Joel Kotkin: America's changing class structure and its demographic trends should keep Republicans up at night

Ryan Streeter

Joel Kotkin is one of America's most important demographers and futurists. In the 4 question interview below he hits Republicans where it hurts a bit (Democrats, too). We would all do well to pay attention. Here are the main points I take away:

• Demography in the US favors the Democrats. The fastest growing parts of the electorate don't look good for Republicans.
• Job creation will be the biggest public policy theme for some time to come, and Republicans haven't quite gotten this issue right even as Democrats botch it. 
• Class, more than race, will determine America's political future. The wide swath of largely suburban, skilled workers is up for grabs, and neither party has a vision for improving their quality of life - which is why they keep wreaking havoc on each Party's plans.
• Republicans have failed among Latinos and millennials and will pay for it for some time to come if they don't reverse the trends they've helped start.

RS: You wrote recently in The American that demography is on the side of the Democrats. Explain why that is.

Kotkin: Essentially the two most rapidly expanding populations – the millennials and Latinos – are trending Democratic and “progressive.” This does not mean they will not shift center or even center-right over time but Republicans have much work to do on getting them to shift. Both groups are right now voting about two to one for Democrats.

RS: Conversely, you say that geography is on the side of the Republicans. Why is that?

Kotkin: Republicans govern most of the growth states (I leave it up to the reader to say whether this is a direct connection). These states are attracting migrants from both abroad and the rest of country. When these people, including Latinos and millennials, arrive three things can happen: they turn the states blue, they themselves turn red, or sometime in between. The key is for Republicans in these states to make a case for their lower tax, lower regulation model. But tolerance for immigration and ethnic change and social tolerance (for example towards gays) will prove critical over time.

RS:  Which issues do you think will be the biggest drivers of changes to the political landscape in the United States over the next decade?

Kotkin: The biggest issue by far will be jobs. We are facing a decade of higher-than-normal unemployment. The second issue will be how to become more competitive without ruining the environment. These are issues neither party has compelling answers for. The Democratic “progressive” approach has been tried for a while, and has been found wanting. Businesspeople still have to be confident about things, and government cannot build a successful economy. Republican bromides have been more effective in some cases, but still do not answer key questions about growing class bifurcation and maintaining or improving the environment. I do not think the Bush years were a great economic success either.

The issue of class is one Americans do not like to face. But it is increasingly evident that this, more than race, will determine the political future. The Democrats own the lower income groups and those at the apex of the post-industrial economy – top bureaucrats, most non-profits, established media, Silicon Valley VCs, Wall Street and academia. The Republicans own the old upper class tied to manufacturing (at least the non-subsidized parts), agriculture and fossil fuels. The group in play is the huge, mainly suburban working, middle and upper-middle class. These include managers, store owners, lone entrepreneurs and skilled laborers in the private sector. Neither party focuses on presenting a positive vision for growth and improvement of quality of life for this segment. So people in this group shift back and forth, making havoc of the best laid plans of both parties.

RS: Which demographic realities do you think neither political party is doing enough to address?

Kotkin: Republicans have failed to address the concerns of Latinos and millennials. The Anglo population has dropped from 90 to 75 percent of the population in the past generation, so the Republicans can't continue being overly reliant on them. The GOP used to enjoy more support among Latinos. Now, after supporting what are perceived as anti-immigrant initiatives and legislation, the GOP is perceived as nativist. Millennials, those born between 1983 and the millennium, will constitute one-third of the electorate in ten years. They are much more to the left on key issues than their parents, and while they might trend back toward the center as they age, they look like a good voting block for the Democrats for some time to come. 

Democrats seem clueless about America's large and growing suburban population. The majority of growth in metro areas is in the suburbs, which are much more diverse than they used to be. Republicans typically do well in these regions, and they've done especially well in the states that are growing the fastest. By concentrating too much on the urban poor and metro rich, the Democrats are losing a huge opportunity in the suburbs.

Both parties are far too focused on their “cores” and not enough on the needs of the majority, who are neither the Tea Party nor Moveon.org types.

Comments

[Ken Royall]

"Republicans have failed to address the concerns of Latinos and millennials."

In other words, they are against amnesty? Good.

[Vinny Vidivici]

Joel:

I'm not sure what you mean by the need to address "the concerns of Latinos".

The media focuses almost solely on Latino activist demands for various forms of amnesty -- demands which wouldn't exist if amnesty recipients were not overwhelmingly Latino. Go figure.

Opposition to illegal immigration is "perceived as anti-immigrant" because the media and the Left deliberately conflate the two in order to tar opponents as bigots while they work to import new constituents.

The appalling high school drop out rates, the rise in single parent homes, the encouragement of even multi-generational American Hispanics to identify first and foremost with culture and countries their ancestors left long ago, none of this gets discussed.

The Balkanization of this country into grievance tribes and the willingness of pandering politicians to treat each group differently is one of the most destructive forces at work on this society.

[K T Cat]

Liberals and progressives are doomed by budget mathematics. It won't matter who wins elections when there isn't any more money to hand out. Liberals without money to spend have nothing to offer. I would argue that Jerry Brown's win in California will be the high water mark of liberals and progressives.

[WJ Alden]

1) the damage to Republican Latino support was entirely the result of friendly fire - 2 amnesty proposals in '06 and '07 raised over the vigorous objections of many GOP voters and politicians by Bush, Specter, McConnell and McCain.

2) GOP congressional candidates havent won the Latino vote in 40+ years. They wont make up in volume when theyre losing on every sale.

3) mass immigration hurts the middle class economically. If they can't get ahead through their own effort they will support more liberal economic policies.

4) if a fast -growing ethnic group told me their support was contingent on allowing in a neverending flow of their foreign cousins I would respond "thanks, but no." Win those Latinos who support us for other reasons and disregard the rest.

[DonM]

I see Latinos as more likely to perform productive work, more likely to attend church, more likely to have children, more likely to take care of their property, less likely to have abortions, less likely to be on welfare. All those things are good, and will benefit America in the long run. Industry, morality, thrift, and productivity are virtues, and if the Republican party supports government actions that establish an environment where virtue is rewarded, it will eventually be recognized by these fine Americans.

[Akatsukami]

As is often the case, "Latino" is deliberately confused with "illegal alien from Mexico".