Trump: White America's savior?

Maybe not

Donald Trump with Bill Clinton, 2000 (Clinton Presidential Library).

We’re condemned to policy stasis because the donor class has constrained both parties’ ability to make policy. Governments come and go but policy remains essentially the same, notably on core issues like immigration.

Twelve years ago, I argued that the future of Euro-Americans would depend on two factors: 1) the level of immigration; and 2) the differences in fertility between them and other population groups.

Following the Hart-Celler Act of 1965, which had the support of both parties, immigration rose from 300,000 a year to over one million a year by 2005, mostly under Republican administrations. Although Republicans talked about curbing illegal immigration, they didn’t oppose the ever-higher levels of legal immigration.

Meanwhile, there was a considerable narrowing of the fertility differences between Euro-Americans and other population groups, largely because women from all backgrounds were entering the workforce in growing numbers and gaining access to reproductive healthcare. These were goals that Democrats fought for and Republicans fought against … or, rather, accepted reluctantly.

In discussing Republican and Democratic policies that affect the country’s demography, I didn’t wish to get mired in partisan bickering. Everyone has his reasons, however silly or sensible they seem. As I saw it, both parties were rational actors who wanted to achieve certain goals for the American people:

Most Democrats just want to see all Americans get the same deal — the same standard of living, the same quality of life, and the same freedom, including reproductive freedom.

Is that a naïve goal? Perhaps. But is it more naïve than the Republican goal of unlimited economic and demographic growth?

Naïveté can lead not only to bad actions but also to inaction, such as the failure to address the massive demographic changes occurring in the U.S. and elsewhere. My younger self attributed this inaction to politicians believing that the issue didn’t matter, either for ideological reasons or for lack of exposure to it in their personal lives. My older self would now add that politicians are “selected” to think this way; a successful career depends on getting money from corporate donors who strongly feel this issue doesn’t matter, at least not to voters.

But what if you think it does matter? You must then “choose between the terrible and the less terrible.”

Political choices aren’t always clear-cut. Yes, Romney is light-skinned, but that’s no guarantee that he cares about the future of White Americans. His interests coincide more with those of the corporate donors who keep the Republican Party afloat.  Yes, Obama is dark-skinned, but he may still be a better choice for White folks worried about their future. (Frost, 2012)

A decade hence

That was twelve years ago. The Democrats then lost power to the Republicans under Donald Trump, who then lost power to the Democrats under Joe Biden. Both presidents were ineffectual. Trump was never allowed to play his role as president and eventually ceded policy-making to a neocon clique. Biden, too, has been little more than a figurehead, with policy being made by a cabinet he last convened in October 2023. That cabinet meeting was “carefully scripted,” as were previous ones (King, 2024).

Despite this policy stasis, the last twelve years have seen major ideological shifts in both parties, beginning with their electoral bases.

Republicans:

• A shift away from support for military intervention abroad in eastern Europe, the Middle East and the Far East

• A shift toward economic nationalism and social conservatism, combined with growing hostility to “wokeness.”

Democrats:

• Growing opposition to Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank.

• Increasing polarization between the party’s establishment and its progressive wing on a wide range of issues. The progressive wing now dominates the electoral base.

The Republicans have largely settled their internal differences, as seen in the recent VP pick — a former “Never-Trumper” but now a MAGA populist. In contrast, the Democratic establishment is increasingly at war with its base. If the Democrats lose the next election, there will be an open revolt against the party’s leaders, some of whom will migrate to the Republicans and bring their policy biases with them, in addition to bringing like-minded donors. The Republicans will thus find it harder to diverge in their policies from the Democrats, notably on demographic policy and its two components of immigration and fertility.

Immigration

Immigration has spiked under the Biden administration, although the numbers remain uncertain. Five million a year? Six million? Seven? No one really knows. Illegal immigration may be 4.5 million annually, and legal immigration another million or so (Robertson, 2024). This massive demographic change is supported by the members of Biden’s cabinet, and there is no way to talk them out of it. It has become an obsession for them, une idée fixe. For that reason alone, I no longer consider the Democratic leadership to be “rational actors” who want what is best for their country. And for that reason alone, I favor Trump over Harris.

I’m not an American, but American policy strongly influences what other countries do, including my own. Is it a coincidence that immigration has spiked simultaneously throughout the Anglosphere? How is it that we see the same policy — or lack thereof — not only in the U.S. but also in Canada, the U.K., Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand? This strange consensus has happened because the elites of these countries are all bathing in the same bath water. They read the same sort of reading material, attend the same sort of schools, rub shoulders with the same sort of people, and take money from the same sort of donors, if not the very same donors. Quite often, they end up getting positions in the same transnational institutions. It's all very "monkey see, monkey do," and it will end only when the alpha monkey gets replaced.

