The election is topical, and changes little in the greater scheme of things. It does however illustrate the fault lines in society.
The racial aspect has been noted in the mainstream press. The situation can indeed be viewed from a racial standpoint, but that is simplistic. Hunter Wallace picks up on the Yankee vs. Confederate angle, and John Derbyshire agrees- the idea that Republicans represent the evil of segregation is a common liberal trope, but Derbyshire understands it in its deeper context, having been schooled in England he is familiar with the Puritan-Cavalier conflict.
Einstein said a theory should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. Wallace understands the situation well from a Southern standpoint, but makes it a little too simple.
We can look at it as strictly a matter of white vs. anti-white. The situation of the Asians illustrates this. Mainstream conservatives perceive people as voting economically and socially, and by this logic Asians should be Republican voters. Asians don’t have the historical separation and hostility to non-elite Europeans that Jews have, and have historically integrated well with whites. The HBD crowd loves Asians, many verging on sinophilia. But Asians are as strongly left-liberal/Democratic as Jews, even more than Hispanics. This to me shows that there is an anti-white coalition, or anti-non-elite-white coalition led by elite whites, to which all non-whites feel a need to be a part. For this reason I’m abandoning the coining “non-Asian minority” or “NAM”. Asians behave better than other minorities, but as far as politics are concerned they are the same.
That however is also a little too simple, since many, or most of the New England and Midwestern whites that voted for Obama are not elite, or even really formally allied with the elites. There is an idea, especially among the Vdare crowd, that WASPs are freedom-loving individualists and the trouble in the US comes from mid-19th century and later non-Protestant immigrants, the Irish, Italians and Jews.
The truth is the proportion of even the white population that is freedom-loving individualists is pretty small. The Cavalier elite was all in favor of a strong central government controlled by the Supreme Court- as it was from the Jefferson presidency up until the Civil War, under Chief Justices Marshall and Taney. The Puritans wanted a strong government controlled by themselves, and the Quakers, while they valued freedom more, had a communitarian orientation that was not going to oppose one. That leaves the Borderers as a group that truly valued freedom and wanted to do their own thing and be left alone, and was willing to give others the same freedom.
The Irish were quick to take control of government as they could. They did not start government corruption in the North, though- Steve Sailer wrote something once about some state legislature shenanigans in New York in the 1840’s involving Martin Van Buren. Arriving in the same time frame in the Midwest were Germans and Scandinavians who were more sober and honest in the conduct of government affairs, but were also enthusiastic socialists mostly. The alt-right likes to think of socialism as a Jewish plot, but socialism in its more and less virulent forms seems to be German at root, and enthused about by Jews mainly because they were either German or Eastern Europeans who looked to Germany for cultural and political ideas.
Later immigrants- Italians and Eastern Europeans- had pragmatic view of government, they were interested in what it could do for them. The machines offered support in return for support.
What about later 20th century immigrants? Surely coming from dysfunctional oligarchies they would appreciate freedom? Actually, no. Latin Americans come from authoritarian countries, with zero-sum economic attitudes. Asians come from highly authoritarian cultures where the government controls the economy and has the final say.
Even supposedly “anti-communist” immigrants are suspect. The original Cubans were disenfranchised property owners. Coming just after were many disillusioned with the revolution, but many of them because they had been idealistic communists and it hadn’t gone as they had hoped. That wouldn’t turn them into freedom-loving capitalists, just idealistic communists who wanted to try again. The same thing is probably true of Vietnamese immigrants- the first wave were anti-communists, the later largely communists who wanted to eat better.
US society is composed of various racial and ethnic groups and subgroups, each with their own history, experiences and values. A libertarian ideology of freedom is native only to inland Southerners and some other English people. That ideology has been adopted by some others, but most groups are either strongly authoritarian, strongly communitarian, or strongly self-interested in a large, controlling, intrusive, high-spending government at all levels.
This brings us full circle to the cynical libertarian argument that in a democracy, people will vote themselves other people’s’ money. The racial, ethnic, cultural and historical factors that make people do this don’t really matter. In a large enough society, people perceive distant others as paying for them.
People- or a lot of people- think the government is their friend. It is, until it isn’t. Assume it isn’t, and you won’t be disappointed.