Population shrinkage will be pervasive in the future. Allan Mallach's new book "Smaller Cities in a Shrinking World" looks at the implications of shrinkage for our cities and towns.
Hicklibs has to be my favorite term of the year. I know exactly what you mean, and might have even been labeled one myself at one time. A recent friend who relocated from a coastal city to the Midwest said to me, “Midwest liberals are the worst. They are so desperate to not be seen as hicks, they take all the most extreme positions on everything.”
On localism and population decline, a few things come to mind. First, you can already see the outlines forming of what can happen. More local ag, more local craft production, home schooling and micro-schooling, etc. Some of these changes have been birthed by people on the left politically and some on the right. Which i think is ideal. They’re more about people figuring things out for themselves, in the wake of failing institutions.
Second, while decline may be inevitable for many places, accepting decline is probably a recipe for disaster. Doing so creates a negative mindset that cannot be overcome.
Third, todays populism is largely incompetent - you’re correct. But I don’t expect that to remain so. What we have are legions of people getting active in ways they’ve never done before. It’s messy by nature. But if people persevere, they will learn and get better quickly. In a decade, I could imagine a whole different narrative on this topic.
Ad an aside, it is amazing that as the managerial class has expanded so dramatically, actual competent management of anything is a rare commodity.
Growing up in Houston, I became fascinated with demographics as a kid. But one thing I've noticed repeatedly, in many spheres, is that when there's a clear, long-term trend, some people can see it coming and others are completely oblivious. Of course, when it finally hits, the oblivious folks are up in arms about "Why didn't anyone warn us?!!!" when, of course, those who could see it were doing just that for years.
A recent example: as you note, the birth rate has dropped tremendously since the GFC, and again since COVID. Yet our suburban school district just had a huge ($1.3 billion) bond election. So where are the kids coming from to fill these new schools? Young people can't even afford to buy in our district anymore, they have to live even farther out of Houston. Yet they're still planning as if nothing had changed. The oblivious folks have no clue what's about to hit them.
As far as localist communities goes, I would say, just look at immigrant groups. We see this constantly in Houston, there are community centers for all sorts of nationalities sprinkled around town. Each group looks to their fellow members for much of their economic activity: grocery stores, restaurants, banking, tutoring, clothing retailers, beauty salons, etc. This same story has been repeated across American cities for well over a century. I think it's worth repeating among conservative groups, too. Homeschoolers have certainly been doing this for decades. The internet should be a big help in us finding each other.
Enjoy these thoughts. These are issues that large sections of the US need to think about. Though I still doubt that shrinking is really the way to think about the US as a whole.
My understanding is that, based on the current trajectory, the US population is expected to continue to increase for the foreseeable future, with a small rate of natural decrease easily exceeded by continued immigration at roughly the current rate (around 1 million net LEGAL immigrants per year). I'm not a fan of mass immigration, but that's what we're working with.
My baseline expectation is that there won't be a radical change to the US immigration regime, but if there is, I think it's far more likely that it's radical in the Open Borders direction (i.e., the side of Capital and the entire Left) than in the 1924 Immigration Act direction (i.e., the side of Right populism).
Even if TFR is decreasing in most of the world, there are still billions who want to come to the US. Some have suggested that low TFR elsewhere will generate less demand for migration to the US. But you could easily argue the opposite: the issues caused by population collapse in their home countries might in fact push more to leave (see Puerto Rico).
For the US to be unable to sustain its population growth, it would either need to stop being a top hub for migrants (which probably requires the collapse of American civilization) or it would need to face a South Korea-level fertility collapse. Which I don't think I would bet on either, though it's a less fantastical scenario.
One example of localism: After seeing some empty grocery store shelves in the midst of COVID I started looking into how an urban dweller like me can generate some of my own food. I came across Permaculture. It's a movement of people growing some (but usually not all) of their own food, often in very small spaces. They also try to generate the maximum output for the minimum input, and do it in a way that is sustainable long term. For example, planting a few fruit trees and berry bushes in your yard, and fertilizing them with the compost generated from your own kitchen scraps. You're not going to become a commercial fruit grower; but if COVID 2.0 comes and the grocery stores are empty, you'll have something to eat. Most people for most of history produced some (or most) of their own food, even in urban and suburban backyards, until very recently. I think a return to that is in our future.
