from the left as a whole.
There's a chance, if we start seeing stolen elections like what Trump tried but more successful, that instead the country will fall into a bloody civil war. I hope not, but it's real third-world shit that he dropped on what used to be a clearly prosperous and stable democracy. We can lose a lot if that doesn't go away, and if we weaken the rules-based international order may weaken or fall, leaving smaller nations at the mercy of being eaten by their larger neighbours, among other bad effects.
Absolutely. More local control. Less bureaucracy. Let people live their lives as they choose as long as they aren’t harming others. Get your corrupt, grubby NGO hands out of the people’s pockets. Stop telling farmers that cattle are ruining the planet, which is patently false and ridiculous. Spend our taxed income on our decrepit infrastructure, and stop funding useless private corporation money making wars like Libya, Ukraine, Iraq, etc. Enable reasonable LEGAL immigration and get control over who enters the country. Stop spending borrowed money on student loans and NGOs.
But most of all adhere to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Our Constitution was created to hold government in check, not the people. Will that do?
Edit: I do dig your old band Jimmy James and the Blue Flames.
I wouldn’t say that the above is an argument against “a liberal technocracy being the only way forward” though. It’s more of a manifesto or list of what you’d like to see/what you believe/your worldview.
All sounds like common sense to me apart from your stance on Ukraine.
You can disagree with aspects of how it’s being managed or funded and advocate for reform in those areas but I believe it’s a BIG mistake to let Ukraine be overrun by Russia, especially at this moment of volatility.
It seems from your comment that you see all of the conflicts you listed as being somehow equivalent/analogous but Ukraine is a fundamentally different matter.
On this topic I would draw your attention to your own words; “Let people live their lives as they choose as long as they aren’t harming others”. Russian forces are “harming others” and they’re sure as hell not letting Ukrainians live their own lives
You didn’t mention Israel. Oversight or do you consider that an exception in some way?
I don’t see them as analogous with the exception that they all could have been avoided with diplomacy and by keeping out of the overthrow and color revolution business ( e.g. the CIA and State Department bureaucracy ). The history of our foreign policy throughout the 90s, 2000s and onward created the quite avoidable crisis in Ukraine. Should Russia have invaded? Absolutely not. However I can certainly understand their realpolitik rationale in doing so. Zelensky is no prize either, quite the petty dictatorial tyrant actually. In that war ( and 90% of wars there are no “good guys” only interests - with the clear exception of the civilians caught in the crossfire or pressed into combat unwillingly obviously.
With Israel, I have a dog in that fight personally, and IMHO that’s a conflict between Western civilization and sociopathic barbarism. Quite a different situation. I offer no quarter to those in whose charter and stated goal is the elimination of the Jewish people. Unlike the other conflicts discussed it is truly existential.
"IMHO that’s a conflict between Western civilization and sociopathic barbarism."
You just described the war between Russia and Ukraine perfectly.
Overlooking the seeming double standard in how you regard US involvement in foreign conflicts, if you study the history of the Ukraine/Russia conflict beyond the recent talking points, I think you'll find a lot there that aligns with what you appear to think about Israel/Palestine.
We're definitely in the middle of a realignment, but realignments aren't defined by demographic shifts. Those are just downstream affects of what's really going on, changes in the ideological foundations of our coalitions. Essentially, when the world around us changes it creates a crisis as the ideological coalitions (conservatism and liberalism for us) can no longer solve new problems. They collapse, and we invent new ideas for the next age.
That's what's really going on. So our challenge is to create two new competing ideologies capable of both sustaining majorities and solving our new problems. (Which so far most of us, stuck in the politics of the past, haven't be able to do).
Both the Dems and the Reps are completely adrift. I don’t recognize either party. Party affiliations during my life rarely changed among established voting blocks. Citizens felt comfortable knowing what their party stood for and the values they represented. Choices were easy. No more. I don’t put any stock in which party is inching ahead these days. They are both completely dysfunctional, untrustworthy and lacking in decency and resolve. My vote now goes to who I think is the least evil. We are a mess.
Interesting, but I don't think this will be a long drawn out process. At least not in the left can maintain quasi-legitimate power for a little longer. Their policies will force most people to see them as tyrants. When they can no longer maintain the facade of democracy they will abandon it and rule though force and surveillance.
