It disturbs me that the much-touted and predictable demographic changes on the horizon are illogically perceived as the advent of social, cultural, religious and economic change. From my vantage the recognizable demographic change will be confined to changes of age, popular youthful diversions, slang and drinks. In short nothing but the usual over time.  As for the patent change of people’s outer colour (and perhaps their sartorial expression) the change is skin-deep only, not anything catastrophic affecting the principles of either democracy or the “American Way of Life”. Walmart survives in spite of approaching demographic change.

At the core of the idea of American democracy is a promise of civic equality, initially extended just to a chosen few. The key political conflicts of American history have been over expanding that promise. The “white genocide” or “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory rests on the ideological principle that certain people should be excluded from that promise, or that extending it to them would constitute a form of bondage for those to whom the promise was originally kept.

These voters (immigrants) are no less rational or independent than white people, and Republican nativism is clearly insufficient to make them reliable Democratic stalwarts. They are not mystically immune to conservative arguments about religion, culture, economics, or even immigration; in fact, many immigrants arrive in the United States sharing such premises. The hypothesis that immigration reform would be an overwhelming boon among such voters has been disproved; Trump won many of them over while enacting immigration policies that were both cruel and counterproductive.

Maintaining a lack of clear reasoning – while it sustains the disagreement and egocentrism between political rivals – reminds me of a specious parliamentary debate at law school.  I cannot recall who won the argument. There were two parties, one denominated the government, the other the opposition.  The resolution before the house was: Be it resolved that Little Red Riding Hood is a sexual myth. As you might imagine the debate on either side of the aisle was ripe with contrivance to the point of ridicule – and happily with a great deal of humour alternating between lascivious and preposterous. There was however nothing pertaining to the arguments which arose from anything other than the random choice of the side of the aisle. To be clear, the colour or heritage of those on either side of the aisle was irrelevant. If anything the differences (whatever they may have been) enhanced the debate. Nor was there anything promoted in favour of either the government or the opposition as irrelevant as the sex of those involved, their age, appearance or sexual persuasion.

Like it or not demographic change is inevitable. I am uncertain where the nativists think the country began. Whatever absurdity currently rules the nativists is destined to irrelevance. The evolution is already underway; the wave is evident everywhere throughout the world. The erstwhile seeds of civilization in North Africa and Asia are incrementally and noticeably overtaking the globe. It is laughable to pretend that North America will for long or forever maintain its white camouflage.  Mixed marriage has already become frequent.  Everybody has a gay uncle.  There is no indignity to religion of any description. And women matter.

Nativism is the political policy of promoting or protecting the interests of native or individual inhabitants over those of immigrants,including the support of immigration-restriction measures.

In scholarly studies, nativism is a standard technical term, although those who hold this political view do not typically accept the label. Oezguer Dindar wrote, “[N]ativists […] do not consider themselves [to be] nativists. For them it is a negative term and they rather consider themselves as ‘Patriots’.

Meanwhile we’re left to deal with meaningful debate surrounding infrastructure, education, health care and monetary policy – none of which by the way has any infringement upon democracy or the “American Way of Life”. On the other hand what seems to be poisoning our social contract is the devotion of panderers and egotists to fabricated controversy. As much as I adhere to independence of thinking, I confess the manifest influence of political leaders upon the “masses”. If I were to opine directly, the problem is us not infrastructure, education, health care or monetary policy. The real devil in the mix is the gain achieved by one promoter or another. The masses for all their limitations have seldom more to gain than their brethren; that is, for most of us it’s win/win. But can we be taught the inutility of in-fighting? Can we learn to resist entertainment for advice? And have we looked within recently?

Assuming I am correct that the human creature – not unlike the lowly insect – is motivated primarily for survival I expect it is only a matter of time before the window dressing of the Patriots is blown asunder. Just as the Patriots once battled the British for independence  – and won – so too will the latest arrivals on these shores.

Keeping in mind the unifying love of money it is a matter of time too before capitalists of any persuasion succumb to the allure of retailing their products to whomever pays the price. It may take time for the soot of capitalism to descend from the heights of the current magnates upon the heads of the lowly small businessman below but it will.  America was built on the back of every one of us not just a select few.  And in case it hasn’t yet sunk in, it’s bad business to pretend otherwise.