What you're doing is commendable, but you also need to be realistic: no, people in *urban* backyards never ever grew even half of their own food. I'd have to do a lot of researching and calculating to come up with some kind of degree-day-weighted yield of calories-per-acre, but based on my impressions from living in a subsistence economy people had easily 20x or more the land area (and that in an area with lots of rainfall and a very long growing season.)
Yup. That’s why most home gardeners grow tomatoes and peppers instead of wheat. “Grow your own fruits and veggies; purchase your calories.” It’s not gonna replace the grocery store supply chain anytime soon, but it’s a good start, and something is better than nothing. If we’re prepping for COVID 2.0 or the zombie apocalypse, the goal is “survive,” not “maintain current standard of living.”
For what it’s worth: potatoes, sweet potatoes, and sunchokes (all tuber crops) are relatively easy to grow in most parts of the US, and have very high yield for calories/acre.
Glad to see these comments on Mallach's book. I actually bought a copy at the Strong Towns National Gathering at the end of May, but have not yet had a chance to read it.
Great article, Aaron. I won't repeat the comments already offered, but I do want to commend you for your identification and analysis of 'hicklibs'. Coming from a remote small-town background myself, I immediately recognize the mindset you've skewered here. I have numerous former schoolmates and home-town acquaintances who fit this description to a T. It's their insecurity in the face of potential scorn from our 'coastal betters' that really riles me up. It manifests in a condescending, combative attitude that is deeply unpleasant and unproductive. It's really hard to talk about anything serious with hicklibs; their Orwellian badthink defences are too strong. I agree it's much easier to have real conversations with actual 'coastal elites'; they may be quite provincial in their own way, but they are often less defensive and prickly.
Thank you for the article. I’ve been watching this trend since the early 2000s when I read Ben Wattenberg’s book, “Fewer” and then started writing different analytical pieces for the DoD agency I was supporting. Bottom line: there is no government solution to the lower birth rates and the aging of the population. The government can only work around the edges and the most they can do is prepare to manage the emerging reality of an aging population.
To reverse this trend it is going to take a cultural shift driven by a Christian revival. My prediction is, if this nation survives, that there will ultimately be a Human Rights Amendment to the Constitution and we will look back at this period of unrestricted infanticide in horror and disgust wondering how did we ever let this happen. In the same manner as we now look at slavery.
One of the problems with breaking the NGO deathgrip on local communities is that state and local governments almost exclusively distribute aid through NGOs, and Managerial Conservatives are entirely fine with that. Any kind of program outside of construction/utilities, from educational to poverty relief, is going to be distributed via competitive grant to NGOs proposing projects. One of the main points that scholars of Managerialism point out is that Managerialism is as much of a worldview and mindset as it is an arrangement of social and economic institutions, and so the vast majority of Conservative leaders aren't going to do anything about it. To the Manager of any political persuasion, committees distributing funds through competitive grants to various NGO proposals is the very definition of what good government looks like.
The alternative that comes up is why we don't have non-leftist NGOs offering competing proposals and getting patronized by Republican politicians. First, it is plainly clear to anyone who has worked in these sectors that they are deeply, deeply corrupt. NGOs are primarily patronage-generating jobs programs for left-wing college graduates in the soft sciences. They do very little good for the sums they receive, and are deeply partisan. American Red Cross, for example, has a terrible reputation among disaster relief folks for squandering public funds and for having a bloated payroll. "Go be a parasite on the public dollar" isn't high on the aspirations of most folks, except those who see NGOs as a tool for furthering their partisan, political agendas.
Second, left-wing NGOs are deeply embedded in the patronage networks of Democrat political machines, and the Republicans neither have the network nor the inclination to utilize startup NGOs. You can believe that local Democrat politicians have a naughty and nice list of NGOs that play ball, and steer the best contracts toward their allies. Republicans have to come to terms that for the foreseeable future, this is the way funding gets distributed, that it is *already being* highly partisan, and that they need to make a priority of courting NGOs to spend that money in ways that are amenable to their agendas. Trash the Trumpists all you want, but they're the only ones in the Republican Party I see who are amenable to the fact that "give money to your friends, tax your enemies" is the way late-stage corrupt republics work. National Review Establishment Conservativism, which is too clean and holy to play politics with government funding, will never get this.