As an old school liberal, I made the switch over the last ten years, from hating trump in 2016, to voting for him in 2020, to now realizing that it’s not so much trump im voting for as the left I’m voting against. Wether or not the democrats will admit these days that anti white sentiment in their party is obvious, but is the reason I had to leave the party, ok white, I won’t vote against my own kids, grandkids future because other whites feel guilty about past white peoples decisions. Democrats need to leave this shit behind, this is why they lost working class white people. And even the minority community can see that white folks aren’t exactly super threatening, anyone with honesty and eyes can see 2024 is not 1950 or 1900. So they will slowly start to question the whole all whites are racist thing. The party is not what it was 15 years ago, when I was a hard core democrat voter up and down ballot. Just my two cents as a former democrat .
Sarah, you might like “The Fourth Turning is Here,” which posits 80-100 year cycles of social change punctuated alternately by periods of crisis and periods of awakening. He believes we are in the middle of a crisis period that started with the global financial crisis and will end in roughly 2032.
The previous awakening period was the sixties and seventies, and the previous crisis was the Depression and WW2. Before that there was the Civil War crisis followed by the progressive era.
Before that it was the American Revolution followed by the Great Awakening.
Before that it was the Glorious Revolution followed by the emergence of democratic governance in the colonial period. And so on….
My sense is that the present crisis can only be resolved with reforms to institutions and/or the emergence of new institutions that are more trustworthy.
It’s subject to interpretation and non-falsifiable, but still an interesting read.
Both can be true. We should not forget that we are are in a major transition, wandering between two worlds; one dead and the other not yet born (to quote English poet and cultural critic Matthew Arnold).
In this interval where we are caught, we see that traditions, norms, gender roles, sexuality, family concept, education and worldviews overall are being wholly redefined while religion and trust in government are rapidly declining.
These changes are driven by the forces of globalisation, new technology, migration, changed demographics etc, and when previously silent and disunited groups come together and gather energy to achieve fundamental changes in structures, institutions, and power relations.
This will naturally push traditionally conservative people further to the Right and support any leader who promises to make things great again, but it will also push groups who have traditionally voted differently to the Right as they live on the tightrope and feel they have much to lose. It could therefore be lower-status people who live payday to payday and for whom shelter, security and safety are the most important things to consider (regardless of cultural identities). But it could also be higher-status people who want to maintain their positions and privileges.
The leftward shift of educated whites and their views about white people being inherently racist and bad resulted in the vast majority of whites, being working class to revolt against that, and then you have trump who tapped into the vein of the current white leftist anti white agenda and saw clearly that majority of whites disagree with the whole idea of one race, their race, being inferior from birth with no recourse other than constant reeducation and mocking from their morally superior minority races, so he became their loud speaker so to speak, to give voice to their concerns about such issues .IMHO.
"Where will the old-school liberals go?"
I'm starting to think that "old-school liberalism" (meaning more or less: commitment to the rule of law and to civil liberties, free markets, tolerance of opposing viewpoints, proceduralism etc) is an outgrowth of Protestantism or at least was only made possible by societies rooted in Christianity, patriotism and communal norms/values.
Not that I'm in any way pimping for Christianism, but when you think of Joseph Henrich's WEIRDest People in the World (Western Educated Industrial Rich Democratic) all the qualities he mentions are major aspects of both "old-school" liberalism and post-Reformation Protestantism.
The 21st century American Empire is made up of an increasingly secular, almost totally deracinated population where all other gods are vanquished by "Progress" and the technology that sculpts our thoughts and discourse, mediates all our relationships, and now more or less raises our children.
Old-school liberals will be like a small sect left behind to argue among themselves while the future will be more of an Ottoman Empire free-for-all, where our tribes and their needs are paramount and a powerful State reigns to dole out benefits and keep us from killing each other.
Politicians etc will still be making flowery speeches about America and American values but secularization, globalization, mass immigration, plus things like social media are radically reshaping the country (and the world) and the values of 1776 will seem positively Neolithic by the middle of this century.
