The Demography Debates: U.S. Political Parties

The Demography Debates

The year is 2080. The United States has undergone electoral reform, and there are now six parties represented in Congress. As ideologies and the issues of the day have changed, terms like ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ are increasingly ineffective in describing the differences between the political parties. The parties vary in their responses to three main questions.

What should America’s role in the world be? Since roughly the middle of the 21st century, the parties have been clearly divided along ‘Nationalist’ and ‘Globalist’ lines, with the former defending the primacy of national sovereignty, often to promote economic equality and social cohesion, and the latter arguing that primacy of the nation impedes collective responses to major issues like climate change or the free movement of people and commerce across the world.

What should the individual’s role in America be? Another division is between ‘Political Idealists’ and ‘Political Materialists.’ The former see politics as primarily an exercise in morality and argue that people should organize around universal values or abstract ideals, which are sometimes religious in nature. The latter view politics as an exercise in distributing resources and satisfying the material interests of different groups, arguing that vulnerable populations can only be helped by self-interest.

Where do we go from here? Though the U.S. population currently stands at 419 million people, the population has been declining for two decades now and experts predict that the U.S. will fall back to a “naturally stable population equilibrium” of around 360 million. The ‘Pro-Growth’ camp argues for population growth to expand the U.S.’s global relevancy, economic growth and technological innovation, and/or forestall the societal effects of an aging population. The ‘Anti-Growth’ camp has traditionally argued that manipulating the population would give the government undue power at the expensive of personal freedom and/or would come at great financial, cultural, and ecological cost. More recently gaining traction in the United States, ‘Degrowth’ argues that the government should actively encourage further population decline, seeing this as a moral imperative for human and environmental well-being. 

Further Information on the six political parties of the United States:

Progressive Constitutional Union:

Long the largest political party in the United States, the Progressive Constitutional Union (also known as Union or PCU) is, as its name recalls, a merger the Progressive Party (which mostly replaced the Democratic Party) and the Constitutional Party (the moderate breakaways from the Republican Party). The former might be described as ‘Social progressives who came to embrace orthodox economic theory,’ while the latter could be described as ‘Capitalists who came to embrace the cause of social justice.’  Union describes itself as the party of "Peace, Love, and Global Solidarity.” To its critics, it is the party of elites: The Academic elite, the Business elite, and the ‘Landed elite’ (i.e., rural landowners and farmers).

The party is the standard-bearer of ideological globalism: the increasing intertwining of world institutions, markets, and people to combat and undo global problems like climate change, new pandemics, and ‘social health crises’ such as terrorism, discrimination, and lack of access to education. Although a handful of extreme Globalists really do support the creation of a one-world government and the abolition of borders, the Party's manifesto (and most of its membership) instead prefers a more organic approach to globalism called “overlapping sovereignty." In this approach, existing layers of the U.S. government (local - state - federal) are 'added to' by giving international institutions like the Pan-American Trade Association or NATO some degree of sovereign status. According to think-tanks affiliated with the Union, an increased number and greater variety of overlapping sovereignties will increase efficient development and mutually beneficial cross-pollination of culture and will (most importantly) also result in greater freedom to the individual - see, for example, how state governments hold the U.S. federal government in check and vice versa.

Much of the party’s rhetoric centers around this search for freedom, or radical non-interference. The party’s moralizing ideology of ‘intersectional libertarianism’ holds that there should be minimal restrictions from the government on how individuals construct their own identity, with the idea being that the unconstrained flow of change inevitably results in improvement for all. As has been argued in Union-strongholds such as Wyoming or Colorado, “you should be allowed to modify yourself into a purple walrus or marry an A.I., that’s none of the government’s business.” More philosophical variants associated with sections of the party include ‘intersectional egoism’ (all identities are valid) and ‘intersectional nihilism’ (all identities are made up anyway). In taking individualism to an extreme, some party members imagine a world where one can switch citizenship at the drop of a hat, no more connected to or responsible for one community than to any other.