In both my country and the U.S., I wish to see immigration levels return to those of the post-war era, when the economy somehow did far better than it’s doing today. But that hope may be unrealistic. Over the past half-century, immigration policy has been constrained by corporate donors pushing the twin aims of globalism:

• Outsourcing of high-wage jobs to low-wage countries

• Insourcing of low-wage labor for jobs that, by their very nature, cannot be outsourced, such as those in services, construction and agriculture.

Increasingly, corporate think tanks are also pushing for immigration as a means to drive economic growth by boosting consumer demand, even at the cost of lower GDP per capita (Malde, 2023; Singer, 2024).

Which party is more committed to the globalist project? Probably the one that is more in debt to corporate America. Some studies point to the Republicans and some to the Democrats. It’s difficult to say because bribery — and there is really no other word — can take many forms, and the actual payout may occur long after. For instance, the payout may take the form of generous speaking fees (Murse, 2020), inflated prices for paintings (Viser, 2024) or cushy jobs for ex-politicians (Wikipedia, 2024).

This policy constraint will apply to Donald Trump, as it has to others. How much wiggle room will he be allowed? Not much, if we go by the questioning from corporate donors on a recent podcast:

Jason Calacanis (investor): Can you please promise us you will give us more ability to import the best and brightest from around the world to America?”

Trump: What I want to do, and what I will do, is you graduate from a college, I think you should get automatically, as part of your diploma, a green card to be able to stay in this country. And that includes junior colleges too. Anybody graduates from a [U.S.] college — you go in there for two years or four years. If you graduate, or you get a doctorate degree from a college, you should be able to stay in this country. (Sullivan, 2024)

Trump may think a two-year degree will ensure that immigrants are at least above-average. If so, he’s likely wrong: college students are now close to average. The mean IQ of American undergraduates is estimated at 102 — just above the population mean — apparently because of a shift toward lower admission standards and, in some cases, open admission policies (Uttl et al., 2024). Moreover, those undergrads are from the full range of college programs. Two-year programs have even lower standards, and Trump’s proposal would incentivize further lowering. As in Canada, many colleges will become “degree mills” that offer entry into the country in exchange for cash (Maimann, 2024).

Trump’s campaign spokeswoman tried to calm fears by assuring that such immigrants will be screened “to exclude all communists, radical Islamists, Hamas supporters, America haters and public charges” (Sullivan, 2024). Of course, this promise would be unenforceable once an immigrant becomes a citizen. The constitution guarantees the right to be a communist, a Hamas supporter or even an “America hater.” And rightly so.

In any case, one can love America while being less desirable in other ways. Most immigrants now come from countries where cognitive ability is lower, where social trust is confined to family and close friends, where disputes are resolved more readily through violence and where planning is shorter term. That is how most of the world works, and it’s why most of the world is poor.

All of those aspects of mind and behavior have a substantial innate component, as would be expected. Human genetic evolution sped up over a hundred-fold some 10,000 years ago — when our ancestors began adapting to a wider range of cultural environments, rather than a limited range of natural ones. We have created culture, and culture has recreated us … in different ways (Frost, 2023).

But let’s ignore all of that for now. Let’s assume that humans are fundamentally the same everywhere. Let’s assume that immigrants can, eventually, assimilate to American norms. Such assimilation will still face two obstacles:

• First, “American norms” have ceased to exist over much of the country. This is no longer the America of Ellis Island in the late 19th century.

• Immigration is running at such a high level that immigrants are simply replacing the American population. We are seeing a similar problem with school integration – there are no longer enough high-achieving students for other students to integrate with.

So assimilation into American culture isn’t happening. Instead, a single cohesive culture is being replaced by a fragmented mix, which in turn is giving way to an atomized non-culture.

That prospect is heartening to many conservatives, particularly those of a “free market” bent. They see culture as an irrational constraint on the choices we make. So the less of it the better. Fine. Let’s frame our discussion in the rational language of economics. Will unrestricted immigration produce better or worse economic outcomes?

Free market conservatives will say “better.” If labor can circulate freely, it will be distributed more efficiently around the world, thus creating optimal conditions for the creation of wealth. If, in the process, we level cultural differences and create a post-cultural world of free individuals, well, so much the better!

Again, culture is seen here negatively – as a hindrance to wealth creation. Yet most of the world’s wealth has been created by certain cultures, essentially those of Western European or East Asian origin. Not coincidentally, those same cultures were the first to develop a true market economy; in other words, they extended the market principle from small places of exchange — actual marketplaces — to the whole of society. They were able to go that route because their populations had the right mix of mental and behavioral tendencies, not only higher cognitive ability but also higher social trust, lower time preference, a greater commitment to rules that apply to everyone (rather than only kin and family), and a stronger desire to settle disputes peacefully.