I don't think you are wrong on the merits, but I have to hold out hope that the old school liberal and liberal values will survive. At the moment my right wing friends are more sympathetic to freedom of speech, etc. I think that classic liberalism will never be in power, because it's values are always held by those without a hegemonic control over politics and culture.
Likely because they have no desire for said hegemonic control. The paradox of politics. Those who want power should never attain it. Those who should wield power justly have no desire for it.
"I think that classic liberalism will never be in power, because it's values are always held by those without a hegemonic control over politics and culture."
this is a great insight, thanks.
Do you think the Nordic countries, which are far more secular than the U.S. and have been for decades, are less classically liberal? Genuine question, not a leading one. I'm inclined not to think so, but curious about your thoughts.
Being from a Nordic country and reading the terminology through lenses of European political history, the use of the term “classic liberalism” baffles me a bit here at least.
Classic or classical liberalism for me sounds a bit anachronistic, since I mostly associate it with the 19th-century ideology it was. When I hear it in modern contexts, I guess the point is often to contrast not only liberal democracy but also some ideals of the night-warden state etc. with its later, kinder variant of “social liberalism”, sometimes to disparage the supposed excesses of the latter in the form of the “nanny state” or something like that — although in the Nordics at least, the welfare state and its critique would more likely be associated with “social democracy” rather than social liberalism (and just as another curiosity, “socialism” definitely isn't something we are accustomed to in describing the Nordic model or welfare state).
However, the above kind of distinction is probably not what we are discussing here, right? Although if it were, I could confirm that the Nordic countries would definitely not be *more* classically liberal in this sense. I think the confusion in terms here might have something to do with the American tradition of largely equating “liberal” with “left”.
I'm no expert on the Nordic countries, and definitely know very little about how close each country hews to classic liberalism, but I have been to Northern Europe and am always pretty skeptical about everyone's claims to being so "secular".
From my perspective as an American whose family are Southern European Catholics (Italian/Sicilian): Northern Europeans are very thrifty and frugal; have intense implicit forms of social shaming around rule-following, ostentation, wealth, boasting etc; seem to express guilt and the desire for public atonement about the sins of their ancestors while proclaiming a commitment to universal tolerance; and seem to be mostly solid citizens who pay their bills, keep their streets clean, keep their voices down etc.
I guess you can see my point already: Northern Europeans are DEEPLY inescapably Protestant, whether they believe in God or not. (Maybe Luther kept the faith but jettisoned the Papacy and modern Protestants kept the faith but jettisoned God?)
And, as liberalism and Protestantism track so well, I'd say Northern Europeans have liberalism in the blood, or at least it suits them more naturally than the rest of us.
But what does "Protestant" even mean then if it can exclude being a Christian in the literal theological sense?
Well, Luther dealt the death blow to Catholics and their Popes and priests about 500 years ago, so I would say 400ish years of deeply entrenched sacred and social beliefs do leave behind norms, values, forms of being, forms of thought, culture etc.
I think when the priesthood was abolished or reformed, it had the effect of investing authority not in a priest but in a whole community. So Protestants behave as if the have eyes of God on them at all times, even it is just in the form of strongly policed communal norms. Thus they are a mostly rational, tolerant, frugal, industrious, subdued/stoic people who eschew ostentation or the noise, clamor and passionate outbursts we Catholics are always making.
But this is just a personal lark of mine, only empirical in the sense of travel and reading, and I'm sure a million people could poke a million holes in it.
I mean, I've seen the idea before, and I think the terminology might be more of a problem here than anything.
We all have certain words/ideas that we define strictly and certain words/ideas that we allow to be defined more loosely.
Even in our secular age, I think of the Germans/Northern Europeans etc I know (even if German-American) as Protestant (as I've said) because of a certain way they all carry themselves and the essential differences I perceive between them as a Catholic with Southern European roots (and friends). It's in the blood, is probably the best way to explain it.
But this is entirely subjective, so I understand if it doesn't suit others.
I think this is one of the best written sentence which is also true, because we have seen the left/post covid response recreate original sin. "God will be everywhere and nowhere. The atheists who hate Christianity will go to the Left, the atheists on the Right will go to church."