Despite the party’s electoral successes, and the fact that it remains the largest party in the Senate, Union enters the election season of 2080 in a worried mood. The Demography debates have put the party in a dilemma. Should Union hold fast to its support for a ‘natural population equilibrium’ (in practice an acceptance of population decline), then Union’s coalition partner, City on a Hill, may be tempted to consider forming a new coalition agreement with the Alliance Party instead. Alternatively, should Union embrace moderate growth (even to water-down City’s proposals) then much of Union’s own voting base may shift support to the new Decline-is-Good movement.


TLDR: The Progressive Constitutional Union looks to create a cosmopolitan (and allegedly corporatist) world order.

Alliance Party U.S.A.:

Formed as “the Alliance of Greens, Socialists & Republicans,” the Alliance Party was, as its original name suggests, a merger of the Green Party, the Socialist Alternative, and what remained of the Republican Party. While these may seem like odd bedfellows, the three groups shared a deep distrust of globalization and existing institutions, a resentment towards ‘neoliberal’ elites, and similar mixes of populist policies aimed at supporting their working-class base. Though the Alliance Party follows a policy of ‘ideological pluralism,’ wherein the party forgoes election manifestos in favor of allowing individual politicians to vote their conscience on every piece of legislation, the party follows a succinct platform: National and Class Self-rule. 

     ‘Class’ here refers primarily to America’s working-class, which the Alliance Party somewhat accurately calls “the former Middle class.” 

    The party’s theoretical basis is a view that all politics is essentially the exercise of and struggle over power in inter-community (or inter-class) conflict. It therefore follows that attempts to couch political policies in terms of some ‘moral good’ (associated with traditional religion or modern progressivism) are always attempts to hoodwink vulnerable people (or non-elite classes) into giving up their material interests. Paradoxically, the only way to ‘do good’ is to pursue the fulfillment of material interests for one’s own class, community, and nation – rather than some abstract ideal. Less often emphasized is the inverse of this is: that the only way to ‘do evil’ is to abandon or betray one’s own group. This gives some in the Party a fixed, immutable conception of identity – particularly when it comes to ‘being fully American.’

    Supporters of the Alliance Party also tend to favor a medium-sized welfare state which they see as incompatible with open borders or social discord. Universal basic income, massive projects to build new cities, and government-subsidized healthcare and childcare only work if these projects are completely ‘nationalized.’ Most of the Party is adamantly opposed to involvement in international peace-keeping missions but prides itself on keeping America prepared to defend itself. Colonizing outer space (or at least claiming ownership of sections of it) has also become a pivotal issue as the party advocates ripping up the existing international treaties on Space’s extraterritoriality. While ever-better machines have rendered a substantive section of the population permanently unemployed elsewhere, the Alliance Party’s call for guaranteed jobs has been implemented rather successfully in places like Ohio and Michigan.

    Though the Alliance Party has sent one President to the White House, overall, it has been much less successful at the federal level than at the state level. Despite controlling the most seats in the House of Representatives of any party, it is locked out of power by the coalition government between PCU and City on a Hill. Still, the Alliance Party goes into the 2080 elections cautiously optimistic: the Demography Debates are causing a rift between the PCU and City, opening up the possibility of Alliance joining a coalition – or even regaining the presidency outright. Although claiming to be a ‘Moderate Pro-Growth’ party, the Alliance Party’s opposition to most of the policies required for actual population growth (such as mass immigration and growing millions of new citizens in labs) means it could be more accurately described as a ‘slow the decline’ party. 

     

    TLDR: The Alliance Party is simultaneously nostalgic for the US of the 1950s and the USSR of the same time. (at least according to its opponents)

City on a Hill:

In the long years of disillusionment with America’s traditional parties of left and right, a group of intellectuals founded a think-tank called ‘Christian Democracy.’ Although initially hoping to influence the Republican Party, the group eventually sought to create its own political outfit – an Angela Merkel-style Christian Democratic Union cable of making the U.S. “compassionately conservative.” Though a minor party at first, by 2080 City on a Hill is making waves in American politics, preaching that decency and civic virtue must be reestablished in America through community-wide returns to “religiously-derived morality.” 


