Like a lot of people interested in US politics and economics, I’ve been thinking quite a bit recently about the results of the last US census and the excellent analyses that demographers, political pundits and others have done on them.
One thing that really strikes me is the projections of the US’s population out to 2050. Unlike many other developing countries, the US’s population will keep growing, reaching almost 440 million in 2050. (If you think that sounds crowded, it still leaves the US with one-sixth of the number of people per square mile as we have in the UK.)
And its make-up will change significantly, continuing trends already well under way. The country which was almost 85% white when John F. Kennedy took office will be majority-minority by 2050—non-Hispanic whites will make up less than half of the population. Some 85% of the population growth over the last decade has come from people of colour. The Hispanic and Asian-American populations will pretty much triple between now and 2050, with almost 130 million Americans of Hispanic heritage by that date—30% of the population.
These are exciting developments, and it’s fascinating to think about their implications for the economy, politics, and culture of this great country which has always defined itself by the diversity of its people. Just comparing the photographs of the Cabinets of President Eisenhower and President Obama gives you a sense of how much the elites here have already changed to reflect the make-up of the population they serve.
Some argue that these changes will re-orient the United States’ attention towards the South and the West, and—by implication—away from traditional allies like the UK. But I think it’s a bit more complicated than that.
First, it would be strange if the US were not paying a lot of attention to Latin America and Asia, as economic growth and growing roles on the global stage make them bigger partners for trade and investment, and closer allies. That doesn’t have to come at the expense of traditional alliances, but can complement them; indeed the UK, too, is investing more in our relationships with the emerging powers, as our Foreign Secretary set out again only last week.
The second reason is that the UK is itself increasingly diverse. Our own strong minority communities, and our historical links with countries around the world, give us plenty of links into today’s and tomorrow’s diverse America.
And third, demography isn’t destiny. The UK/US relationship has never relied just on a common ancestry. Of course the colonies began as part of the British Empire; but they spent much of the formative years of the United States fighting the British (as Prime Minister Cameron and President Obama joked about last month). A shared language has helped keep our cultures inter-twined, and history still matters, of course.
But it has been a long time since the US was run by entirely “Anglo” elites, if it ever was, and changes here and in the UK haven’t made our alliance weaker. That’s because it’s about much more than ethnic ancestry—about shared values, a common commitment to taking our global responsibilities, a common way of seeing the world and what it takes to succeed in it. Those things may have originally grown out of what some call a shared Anglo-Protestant culture, and we can be proud of that; but they are the values that people everywhere want to live by, and accessible to all.
Anyway, one of the most interesting questions for me from all this demography is as a practitioner of day-to-day diplomacy in the United States: what do we need to change in the way we go about our business, and the people we engage with, to ensure we know the current and future leaders of this country on whom our alliance depends?
A few immediate thoughts. I think we need to challenge ourselves to combine the traditional and historic with the modern and fresh, and to make sure we’re involving not just the groups of people with an obvious UK connection but reaching into those who haven’t yet thought to engage with us.
We need to think about when it might make sense to use more Spanish, either in face-to-face meetings (if we can) or as an option in our digital engagement; we’ve already done this with a new Spanish language section of our UKinUSA website, with Spanish-language news features and content.
We need to make sure that the very best students from all backgrounds are applying to future leaders’ schemes—such as the Marshall Scholarship or the British Council’s TN 2020 project—and more generally encourage them to study in the UK.
We need to be confident talking about our values, and things like the UK/US military alliance which are about putting those values into action and cut well across any lines of history or heritage. And we need to be confident promoting a UK which is itself diverse, open and vibrant—at this year’s Olympic Games, for example more than 100 nations will have London-based communities of more than 50,000 people to cheer their teams on, reflecting that city’s role as a global hub.
One of the core values the US and UK share is a willingness to adapt to change—to see the future coming and prepare ourselves to meet it head-on. We have a chance to do so now as our populations grow and change over the coming decades.
I’d welcome your comments and thoughts.
Nick,
A very educational and thought provoking piece. Additionally, the suggestions you give for how to engage our future leaders were (contrary to the perception of Americans rendered by the majority of respondants in the British Council-conducted pole pertaining to perceptions of the characteristics of people of various nationalities) sensible.
However, if I may contribute to your thoughts on the potencial future foreign policy of the United States in response to its demographic change.
Regarding your first point. I agree that increased attention given to Latain America and Asian countries does not inevitably mean, nor need result in decreased attention to our traditional allies, and (in my humble opinion) if our future leaders, particularly in the executive branch of government, are wise, they will make certain that the US does not neglect its traditional allies. However, this does not guarantee that future leaders, as most foreign policy annalists now agree was attempted during the first half of the first term of Obama’s presidency, will not see such a move as strategically necessary for the United States as it seeks to position itself in a world believed to be lead by the BRIC nations as opposed to the United States. It is my furvant hope that should someone consider experimenting with such a move, that they will look to Obama’s attempt with it and how counterproductive and damaging (for both the United States and its traditional allies – the UK in particular) it was before proceeding.
With respect of your third point. While it is certainly true that demography is not destony, and furthermore that the largest drivers of our alliance today are our shared values and interests, it is nevertheless undenyable, is it not, that our common ansestry and all of its component parts have made, and continue to make our values endure and our alliance stirdy. We share these values with the democratic world, yet time and again we have proven to be one another’s most reliable allies in many areas–defence being the largest. why is this? The answer to this question is (as you described it was for the question of the United States’ future international commitments) complicated, but I think we can safely assume that absent a common heritage and culture, our commitment to acting on our shared values would most-likely be more caveat-based.
Additionally, most people, when they refer to American elites being “anglo,” they are usually refering primarily to the president, not his/her (hopefully, one day) cabanit, as they are the ones most tasked with leading the country. This is why when Obama assumed the office, there was a good deal of concern, later to be partially proven correct, over whether his Kenyan heritage would cause him to turn away from the UK and our European allies.
This neatly brings me to my final point. The values that our countries share have steered our past leaders’ course toward relative prosperity and peace. And so it is with this knowledge that I hope that our future leaders will find allies in one another.