It's still only a possibility, and not the likeliest outcome, that Trump really can change fundamentally US foreign policy. Yet striking a dagger in the back of Ukraine can happen. He did it already with Afghanistan. He surely can do a similar surrender again.

But it's likely more Trumpian moaning and bitching about us euroweasels. That Trump takes out the US of NATO is unlikely: you really would have to have some serious leadership abilities to do that.

At least last time he visited my country where he met Putin, so he know where my country is.

At least last time he visited my country where he met Putin, so he know where my country is. — ssu

:lol:

That's a relief. I believe he doesn't know to pin the Iberian Peninsula in an European map, but he filtered with Morocco back in the day... so we have to be cautious from now on.

Oh, wait. My country will do anything—as always—and they will keep having Rota and Morón bases.

"All is chaos under the heavens, the times are excellent." Not sure quoting a mass murderer for wisdom is wise but everybody getting their panties in a twist because Trump won; remember it. There are opportunities here. Here's my list:

1. As the U.S. scales back on environmental regulations, the EU could solidify its global leadership in climate action. This moment could further the European Green Deal and enhance the EU's position as a hub for green technology innovation and investment. By strengthening partnerships with like-minded regions (e.g., Canada, Japan), the EU could lead a coalition to tackle climate change and attract global investors focused on sustainability.

2. The EU could also capitalize on a more protectionist U.S. approach by attracting foreign investors looking for stable markets.

3. The EU can leverage its more stable stance to exert greater influence in institutions like the UN, WHO, and WTO. By doing so, the EU could shape international policy in ways that align with its standards on trade, human rights, and environmental protection.

4. Given Trump's prior skepticism toward NATO and multilateral security, the EU could take a stronger stance on European defense and autonomy. This might involve further funding for the European Defence Fund and strengthening PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation).

5. Policies may lead to a U.S. shift away from renewable energy production, possibly leading to increased oil and gas prices. The EU may want to fast-track its transition to renewables to mitigate potential price shocks and reduce reliance on external energy sources, especially in a time of political instability.

@ssu anything to add?

What the EU should do is all of the above. What it probably will do is fall apart.

1. As the U.S. scales back on environmental regulations, the EU could solidify its global leadership in climate action. This moment could further the European Green Deal and enhance the EU's position as a hub for green technology innovation and investment. By strengthening partnerships with like-minded regions (e.g., Canada, Japan), the EU could lead a coalition to tackle climate change and attract global investors focused on sustainability.

2. The EU could also capitalize on a more protectionist U.S. approach by attracting foreign investors looking for stable markets.

3. The EU can leverage its more stable stance to exert greater influence in institutions like the UN, WHO, and WTO. By doing so, the EU could shape international policy in ways that align with its standards on trade, human rights, and environmental protection.

4. Given Trump's prior skepticism toward NATO and multilateral security, the EU could take a stronger stance on European defense and autonomy. This might involve further funding for the European Defence Fund and strengthening PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation).

5. Policies may lead to a U.S. shift away from renewable energy production, possibly leading to increased oil and gas prices. The EU may want to fast-track its transition to renewables to mitigate potential price shocks and reduce reliance on external energy sources, especially in a time of political instability. — Benkei

Agreed. Nations in the EU might need to stop bitching around and start to face the reality that we all need to collaborate more, not less. Build up a proper position that can hold back Russia, China and deal with whatever shenanigans the US does.

A major hurdle is however that we have so little technology research and development. There's too much of a dominance from the US in terms of technology like AI. While people think AI is a fad, they're just judging the current appearance of it. But outside the public fluff it has major implications in both security and productivity. The EU needs to support technology development more.

1. As the U.S. scales back on environmental regulations, the EU could solidify its global leadership in climate action. This moment could further the European Green Deal and enhance the EU's position as a hub for green technology innovation and investment. By strengthening partnerships with like-minded regions (e.g., Canada, Japan), the EU could lead a coalition to tackle climate change and attract global investors focused on sustainability.

2. The EU could also capitalize on a more protectionist U.S. approach by attracting foreign investors looking for stable markets.

3. The EU can leverage its more stable stance to exert greater influence in institutions like the UN, WHO, and WTO. By doing so, the EU could shape international policy in ways that align with its standards on trade, human rights, and environmental protection.