Predictions are always interesting; right now I'm a little doubtful that the Republican tent will be particularly wide; the party right now has embraced a number of cultural policies that are deeply unpopular (the Democratic party has too, but a much smaller number). If the recent RNC event is any sign, there's actually not that much diversity of thought either, with loyalty to someone who doesn't really believe in democracy almost necessary to attend.
My view of the left is somewhat more optimistic than yours; I think there's still a good chance that what I'll call the 90s-liberals, who control the party but not the culture of the Left, may come to dominate the culture again. That's what I hope for - I believe that liberal technocracy is the best path forward, but the 2005-onwards-progressives need to be booted from the camp or at least pushed back to the margins. Both because their ideas are bad and because their ideas scare people away from the left as a whole.
There's a chance, if we start seeing stolen elections like what Trump tried but more successful, that instead the country will fall into a bloody civil war. I hope not, but it's real third-world shit that he dropped on what used to be a clearly prosperous and stable democracy. We can lose a lot if that doesn't go away, and if we weaken the rules-based international order may weaken or fall, leaving smaller nations at the mercy of being eaten by their larger neighbours, among other bad effects.
“Liberal Technocracy is the best path forward…”
🤨🙄😳🤦♂️
Do you have a counter argument?
Absolutely. More local control. Less bureaucracy. Let people live their lives as they choose as long as they aren’t harming others. Get your corrupt, grubby NGO hands out of the people’s pockets. Stop telling farmers that cattle are ruining the planet, which is patently false and ridiculous. Spend our taxed income on our decrepit infrastructure, and stop funding useless private corporation money making wars like Libya, Ukraine, Iraq, etc. Enable reasonable LEGAL immigration and get control over who enters the country. Stop spending borrowed money on student loans and NGOs.
But most of all adhere to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Our Constitution was created to hold government in check, not the people. Will that do?
Edit: I do dig your old band Jimmy James and the Blue Flames.
I wouldn’t say that the above is an argument against “a liberal technocracy being the only way forward” though. It’s more of a manifesto or list of what you’d like to see/what you believe/your worldview.
All sounds like common sense to me apart from your stance on Ukraine.
You can disagree with aspects of how it’s being managed or funded and advocate for reform in those areas but I believe it’s a BIG mistake to let Ukraine be overrun by Russia, especially at this moment of volatility.
It seems from your comment that you see all of the conflicts you listed as being somehow equivalent/analogous but Ukraine is a fundamentally different matter.
On this topic I would draw your attention to your own words; “Let people live their lives as they choose as long as they aren’t harming others”. Russian forces are “harming others” and they’re sure as hell not letting Ukrainians live their own lives
You didn’t mention Israel. Oversight or do you consider that an exception in some way?
I don’t see them as analogous with the exception that they all could have been avoided with diplomacy and by keeping out of the overthrow and color revolution business ( e.g. the CIA and State Department bureaucracy ). The history of our foreign policy throughout the 90s, 2000s and onward created the quite avoidable crisis in Ukraine. Should Russia have invaded? Absolutely not. However I can certainly understand their realpolitik rationale in doing so. Zelensky is no prize either, quite the petty dictatorial tyrant actually. In that war ( and 90% of wars there are no “good guys” only interests - with the clear exception of the civilians caught in the crossfire or pressed into combat unwillingly obviously.
With Israel, I have a dog in that fight personally, and IMHO that’s a conflict between Western civilization and sociopathic barbarism. Quite a different situation. I offer no quarter to those in whose charter and stated goal is the elimination of the Jewish people. Unlike the other conflicts discussed it is truly existential.
"IMHO that’s a conflict between Western civilization and sociopathic barbarism."
You just described the war between Russia and Ukraine perfectly.
Overlooking the seeming double standard in how you regard US involvement in foreign conflicts, if you study the history of the Ukraine/Russia conflict beyond the recent talking points, I think you'll find a lot there that aligns with what you appear to think about Israel/Palestine.
We're definitely in the middle of a realignment, but realignments aren't defined by demographic shifts. Those are just downstream affects of what's really going on, changes in the ideological foundations of our coalitions. Essentially, when the world around us changes it creates a crisis as the ideological coalitions (conservatism and liberalism for us) can no longer solve new problems. They collapse, and we invent new ideas for the next age.