    The home of ‘political idealism,’ City on a Hill considers itself the party of righteousness. Though originally supported mainly by White Evangelicals in the Mid-West (and Mormons in Utah), today the party is strongest among Hispanics in the Southwest and Blacks in the South. While not all of the party’s supporters are Christian or necessarily even religious (that is, in the traditional sense believing in a *literal* God), the party argues that morality is inherently dependent on “religious awakening” or one’s grounding in time-honored cultural ideals. Nationalism can be helpful, but unless there is a higher value than the nation it devolves into lowly jingoism; capitalism is usually innovative, but unless there is a higher value than wealth then it devolves into mere consumerism. How far this should be implemented is up for debate, but some in the party have mulled creating “morality police.”

    In recent years, a key aspect of City on a Hill’s platform has been its advocacy for projects oriented towards massive population growth. In the year 2080, the U.S. is substantially smaller than China and India in economic output, and arguably behind in technological output as well. Nations like Nigeria, which has a population of over 700 million, are also booming. City on a Hill seeks to maintain the U.S.’s economic and technological clout with an ambitious set of policy proposals seeking to, at a minimum, triple the U.S. population to 1.25 billion. Party leaders hope to turn, for example, the Kansas City-St. Louis Corridor into a megalopolis with a larger population than the DC-NYC Corridor (making the U.S. more regionally balanced as well). Although incentivizing family development (tax breaks, government-sponsored childcare, etc.) is the first step towards reversing declining birthrates, more ambitious (and politically controversial) plans are needed to realize the party’s goals. City hopes to bring in hundreds of millions of migrants from Latin America and Africa – thus cementing the U.S. as a novel, productive, and largely Christian (and sometimes also Muslim) mega-civilization capable of international moral leadership. Most controversial of all, City’s party manifesto now supports allowing state governments the option to ‘grow’ new citizens artificially in labs (so long as education, childcare, etc. are fully provided for) – a practice that state-level party bosses in places like Texas are eager to implement.

    Though only the third largest party in both chambers of Congress, City on a Hill is starting to play a larger role in American politics than numbers would suggest. Due to the runoff system (and the Union candidate’s disappointing result in the first round) City on a Hill managed an upset victory in the U.S. Presidential Election of 2076. Already in a coalition with Union, President Bossman, the first member of City on a Hill to serve as President, is increasingly bombastic when it comes to the “the demography issue.” This, in turn, is destabilizing City’s coalition with Union and pushing those Union voters who are particularly opposed to population growth towards the newly founded Decline-is-Good Movement. 


TLDR: City on a Hill is a quasi-religious political party with the goal of tripling the U.S. population. (Christian? Muslim? New-age?)

Democrats:

Founded in 1828, the Democratic Party remains the world’s oldest political party, though it has been reduced to relatively minor player in U.S. politics. During the first half of the 21st century, the Democrats survived multiple schisms and the end of the two-party system mostly through sheer inertia. During this process, most of the groups that been part of the party’s earlier coalition peeled off, leaving the Democrats floundering for decades without any reliable political base. By 2080 however, the Democratic Party has a new base of support: suburbanites. 

    Although the suburbs are far from the dominant position in American culture and the American electorate which they maintained in the 20th century, and are far less homogenous, they remain a distinct interest group in the United States. Most of the 21st century has seen movement away from the suburbs in two directions: towards the cities, where youth employment prospects are better, and towards rural communities, where white collar workers can work remotely without being bothered by the hum of modern life. Though the suburbs have shrunk as a result, their current residents are much more committed to maintaining a suburban lifestyle – and see this as a political cause unto itself. 

    Against a backdrop of technological and social upheaval, the Democrats consider themselves the party best capable of providing stability. While idolizing America’s legal tradition and the party’s own long history in American politics, today’s Democrats tend to believe that America’s future prosperity depends on close-knit, locally run communities (of the offline variety). Protecting suburbs' ‘community character’ by restricting affordable housing and intrusive public transportation to residents, are key parts of the Party’s platform, along with a general love of zoning laws. In its gradualist approach to changing the status quo, the Democratic Party could arguably be considered the most ‘conservative’ party (in the classical sense of the word) in the U.S. – though they prefer the term ‘paleoliberal.’