4. Given Trump's prior skepticism toward NATO and multilateral security, the EU could take a stronger stance on European defense and autonomy. This might involve further funding for the European Defence Fund and strengthening PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation).

5. Policies may lead to a U.S. shift away from renewable energy production, possibly leading to increased oil and gas prices. The EU may want to fast-track its transition to renewables to mitigate potential price shocks and reduce reliance on external energy sources, especially in a time of political instability. — Benkei

1. The US economy will boom under this plan, as global change regulations are expensive. The US will outproduce the EU and will attract places like Canada and Japan to engage in business with them. It is doubtful those nations will prioritize the ethics of global resource management over reduced prices.

2. The US isn't as much protectionist as it is narcissist. It doesn't think it can live by itself. It thinks it's the only one that matters because it's better than everyone else. Particularly under Trump, he's willing to do business with anyone under his terms. Whatever foreign investors the EU acquires are subject to US interests because a deal that disrupts US interests will have negative consequences as the US tries to eliminate the disruption. This isn't to say the US will prevail in any and all competitive efforts against it, but I don't think it's reasonable to think a competive response wouldn't be forthcoming.

3. Those organizations are paper tigers without US support. If you can't get US buy in, they become debate clubs.

4. This is exactly what Trump is trying to motivate. He's trying to save on defense costs by pushing it back on Europe.

5. A shift toward more drilling will reduce oil prices and forestall climate friendly alternatives like electric cars and the like, which many Americans have no interest in anyway. Any drop in cost of living, even if temporary, will make Trump very popular because inflation of basic needs (like fuel, housing, and food) have risen drastically recently.

The solution is for the EU and its many nations is to figure out how to work closely with the US in order to function together harmoniously. You guys are going to have to deal with the devil. I can deal with having to deal with the devil since its the devil my fellow Americans and I created, but for you, wow, that must really suck. You were just sitting there eating your sandwich and this lands on your plate.

4. This is exactly what Trump is trying to motivate. He's trying to save on defense costs by pushing it back on Europe. — Hanover

This is in Europe's interest, though. Relying on other countries for defense is nothing other than giving up one's sovereignty. This is exactly why I view Europe as little more than Uncle Sam's vassals.

The solution is for the EU and its many nations is to figure out how to work closely with the US in order to function together harmoniously. — Hanover

The EU should decouple from the US, and instead seek engagement with continental powers like China. The US is fundamentally a meddling power that relies on dividing the Eurasian continent as the source of its influence.

Conversely, it doesn't share in the cost of war on the Eurasian continent.

Let me repeat that: the US thrives when the Eurasian continent is divided, but does not share in the cost of war.

If you're in any way geopolitically conscious, you will keep the US very far from your door.

This is in Europe's interest, though. Relying on other countries for defense is nothing other than giving up one's sovereignty. This is exactly why I view Europe as little more than Uncle Sam's vassals. — Tzeentch

Sure, but the price one pays for a defense results in the loss of other things, like public healthcare, losses in revenues from business regulation and all sorts of things.

The EU should decouple from the US, and instead seek engagement with continental powers like China. — Tzeentch

Yeah, great idea. Work with China. Let me know how that works out. Know who loves Trump? The Vietnamese and Vietnamese Americans. Know why? They hate China, just like he does. That is, a nation that was devastated by the US has aligned itself with the US instead of China because it needs protection from China. Think that one through.

If you're in any way geopolitically conscious, you will keep the US very far from your door. — Tzeentch

If you're Iran that's probably true.

1. The US economy will boom under this plan, as global change regulations are expensive. The US will outproduce the EU and will attract places like Canada and Japan to engage in business with them. It is doubtful those nations will prioritize the ethics of global resource management over reduced prices. — Hanover

Yeah but it probably won't beat places like China and India given how much more lax their regulations are. Those are the countries they need to compete with.

4. This is exactly what Trump is trying to motivate. He's trying to save on defense costs by pushing it back on Europe. — Hanover

Has he suggested decreasing defense spending before? It sounds like he will just continue the status quo of the US being the biggest spender on defense by far. I think it appeals to his tough guy persona.