I can't help but be reminded of Moldbug/Yarvin's analysis of decolonization as an excellent way to expand the NGOctopus. His essay on 'Colonialism in the 21st Century' makes a similar point about the ever expansive NGO class as a LESS efficient way to administer states (contra the efficiency of colonialism). I believe this dynamic may be somewhat analogous to the way so much of the rural/flyover US is viewed and treated as helpless and backwards by the elite and the 'Red Guard' within cities.
I wonder if these 'Third World' cities of America, dependent on the NGOctopus, are going to stagnate or break out of their 'colonized' status. In light of your article, I think a networked localism may provide some resistance. Nevertheless, Yarvin is clear how much NGOs thrive on poor administration, and I would expect major, major pushback from the regime as more people try to break free from their grasp.
Good article. The point about the incompetence of Trumpism is well taken, even if many readers might resent it.
Conservatism has to move beyond stirring up anger at "those crazy leftists" and move into positive visions and the actual work of rebuilding our civilization. The typical path for a conservative radio host, blogger, TV host, etc., seems to consist in running a couple of stories each day about the latest crazy utterances from the left. It is easy to do. Analyzing how we got here, and how we can proceed, is much harder. So we can expect more of the same in the future. Maybe we consumers of conservative info have to push back on the cheap shot artists with some negative feedback, patronize Aaron and Rod Dreher and Mark Steyn et al., and try to break out of the "those crazy libs" endless loop.
Hicklibs has to be my favorite term of the year. I know exactly what you mean, and might have even been labeled one myself at one time. A recent friend who relocated from a coastal city to the Midwest said to me, “Midwest liberals are the worst. They are so desperate to not be seen as hicks, they take all the most extreme positions on everything.”
On localism and population decline, a few things come to mind. First, you can already see the outlines forming of what can happen. More local ag, more local craft production, home schooling and micro-schooling, etc. Some of these changes have been birthed by people on the left politically and some on the right. Which i think is ideal. They’re more about people figuring things out for themselves, in the wake of failing institutions.
Second, while decline may be inevitable for many places, accepting decline is probably a recipe for disaster. Doing so creates a negative mindset that cannot be overcome.
Third, todays populism is largely incompetent - you’re correct. But I don’t expect that to remain so. What we have are legions of people getting active in ways they’ve never done before. It’s messy by nature. But if people persevere, they will learn and get better quickly. In a decade, I could imagine a whole different narrative on this topic.
Ad an aside, it is amazing that as the managerial class has expanded so dramatically, actual competent management of anything is a rare commodity.
"todays populism is largely incompetent"
True enough, but how does incompetence distinguish populism from Our Elites?
Fair! But their incompetence is cloaked in a deep knowledge of process and BS-ing
Growing up in Houston, I became fascinated with demographics as a kid. But one thing I've noticed repeatedly, in many spheres, is that when there's a clear, long-term trend, some people can see it coming and others are completely oblivious. Of course, when it finally hits, the oblivious folks are up in arms about "Why didn't anyone warn us?!!!" when, of course, those who could see it were doing just that for years.
A recent example: as you note, the birth rate has dropped tremendously since the GFC, and again since COVID. Yet our suburban school district just had a huge ($1.3 billion) bond election. So where are the kids coming from to fill these new schools? Young people can't even afford to buy in our district anymore, they have to live even farther out of Houston. Yet they're still planning as if nothing had changed. The oblivious folks have no clue what's about to hit them.
As far as localist communities goes, I would say, just look at immigrant groups. We see this constantly in Houston, there are community centers for all sorts of nationalities sprinkled around town. Each group looks to their fellow members for much of their economic activity: grocery stores, restaurants, banking, tutoring, clothing retailers, beauty salons, etc. This same story has been repeated across American cities for well over a century. I think it's worth repeating among conservative groups, too. Homeschoolers have certainly been doing this for decades. The internet should be a big help in us finding each other.
