Trump’s popularity with his base isn’t the result of economic anxiety, as many claimed in 2016. It’s about race and demographics.

TO UNDERSTAND THE rise of Donald Trump, you don’t need to go to a diner in the Midwest or read “Hillbilly Elegy,” J.D. Vance’s memoir.

You just need to know these basic facts:

In 1980, white people accounted for about 80 percent of the U.S. population.

In 2024, white people account for about 58 percent of the U.S. population.

Trump appeals to white people gripped by demographic hysteria. Especially older white people who grew up when white people represented a much larger share of the population. They fear becoming a minority.

  • blady_blah@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 months ago

    I actually think a core part of being republican has to do with hating someone and feeling superior to them. It can revolve around sex, education, accent, culture, religion, sexual orientation, government structure, or skin color, but they have to hate on someone. You can plot the generations of conservatives by who they (primarily) hate at any given time.

    They have to wrap themselves in their hate-blanket and fantasize about how they’ll have their AR-15 locked and loaded when the baddies come around. First they need to be scared, so they make up stories and lies about how “the other” corrupted their children, stole their jobs, took the government assistance, or performed DDOS on their interview, and then talk with friends or family on how evil the other is. Then they get great pleasure in having a big hate-orgy and trying hard to “trigger a liberal” spewing their made up hysterical bullshit.

    A short list who’s-who hate list for conservatives: communists, socialists, civil rights activists, labor unions, abortion rights people and doctors, environmentalists, academics, immigrants, “the gays” (all LGBTQ+ individuals), muslims, transgender people, “mainstream media”. They’ve got to hate someone.

    • Eiri@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 months ago

      That reminds me of the primitive human trait of tribalism.

      If you have a group labeled “others”, your group will get closer. If you have no “others” to fear, you’ll find a way to invent such a group.

      It’s why I don’t think humanity will ever get along unless an external, immediate threat unites us. Aliens or something.

      But yeah, it feels like conservative people are just more… “Primitive” in that way. Their fear organ is just more developed.

      • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
        0·
        2 months ago

        It’s why I don’t think humanity will ever get along unless an external, immediate threat unites us. Aliens or something.

        What like a foreign dictatorship meddling in your democratic process? Or maybe that’s not existential enough - what about an urgent planetary climate crisis caused by a greedy minority trying to steal or planet’s limited resources to turn into useless stock?

        • Eiri@lemmy.world
          0·
          2 months ago

          The tragic thing about that is that it’s kind of not concrete enough for our little brains to comprehend on an emotional level.

          Or rather, it’s so large and long-term and complex that we can’t deal with it.

          • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
            0·
            2 months ago

            I honestly think you’d still have collaborators with an obviously malevolent external force. Like say portals to hell opened up

            • Eiri@lemmy.world
              0·
              2 months ago

              Hmm, probably, but I feel like humanity would largely come together, or split into two camps.

              I would envision either “everyone against the demons”, and the few who are with them are a small, covert minority, kind of like criminals, or humanity splitting into two camps, which would still be division, but arguably less divided than how we currently are.

              • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
                0·
                2 months ago

                To this point, how could we increase the number of people who take the side of humanity?

                My thinking is that reducing anomie and inequality, increasing the bonds between people, all help move that number in a positive direction, as more of us realise that we need eachother.

                This is my sneaky way of saying that we could be doing this now. That sure, maybe there will always be those who are just in it for themselves or a tiny in-group, but that’s no excuse for fatalism/doomerism.

                IE we don’t have to wait for baleful aliens or demons spewing forth from hellgates. If we’re not waiting for the perfect unifying scenario, we can start moving the needle in a positive direction now. :)

                • Eiri@lemmy.world
                  0·
                  2 months ago

                  Oh yeah I certainly hope we can. It’s just hard when there are big systemic and evolutionary obstacles in the way.

  • TheFonz@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 months ago

    While I do think racism plays a big role, articles like these that paint a large American section with broad brush like this play a dangerous game.

    At this point if you’re still supporting Trump, there is little that can be done for you with regards to changing your mind and youll be hard pressed to find sympathy.