That's what's really going on. So our challenge is to create two new competing ideologies capable of both sustaining majorities and solving our new problems. (Which so far most of us, stuck in the politics of the past, haven't be able to do).
I wrote a book about it! The Next Realignment.
Both the Dems and the Reps are completely adrift. I don’t recognize either party. Party affiliations during my life rarely changed among established voting blocks. Citizens felt comfortable knowing what their party stood for and the values they represented. Choices were easy. No more. I don’t put any stock in which party is inching ahead these days. They are both completely dysfunctional, untrustworthy and lacking in decency and resolve. My vote now goes to who I think is the least evil. We are a mess.
Interesting, but I don't think this will be a long drawn out process. At least not in the left can maintain quasi-legitimate power for a little longer. Their policies will force most people to see them as tyrants. When they can no longer maintain the facade of democracy they will abandon it and rule though force and surveillance.
As an old school liberal, I made the switch over the last ten years, from hating trump in 2016, to voting for him in 2020, to now realizing that it’s not so much trump im voting for as the left I’m voting against. Wether or not the democrats will admit these days that anti white sentiment in their party is obvious, but is the reason I had to leave the party, ok white, I won’t vote against my own kids, grandkids future because other whites feel guilty about past white peoples decisions. Democrats need to leave this shit behind, this is why they lost working class white people. And even the minority community can see that white folks aren’t exactly super threatening, anyone with honesty and eyes can see 2024 is not 1950 or 1900. So they will slowly start to question the whole all whites are racist thing. The party is not what it was 15 years ago, when I was a hard core democrat voter up and down ballot. Just my two cents as a former democrat .
Sarah, you might like “The Fourth Turning is Here,” which posits 80-100 year cycles of social change punctuated alternately by periods of crisis and periods of awakening. He believes we are in the middle of a crisis period that started with the global financial crisis and will end in roughly 2032.
The previous awakening period was the sixties and seventies, and the previous crisis was the Depression and WW2. Before that there was the Civil War crisis followed by the progressive era.
Before that it was the American Revolution followed by the Great Awakening.
Before that it was the Glorious Revolution followed by the emergence of democratic governance in the colonial period. And so on….
My sense is that the present crisis can only be resolved with reforms to institutions and/or the emergence of new institutions that are more trustworthy.
It’s subject to interpretation and non-falsifiable, but still an interesting read.
“Which of those is still true?”
Both can be true. We should not forget that we are are in a major transition, wandering between two worlds; one dead and the other not yet born (to quote English poet and cultural critic Matthew Arnold).
In this interval where we are caught, we see that traditions, norms, gender roles, sexuality, family concept, education and worldviews overall are being wholly redefined while religion and trust in government are rapidly declining.
These changes are driven by the forces of globalisation, new technology, migration, changed demographics etc, and when previously silent and disunited groups come together and gather energy to achieve fundamental changes in structures, institutions, and power relations.
This will naturally push traditionally conservative people further to the Right and support any leader who promises to make things great again, but it will also push groups who have traditionally voted differently to the Right as they live on the tightrope and feel they have much to lose. It could therefore be lower-status people who live payday to payday and for whom shelter, security and safety are the most important things to consider (regardless of cultural identities). But it could also be higher-status people who want to maintain their positions and privileges.
Ever seen this Pew research here on political typology? It’s fascinating stuff and might be of use as you are considering these challenging ideological shifting questions. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/11/09/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology-2/
I am skeptical that transgenderism is going to be the leading identity focus, even for the left
Thomas Piketty wrote a book on that theme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_and_Ideology
Why do you assume that the leftward shift of educated whites was a cause and not a result of Trump?
It's been going on since we'll before 2016, for one thing
The leftward shift of educated whites and their views about white people being inherently racist and bad resulted in the vast majority of whites, being working class to revolt against that, and then you have trump who tapped into the vein of the current white leftist anti white agenda and saw clearly that majority of whites disagree with the whole idea of one race, their race, being inferior from birth with no recourse other than constant reeducation and mocking from their morally superior minority races, so he became their loud speaker so to speak, to give voice to their concerns about such issues .IMHO.
"Ho ho, hee hee, ha ha,
To the funny farm" ~ Napoleon XIV