Some cities are better at shrinking than others https://www.profstonge.com/p/urban-doom-loop-drives-time-bomb?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=89264&post_id=134848555&isFreemail=false&utm_medium=email
Enjoy these thoughts. These are issues that large sections of the US need to think about. Though I still doubt that shrinking is really the way to think about the US as a whole.
My understanding is that, based on the current trajectory, the US population is expected to continue to increase for the foreseeable future, with a small rate of natural decrease easily exceeded by continued immigration at roughly the current rate (around 1 million net LEGAL immigrants per year). I'm not a fan of mass immigration, but that's what we're working with.
My baseline expectation is that there won't be a radical change to the US immigration regime, but if there is, I think it's far more likely that it's radical in the Open Borders direction (i.e., the side of Capital and the entire Left) than in the 1924 Immigration Act direction (i.e., the side of Right populism).
Even if TFR is decreasing in most of the world, there are still billions who want to come to the US. Some have suggested that low TFR elsewhere will generate less demand for migration to the US. But you could easily argue the opposite: the issues caused by population collapse in their home countries might in fact push more to leave (see Puerto Rico).
For the US to be unable to sustain its population growth, it would either need to stop being a top hub for migrants (which probably requires the collapse of American civilization) or it would need to face a South Korea-level fertility collapse. Which I don't think I would bet on either, though it's a less fantastical scenario.
One example of localism: After seeing some empty grocery store shelves in the midst of COVID I started looking into how an urban dweller like me can generate some of my own food. I came across Permaculture. It's a movement of people growing some (but usually not all) of their own food, often in very small spaces. They also try to generate the maximum output for the minimum input, and do it in a way that is sustainable long term. For example, planting a few fruit trees and berry bushes in your yard, and fertilizing them with the compost generated from your own kitchen scraps. You're not going to become a commercial fruit grower; but if COVID 2.0 comes and the grocery stores are empty, you'll have something to eat. Most people for most of history produced some (or most) of their own food, even in urban and suburban backyards, until very recently. I think a return to that is in our future.
What you're doing is commendable, but you also need to be realistic: no, people in *urban* backyards never ever grew even half of their own food. I'd have to do a lot of researching and calculating to come up with some kind of degree-day-weighted yield of calories-per-acre, but based on my impressions from living in a subsistence economy people had easily 20x or more the land area (and that in an area with lots of rainfall and a very long growing season.)
Yup. That’s why most home gardeners grow tomatoes and peppers instead of wheat. “Grow your own fruits and veggies; purchase your calories.” It’s not gonna replace the grocery store supply chain anytime soon, but it’s a good start, and something is better than nothing. If we’re prepping for COVID 2.0 or the zombie apocalypse, the goal is “survive,” not “maintain current standard of living.”
For what it’s worth: potatoes, sweet potatoes, and sunchokes (all tuber crops) are relatively easy to grow in most parts of the US, and have very high yield for calories/acre.
Glad to see these comments on Mallach's book. I actually bought a copy at the Strong Towns National Gathering at the end of May, but have not yet had a chance to read it.
Great article, Aaron. I won't repeat the comments already offered, but I do want to commend you for your identification and analysis of 'hicklibs'. Coming from a remote small-town background myself, I immediately recognize the mindset you've skewered here. I have numerous former schoolmates and home-town acquaintances who fit this description to a T. It's their insecurity in the face of potential scorn from our 'coastal betters' that really riles me up. It manifests in a condescending, combative attitude that is deeply unpleasant and unproductive. It's really hard to talk about anything serious with hicklibs; their Orwellian badthink defences are too strong. I agree it's much easier to have real conversations with actual 'coastal elites'; they may be quite provincial in their own way, but they are often less defensive and prickly.
A spicy review but well taken!
Thank you for the article. I’ve been watching this trend since the early 2000s when I read Ben Wattenberg’s book, “Fewer” and then started writing different analytical pieces for the DoD agency I was supporting. Bottom line: there is no government solution to the lower birth rates and the aging of the population. The government can only work around the edges and the most they can do is prepare to manage the emerging reality of an aging population.