    But there is something to be said about the rural / urban divide. Small town America has been left behind - both economically and culturally and somehow we have to reach them. I don’t know if it’s a failure of messaging on the Dems or what exactly. I also think it’s a much broader issue than just ‘racism’.

  • girsaysdoom@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    2 months ago

    This is definitely true. It’s something I’ve heard Trump supporters argue about firsthand. But it’s not just only racism or the threat of being a minority, but the fear of losing freedom to do what they want according to their own skewed morals. So while a decent chunk of why they think the way they do is sheer racism and fear around that (especially since the start of the BLM movement), it’s not the core of the problem.

    I believe that this started as the resurgence of toxic masculinity in that Trump showing people it was okay to be misogynistic, racist, and homophobic in opposition to race, gender, and identity politics rising in the 2010s. Women’s rights and LGBT people are in their sights as well and, despite their narrative fitting well with fundamentalist religious morals, this seems more like resentment that those movements didn’t address their needs or issues. COVID restrictions that they disagreed with fanned the growing fire into the fulblown fascist conservative movement we see today.

    So I don’t think it’s the fact that cis het white people are in lower relative numbers but it’s the event of rising social progressivism and more rights for minorities and women that spurred the antagonism of them.

    Tldr: Bigots are upset that they didn’t get anything out of women’s, LGBT, and minorities rights.

    • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 months ago

      I’ll agree with you except for the timeline. It started after 9/11, bigotry was far less openly acceptable during the 90s. It just blew up after Obama was elected and social media took off. People were all exposed to the same type of media at the time, and big media companies weren’t spreading extremely racist content, other than a few fringe things like Rush Limbaugh. Fox news really took off after 9/11 too.

      • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        I’ll agree with you except for the timeline. It started after 9/11, bigotry was far less openly acceptable during the 90s.

        I want to disagree with this because bigotry was huge in the 90’s, but so was attacking it. Our cartoon’s were chock-full of anti-bigotry messaging, but then movies would be the opposite.

        I think I, personally, would typify the 90’s with saying that one out-group is ok, but only if we all make fun of another one or you’re the butt of jokes. IE. You can have Will and Grace, but we’re using ‘gay’ as a word to literally just mean ‘bad.’

    • kent_eh@lemmy.caEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      Trump showing people it was okay to be misogynistic, racist, and homophobic

      Yup. It’s far more that racism alone.

      It’s all sorts of bigotry that Trump has essentially given them permission to stop hiding.

  • linearchaos@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    2 months ago

    Yeah when Vance released that book and everybody said you’ve got to read it It explains the entire mindset of the conservatives. I found a copy and read it. I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop.

    The entire f****** book is just an explanation that towns were built around big companies in coal mines and the big companies went overseas in the coal mines closed down. In the way it left drugs and joblessness.

    It’s not like immigrants are coming in and taking their jobs. And then the entire right is begging for companies to not have any repercussions for doing any of that s***. It’s like they think if they’re really nice to the companies the companies will be really nice back to them or something.

    The whole book is just a poorly written country song that doesn’t absolve any of the bad behavior at all.

  • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
    0·
    2 months ago

    They fear becoming a minority.

    They/we were often the minority but still held all the power.

    We’re simply terrified that in becoming the minority now, Black and Brown people would start treating us like we’ve treated them for hundreds of years.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 months ago

      We’re simply terrified that in becoming the minority now, Black and Brown people would start treating us like we’ve treated them for hundreds of years.

      That is definitely a huge part of it. And it’s total projection like so much else they believe. “They’ll get revenge because we would get revenge.”

      • Billiam@lemmy.world
        0·
        2 months ago

        And at what point does that become a self-fulfilling prophecy? The longer minorities in this country are treated as second-class citizens, the more likely it becomes for them to treat whites the exact same way when they’re the minority.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          0·
          2 months ago

          If there wasn’t a purge when most of the black population of the country was released from slavery, I don’t think a purge is coming.

  • PugJesus@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    2 months ago

    John Brown didn’t get to kill enough slavers, that’s why we’re all here. We gave the racists a little rope, and now they’re trying to hang us with it. Been that way ever since Reconstruction ended.

    Opposition to racism must be enduring. It must be absolute. It can brook no compromise, because compromise is tacit agreement to the validity (however small or marginal) of the opposition’s point, and racism is based on an absurdity. And when a society starts validating absurdities… well, look at Trump.