    Though they remain a minor party in federal politics, the demography debates have energized the Democrats, who see themselves as potential coalition partners (and moderating influences) to any of the other parties. The Democrats want more people to move into suburban communities in order to prevent suburbs’ further decline, putting them at odds with the extremist flank of PCU and the Decline-is-Good Movement. They are also adamantly opposed to the kind of mass urbanization advocated for by City on a Hill. Unlike the Alliance Party, the Democrats are supportive of immigration but want to limit it to highly educated professionals wanting to live in an American suburb – there are, after all, already enough machines to do manual labor, and Democrats often favor the ‘melting pot’ theory of societal improvement. 


TLDR: The Democratic Party of 2080 is now a Homeowner's Association masquerading as a political party

African-American Socialist Party:

Although officially founded in 1972, it was not until almost a hundred years later, in the late 2060s, that the African People’s Socialist Party began to organize candidates and act as an actual political party; indeed, due to the somewhat murky historical record and the apparent discontinuities between the earlier activist group and the modern political party, some see the modern APSP as distinct from its predecessor. Nevertheless, both groups shared a common call to action: reparations for the descendants of enslaved African-Americans. In 2080, after decades of politicians from multiple parties signaling support for reparations while never actually delivering in a meaningful way, some Black voters feel that their interests will only be served by an ‘Afro-centric’ party.

     

    When it comes to the big issues, the African People’s Socialist Party is quite similar to the Alliance Party; both are avowed nationalists favoring a top-down economic approach with populist tendencies and are unabashedly ‘sectarian’ in that they advocate on behalf of the interests of specific groups rather than for society overall (African-Americans for the APSP, the mostly White working-class for the Alliance Party). While there have occasionally been tensions between the two parties (such as over states’ attempts to ban affirmative action in college admissions), the two parties frequently work together. As a result, the Alliance Party de-facto avoids running candidates in approximately twenty Black-majority districts where it encourages its supporters to vote for candidates from the African People’s Socialist Party. (after all, having an allied party win is better than nothing)

    In addition to pushing the other parties towards policies favoring “Restorative Justice for Black America,” the APSP has moderately broadened its appeal to non-Black voters by presenting itself as a leading advocate for increased privacy protections and stricter regulations on tech companies’ ability to access and retain user’s data, issues which broadly popular with the American public. This dovetails with African-Americans’ particular interest because, according to the APSP, some of the biggest perpetuators of racism in America are the A.I. that control an increasingly large section of Americans’ lives (from buying homes and shopping, to applying for jobs and schools, etc.). A belief that technology, specifically a more equitable application of it, will enrich Black America goes deep within the party; despite the word ‘Socialist,’ in the party’s name, one of the party’s long-term goals is to create “the next Silicon Valley” in a predominantly Black area like inner-city Detroit or rural Mississippi, to provide employment for Black executives, engineers, and researchers.

    As the Demography Debates and the issue of America’s population comes to the forefront, so too does a potential rift between the African People’s Socialist Party and the Alliance Party. While both claim to be ‘Pro-Growth’ parties, this is probably only true of the APSP. The APSP supports large-scale immigration and even offering automatic U.S. citizenship to the descendants of the slave trade (e.g., Black Brazilians, Jamaicans, etc.). Some in the APSP are even willing to consider the artificial growth of new U.S. citizens (provided, of course, that enough of them are Black). This stance is partially in response to the popularity of City on a Hill with African-Americans – while both City and the African Party derive substantial support from Black voters, they offer starkly different interpretations of African Americans’ history and future: the former emphasizes spiritual leadership and integration, while the APSP emphasizes material abundance and self-reliance.

     

TLDR: In 2080, one of the U.S. political parties is composed of Afro-centric Nationalists who want more data privacy. 