Today, those populations are dying out. If current trends continue, they will be replaced by populations that, on average, think and act differently. Whatever the cause of those differences — culture, genetics or both — wealth will have to be created by people who increasingly lack the mental and behavioral tendencies that assist wealth creation. For instance, social trust will decline — people will no longer be sure they’re getting what they paid for. To compensate for that decline, governments may increase surveillance, policing and incarceration, but such measures will not offset other declines, notably in cognitive ability. Costs will rise at each step of wealth creation because each step will have to be double-checked and often redone.

As wealth creation becomes less efficient, it will increasingly no longer be worth the bother. Less will be created, and we will all be poorer.

All questions are allowed, but some are more allowable than others

Fertility

During the period of low immigration from the 1930s to the 1960s, the demographic decline of Euro-Americans was driven entirely by their relatively low fertility. Since the late 20th century, non-European immigration has become more important, not only because it has increased so much but also because ethnic differences in fertility have narrowed so much.

Twelve years ago, I predicted that all population groups in the US would converge on the same fertility rate. Today, we are seeing not so much a convergence as a general decline, with Euro-Americans declining less than all but one of the other groups. Data from 2016 to 2022 show Euro-Americans rising to the middle of the pack, with Asian Americans and Amerindians falling to very low levels of fertility. Hardly any difference remains between Euro-Americans and African Americans. Hispanic Americans have undergone a sharper decline than either group, but their fertility remains higher. Only one of America’s six population groups still has replacement fertility: Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders, and just barely at that (Stone, 2018).

U.S. fertility rates by population group, 2016-2022 (Osterman et al., 2024)

Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders have relatively high fertility because so many are first-generation immigrants who retain the pro-natalism of their homelands. The same is true for Hispanic Americans. Conversely, the very low fertility of Asian Americans probably reflects the anti-natalism that prevails in much of Asia, particularly East Asia. It would take longer to explain the very low fertility of Amerindians; they seem to be suffering from a malaise that is showing up in other areas of life, particularly suicide rates.

But what about Euro-Americans? Why are they doing relatively well? One reason is the presence of fertile subcultures, notably Mormons, Amish, Hasidic Jews and, to some extent, evangelical Christians and traditional Catholics. Another reason is greater use of assisted reproduction (Kirkegaard, 2024). In 2021, 2.3% of all births in the U.S. were made possible in this way (U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2024).

Yes, Euro-American fertility has fallen to levels well below replacement. But the same is true for almost all the other population groups in the U.S. Moreover, the problem will solve itself if we don’t try to solve it through mass immigration. If we leave well enough alone, the coming generations will increasingly be born within America’s fertile subcultures or through assisted reproduction. Those children — who otherwise would not be born — will tend to have the pro-family attitudes of their parents. Thus, with each generation, natalism will increasingly become the norm, without any coercion to make it so.

But this will happen only if we leave well enough alone! So don’t try to use immigration as a quick fix. Don’t try to save Mormon children from binarism and heteronormativity. And don’t try to save infertile couples from IVF and surrogacy. For once, don’t try to fix a problem that doesn’t need to be fixed.

Conclusion

I’m cautiously optimistic about the long-term survival of Euro-Americans. If they can hang in there for another twenty years, their chances will start to look good.

By “hang in there” I mean:

• Stopping mass immigration. The level of immigration must return to postwar levels — no more than 300,000 a year. Corporate lobbyists will scream bloody murder about “labor shortages,” even though such shortages were widespread after the war and actually benefited the economy by forcing businesses to automate and use labor more rationally.

• Not worrying about immigrant fertility. Increasingly, immigrant communities are falling below the replacement level of fertility, partly because they are acculturating to the anti-natalism of modern Western culture and partly because their home countries are likewise experiencing sub-replacement fertility (Stone, 2019).

• Letting the Mormons, the Amish and the Hassidim do their thing. Don’t try to “rescue” their children. Remember: most of those children wouldn’t even exist if their parents had been more normal. And why not let other Americans create fertile subcultures of their own? Why not let them drop out of the dominant culture by allowing them to own land collectively and control the education of their children?

• Maintaining unhindered access to reproductive healthcare, including assisted reproduction and abortion. People resort to IVF and surrogacy because they are motivated to have children and are willing to go to great lengths to reach that goal. Such people have the qualities of mind and behavior that should be passed on to the next generation. Conversely, other people resort to abortion because they lack the motivation or the resources to be a parent. Often, they don’t even have a partner to assist them with child care.

• Not welcoming former members of the Biden administration into the Republican Party, even if they present themselves as “moderates” fleeing “extremist” Democrats. If you let them in, they will push for the same policies they pushed for under Biden. Don’t expect them to change. They won’t.