To reverse this trend it is going to take a cultural shift driven by a Christian revival. My prediction is, if this nation survives, that there will ultimately be a Human Rights Amendment to the Constitution and we will look back at this period of unrestricted infanticide in horror and disgust wondering how did we ever let this happen. In the same manner as we now look at slavery.
Does Mallach ever entertain the possibility that having more kids is part of a better future?
I'm sure he'd prefer that, but realistically there aren't any good, applicable examples of reversing the kinds of demographic trends we are seeing.
One of the problems with breaking the NGO deathgrip on local communities is that state and local governments almost exclusively distribute aid through NGOs, and Managerial Conservatives are entirely fine with that. Any kind of program outside of construction/utilities, from educational to poverty relief, is going to be distributed via competitive grant to NGOs proposing projects. One of the main points that scholars of Managerialism point out is that Managerialism is as much of a worldview and mindset as it is an arrangement of social and economic institutions, and so the vast majority of Conservative leaders aren't going to do anything about it. To the Manager of any political persuasion, committees distributing funds through competitive grants to various NGO proposals is the very definition of what good government looks like.
The alternative that comes up is why we don't have non-leftist NGOs offering competing proposals and getting patronized by Republican politicians. First, it is plainly clear to anyone who has worked in these sectors that they are deeply, deeply corrupt. NGOs are primarily patronage-generating jobs programs for left-wing college graduates in the soft sciences. They do very little good for the sums they receive, and are deeply partisan. American Red Cross, for example, has a terrible reputation among disaster relief folks for squandering public funds and for having a bloated payroll. "Go be a parasite on the public dollar" isn't high on the aspirations of most folks, except those who see NGOs as a tool for furthering their partisan, political agendas.
Second, left-wing NGOs are deeply embedded in the patronage networks of Democrat political machines, and the Republicans neither have the network nor the inclination to utilize startup NGOs. You can believe that local Democrat politicians have a naughty and nice list of NGOs that play ball, and steer the best contracts toward their allies. Republicans have to come to terms that for the foreseeable future, this is the way funding gets distributed, that it is *already being* highly partisan, and that they need to make a priority of courting NGOs to spend that money in ways that are amenable to their agendas. Trash the Trumpists all you want, but they're the only ones in the Republican Party I see who are amenable to the fact that "give money to your friends, tax your enemies" is the way late-stage corrupt republics work. National Review Establishment Conservativism, which is too clean and holy to play politics with government funding, will never get this.
Excellent article, thank you Aaron.
I can't help but be reminded of Moldbug/Yarvin's analysis of decolonization as an excellent way to expand the NGOctopus. His essay on 'Colonialism in the 21st Century' makes a similar point about the ever expansive NGO class as a LESS efficient way to administer states (contra the efficiency of colonialism). I believe this dynamic may be somewhat analogous to the way so much of the rural/flyover US is viewed and treated as helpless and backwards by the elite and the 'Red Guard' within cities.
I wonder if these 'Third World' cities of America, dependent on the NGOctopus, are going to stagnate or break out of their 'colonized' status. In light of your article, I think a networked localism may provide some resistance. Nevertheless, Yarvin is clear how much NGOs thrive on poor administration, and I would expect major, major pushback from the regime as more people try to break free from their grasp.
"ever expansive NGO class as a LESS efficient way to administer states "
This makes me think of Michael Maren's <i>The Road To Hell</i> .
Good article. The point about the incompetence of Trumpism is well taken, even if many readers might resent it.
Conservatism has to move beyond stirring up anger at "those crazy leftists" and move into positive visions and the actual work of rebuilding our civilization. The typical path for a conservative radio host, blogger, TV host, etc., seems to consist in running a couple of stories each day about the latest crazy utterances from the left. It is easy to do. Analyzing how we got here, and how we can proceed, is much harder. So we can expect more of the same in the future. Maybe we consumers of conservative info have to push back on the cheap shot artists with some negative feedback, patronize Aaron and Rod Dreher and Mark Steyn et al., and try to break out of the "those crazy libs" endless loop.