Decline-is-Good:

At the heart of the Demography Debates lies a small, newly formed party which has yet to contest a single election but already dominates headlines and political punditry. Following the 2078 midterms, after which it was clear that the coalition government between the Progressive Constitutional Union and City on a Hill would continue, four hardliners from Union left to form a new political caucus, citing their deep ideological opposition to City’s support for population growth. More PCU members and even some politicians from other parties have publicly mulled joining, and more than a few polls show at least 20% support for the party nationally, making it possible that the Movement's chosen candidate could make it to the second round of the 2080 Presidential election.

          For much of the 21st century, 'economic degrowth,' the idea that a shrinking economy can actually be a good thing for individuals' (and the planet's) wellbeing, has gained traction internationally, albeit somewhat less so in the U.S. The Decline-is-Good Movement extends this economic theory into demography: to preserve civilization, radical change is necessary. Ever eager to communicate their ideas through memes, leaders of the new party have organized mass-sterilization drives (of the voluntary sort, although conspiracies abound from City-affiliated pundits) and their supporters sometimes refer to themselves online as 'Diggers.'


          Whereas Union argues for 'green growth,' (ideally supported by market incentivization), those in the Decline-is-Good Movement see this as an unachievable fantasy responsible for the world's continued march towards barren wasteland. While Union's attitude towards population decline in the U.S. has been one of laissez-faire acceptance (“So what if the population is declining? Why should the government be expected to do anything about that?”) the new party argues that decline is, well, morally good and directly conducive to human happiness. Tax codes should be rewritten to discourage child-rearing, America’s economic subsidies for food/energy/commercial knickknack production should be ended, many farms should be bought by the government and converted into nature preserves, immigration should be restricted to countries that implement similar degrowth policies or are also experiencing population declines (nations like Germany, Japan, and New Zealand, to name a few) and nations experiencing high population growth should be made to adopt their own degrowth platforms. Although most are, in theory, globalists, the Decline-is-Good Movement has repeatedly advocated for working with the Alliance Party, so as to contain what they consider to be the greater threat to America: President Bossman and City on a Hill.

          Undergirding all of this is a quasi-utopian vision of a world where, thanks to low-population levels, mankind lives free from economic scarcity. ‘Rural Ecology Theory,’ as popularized by a 2071 bestselling book of the same name, holds that, having used near-constant population and economic growth to achieve scientific development all the way up to A.I.-run research labs, civilization no longer needs growth in order to sustain technological innovation. Humanity can therefore return to stable hunter-gatherer-sized populations with plenty of wide-open spaces to run around in – while keeping the benefits of things like modern medicine.

          Of course, many supporters of the party are more concerned with the trajectory of their own lives than that of civilization’s. Supporters of the party argue that their own personal well-being is negatively affected by consumerism, anxiety about climate change and its effects, and a culture that demands excessive work. Partially as a result of the Party’s idealization of quiet rural life, the Decline-is-Good Movement's potential bases of support extend beyond just intellectuals of the urban ‘Post-Left’ and encompass many rural Americans as well. Some rural corners of America have heightened their opposition to City on a Hill’s plans to fill America with more metropolitan centers, deriding them as culture-less strip malls and antithetical to freedom. True freedom is best epitomized by the regrowing forests, the unintended weeds.



TLDR: In 2080, population growth has become so unpopular with some people that a mass political movement has formed to oppose it.


If I as an American support:
- New Deal/ Post-War European Social Democracy
- Free Association; the right to associate with any group regardless of ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, creed, etc.
- A bottom-up public social market
- Gender equality
- Racial equality
- Legalization of (almost) all drugs
- Heavy regulations on the private sector
- Break up of Big Tech
- The right for Americans overseas to participate in both American and foreign politics
- International cooperation in both climate management and space exploration
- Protection against industries forcing products that the people do not want (this is mostly inspired by the current AI bubble)
- Greater global cooperation while enforcing sovereignty
- Post-Westphalia Sovereignty
- Regulation of cyberization (a la Ghost in the Shell type cybernetic/neural implants)
- Regionalism
- Full autonomy for Indigenous Americans

Which party should I support?