• Remaining hopeful and thinking positively. Unfortunately, Euro-Americans are starting to succumb to the same malaise that has long afflicted the Amerindian peoples. Do I have to explain? When people lose their land, their way of life and their core social structures, they lose the will to perpetuate themselves – even if their material needs are met.

Yes, the above points will be difficult. But the alternative will be more so.

As for Trump — no, he’s not White America’s savior, nor has he ever claimed to be. That role is beyond the capacity of any one person. If you believe, as I do, that Euro-Americans have inherent qualities worth preserving, then you must prepare yourself for a collective effort that will transcend any one party or politician.

There is cause for optimism. This crisis will resolve itself on its own if we can stop mass immigration. But there is also cause for pessimism, since too many conservatives see the corporate community as a friend and ally — when, in fact, it’s the main driver of mass immigration. Also, conservatives are prone to shooting themselves in the foot, and Trump is no exception.

On this, I lean toward Keith Woods’ recent analysis. Trump may lose the election — not because he opposes mass immigration (a stand for which he remains popular), but because of his apparent support for the carnage in Gaza and the ongoing efforts to ban abortion. On both issues, he is acting opportunistically in the naïve belief he will win votes. In reality, he will lose far more than he will gain.

It would be better for him to say nothing on either issue. Unfortunately, Trump will be Trump, Republicans will be Republicans, and donors will be donors.

Postscript

When this article first appeared in Aporia Magazine, criticism focused on my claim that Trump may lose the election not only on the abortion issue but also on Gaza. In my opinion, his stand on Gaza may cost him potential Republican voters while rewarding Harris with alienated Democrats who were previously going to sit out the election.

I make no apologies for my use of the word “carnage.”

References

Frost, P. (2012). Obama: White America’s bogeyman? Evo and Proud, November 24. https://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2012/11/obama-white-americas-bogeyman.html

Frost, P. (2023). Human evolution didn’t slow down. It accelerated! Aporia Magazine, June 14.  

King, R. (2024). White House screened Cabinet officials’ questions for Biden during rare meetings with prez: report. New York Post, July 11. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-house-screened-cabinet-officials-questions-for-biden-during-rare-meetings-with-prez-report/ar-BB1pPbq5 

Kirkegaard, E. (2024). Is IVF dysgenic? Just Emil Kirkegaard Things, June 12.

Maimann, K. (2024). B.C., Ontario vow to crack down on diploma mill schools exploiting international students. CBC News, January 23. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/provinces-cracking-down-on-private-institutions-1.7091194

Malde, J. (2023). Immigration’s vital role in tackling our demographic challenge. Bipartisan Policy Center, May 5. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/immigrations-demographic-challenge/

Murse, T. (2020). Speaking fees for former presidents top $750,000. ThoughtCo. February 4. https://www.thoughtco.com/former-presidents-speaking-fees-3368127

Osterman, M.J.K, Hamilton, B.E., Martin, J.A., Driscoll, A.K., & Valenzuela, C.P. (2024). Births: Final data for 2022. National Vital Statistics Reports; vol 73, no 2. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. https://dx.doi.org/10.15620/cdc:145588

Robertson, L. (2024). Breaking down the immigration figures. FactCheck.org, February 27. https://www.factcheck.org/2024/02/breaking-down-the-immigration-figures/

Singer, C.R. (2024). Rising immigration numbers may be leading to a fall in Canada GDP per capita. Immigration.ca, January 10. https://www.immigration.ca/rising-immigration-numbers-may-be-leading-to-a-fall-in-canada-gdp-per-capita/

Stone, L. (2018). Baby bust: Fertility is declining the most among minority women. Institute for Family Studies, May 16. https://ifstudies.org/blog/baby-bust-fertility-is-declining-the-most-among-minority-women

Stone, L. (2019). Babies vs. immigrants: Must we really choose? Institute for Family Studies, November 26. https://ifstudies.org/blog/babies-vs-immigrants-must-we-really-choose

Sullivan, K. (2024). Trump says he wants foreign nationals who graduate from US colleges to ‘automatically’ receive green cards, CNN, June 21. https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/20/politics/trump-green-cards-gradutate-college/index.html

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2024). Fact Sheet: In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) Use Across the United States. March 13. https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2024/03/13/fact-sheet-in-vitro-fertilization-ivf-use-across-united-states.html

Uttl, B., Violo, V., & Gibson, L. (2024). Meta-analysis: On average, undergraduate students' intelligence is merely average. ScienceOpen Research, May 1. https://doi.org/10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR.2024.0002.v1

Viser, M. (2024). Hunter Biden’s paintings have sold for a total of $1.5 million. The Washington Post, January 23. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/23/hunter-biden-paintings-sold-15-million/

Wikipedia. (2024). Revolving door (politics). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)

Woods, K. (2024). Trump is heading for defeat. Keith Woods, July 29.