  • xiao@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    2 months ago

    That true, actually where I grew up there were few orange people, but lately I noticed some people elected one !

    Btw I am an antiracist so I will not descriminate but please dear U.S.A. citizens do not vote for this orange guy.

  • credo@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 months ago

    The elderly need to SIT DOWN. It’s not their planet anymore, and they need to get over it.

    • Nougat@fedia.io
      0·
      2 months ago

      You’re conflating “elderly” with “racist.” Ageism is also a thing, check yourself.

      • credo@lemmy.world
        0·
        2 months ago

        It’s not ageist. I have no problem with elderly voting. My question is why do they vote?

        This is why the right keeps attacking social security; to keep folks who don’t actually have a stake in the future at the voting booths. Then, en masse, they vote against equality and the very future of our planet’s surface all because of outdated ideologies. Because of their self-centeredness, they hold back progress.

        WHY do they vote when they won’t be here to see the result? Do they think the generations that will are too stupid to govern themselves?

        This has nothing to do with “ageism”, which is an statistical idea applied individually. I’m discussing statistics applied to the appropriate population. Check yourself.

        • Nougat@fedia.io
          0·
          2 months ago

          This has nothing to do with “ageism”, which is an statistical idea applied individually.

          While I disagree with that statement, especially in this context, I’m glad to see that you understand the difference between discussing statistics about a demographic population (identified by observation of past events) and inappropriately applying those statistics to an individual.

          When you said

          The elderly need to SIT DOWN. It’s not their planet anymore, and they need to get over it.

          You were insisting on specific future actions (“SIT DOWN” and “get over it”). Actions are taken by individuals. Age is a characteristic that individuals do not have control of. It is not a decision, and we don’t cast aspersions on people for things they do not have control of.

          I think there are better ways to say the thing you intended to say, without being ageist.

          • credo@lemmy.world
            0·
            2 months ago

            Lol. This is a stretch.

            Again… it’s not agesist when you literally call out the entire population for doing the thing that population does. You were wrong, get over it too.

            • Nougat@fedia.io
              0·
              2 months ago

              Again… it’s not agesist when you literally call out the entire population for doing the thing that population does.

              There it is again.

              The entire population - every individual who is a member of the specified population - does not do the thing which is observed to be in the statistical majority for that population (if that’s even the case here).

        • jmp242@sopuli.xyz
          0·
          2 months ago

          Do you also buy the Vance line that people who don’t have kids should not vote because they don’t have skin in the game? At what age are you too old (or need to have kids by) to be concerned about the future? And regardless of “the future” at least some policy’s are about right now. Like the abortion bans or getting rid of Medicare or social security, or raising taxes or regulation of sources of heat or stoves etc… These matter to people till they die ffs.

          • credo@lemmy.world
            0·
            2 months ago

            Nope. But I think people who don’t have kids should deeply consider why they are sitting on a school board, voting to ban books, etc.

            • jmp242@sopuli.xyz
              0·
              2 months ago

              To clarify here - do you think that people should be forced to leave school boards as soon as their kids graduate? Do they end up eligible again if their kids have grandkids? Is this limited to people with kids going to that specific school? Also, does paying school taxes not make you have some skin in the game?

              And what about just input on the society you live in? It seems to me the solution in your example would be to have younger people run for / contest the school board.

              • credo@lemmy.world
                0·
                2 months ago

                Did I say people should be forced to leave?

                Here try this: Do you think people from Russia should vote in our elections? If you put any thought at all into your argument, you’ll see in advance that you lose this little debate.

              • Nougat@fedia.io
                0·
                2 months ago

                I want to go on the record on the side of “Yes, people without kids are absolutely capable of caring about education.”

                But I also wanted to offer a correction:

                Is this limited to people with kids going to that specific school?

                School boards are for the school district, which is obviously composed of many elementary schools, junior highs, high schools. Without speaking for every school district in the country, I would expect that school board members would need to be residents of the district.

      • credo@lemmy.world
        0·
        2 months ago

        Lol, I’m over 30. People under thirty have more at stake than I do.

        And let me know where I said people can’t vote. I can’t help it if you make up things, now can I?