In the Financial Times, Democratic strategist James Carville offers a key insight into Obama’s victory: The shifting political balance of power due to the changing demographics of the United States. Due to years of unchecked immigration, white males are declining as a political force.
In presidential politics, party dominance is cyclical. Look at 1896-1932, then 1932-1968, then 1968-2008. Republican dominance over the past 40 years (the exceptions being one term for Jimmy Carter and two for Bill Clinton) grew out of a reaction to the 1960s. It was rooted in the power of the white male vote. But that voting bloc is shrinking while emerging Democratic constituencies are projected to grow in size and voting strength. To put it simply, every shrinking demographic is Republican and every growing one is Democratic.
This is a problem not only in the United States, but is for almost all parties of the political Right in Western countries. To put it mildly, the consequences of this have not been thought through by these parties or their populations.
Carville is probably correct, but a couple things need to be kept in mind.
1. A significant portion of the Hispanic population voted for Bush in 2004. Yes, they may be enamored of Obama now, and perhaps even to the end of his presidency, but in the long run I think there is much potential for them to embrace conservative values as they establish themselves as a stable voting bloc.
2. If the white male (Republican) demographic is shrinking, and all the others are growing, the immediate solution for the Republicans should be obvious: increase the portion of the white population that does vote Republican. This might happen naturally as the population of minorities increases. Obviously, this will change the character of the party itself, making it something analogous to an “ethnic” party, and that will in turn have major ramifications on American democracy. But hey, nothings lasts forever…except the struggle for power.