5. A shift toward more drilling will reduce oil prices and forestall climate friendly alternatives like electric cars and the like, which many Americans have no interest in anyway. Any drop in cost of living, even if temporary, will make Trump very popular because inflation of basic needs (like fuel, housing, and food) have risen drastically recently. — Hanover

There's only so much more drilling that can be done to reduce oil prices (contrary to what some on the right say the Biden administration is overseeing record production right now). Also contrary to what Trump says, there is little correlation between the price of other goods the price of oil and gas.

Know who loves Trump? The Vietnamese and Vietnamese Americans. Know why? They hate China, just like he does. That is, a nation that was devastated by the US has aligned itself with the US instead of China because it needs protection from China. Think that one through. — Hanover

Europe is not Vietnam, but on the topic of Vietnam - it became a 'partner country' to BRICS a few days ago.

Yeah but it probably won't beat places like China and India given how much more lax their regulations are. Those are the countries they need to compete with. — Mr Bee

I'm not supporting Trump here, but I'm just going through his policies. What you bring up here is why he wishes to impose tarriffs. He's using his bully power to limit trade with a nation that needs it, which will weaken them. If they locate other markets in Europe, I would expect tarriffs in Europe. And so what would then happen is that someone takes out a calculator and realizes the better way to make money is not to create their economic policies from moral theories, but instead to maximize profits.

Has he suggested decreasing defense spending before? It sounds like he will just continue the status quo of the US being the biggest spender on defense by far. I think it appeals to his tough guy persona. — Mr Bee

This is the whole thing about him wanting to force NATO nations to pay for their own defense. He's threatening Europe with insecurity by underfunding NATO unless European nations better foot the bill. This fits his "everything is a deal" persona.

There's only so much more drilling that can be done to reduce oil prices (contrary to what some on the right say the Biden administration is overseeing record production right now). Also contrary to what Trump says, there is little correlation between the price of other goods the price of oil and gas. — Mr Bee

I'm not getting into the weeds of what causes what because I don't know enough about it. I can say that fuel costs are an important part of everyone's budget and they've increased. Sam's Club sells gas at like 10 cents cheaper per gallon and cars are up and down the street to save the $2.00 on a tank. It's part of inflation control.

I'm not supporting Trump here, but I'm just going through his policies. What you bring up here is why he wishes to impose tarriffs. He's using his bully power to limit trade with a nation that needs it, which will weaken them. If they locate other markets in Europe, I would expect tarriffs in Europe. And so what would then happen is that someone takes out a calculator and realizes the better way to make money is not to create their economic policies from moral theories, but instead to maximize profits. — Hanover

Tariffs only work with regards to the US-China/India trade relationship. You mentioned how places like Canada and Japan will invest more in the US because of the deregulation but China and India produce way more goods at a cheaper cost and Trump's tariffs won't do anything to change that.

If anything starting a global trade war may weaken the US's economic standing on the global stage, as other countries are more likely to become less dependent on the US market and trade with each other, strengthening China's hand. I think that is likely to happen even after Trump leaves office because the US has shown itself to be an unpredictable trading partner. That's not even going into the likely counter tariffs imposed on the US from other nations who don't like the idea of a 20% tariff being imposed on them.

This is the whole thing about him wanting to force NATO nations to pay for their own defense. He's threatening Europe with insecurity by underfunding NATO unless European nations better foot the bill. This fits his "everything is a deal" persona. — Hanover

Yeah but I don't see the end goal of all this to cut spending domestically and fund things like, say, healthcare. That may be what people like Bernie would do but Trump in his first term has increased military spending like every other president and I've seen no indications that he would change that in what he says. He only seems interested in NATO countries paying their fair share for it's own sake.

I'm not getting into the weeds of what causes what because I don't know enough about it. I can say that fuel costs are an important part of everyone's budget and they've increased. Sam's Club sells gas at like 10 cents cheaper per gallon and cars are up and down the street to save the $2.00 on a tank. It's part of inflation control. — Hanover

Gas prices have gone down since 2022 but we haven't seen the costs of other goods go down in turn. Inflation has consistently been happening for the past century while gas prices have fluctuated. There is no connection between gas prices being low and the cost of everyday items.

Well, Germany seems to have decided that what it should do is chuck the current coalition and aim for new elections in the spring. So both the US and one of the EU's central countries will simultaneously be in a transition period this winter.

What a day.

If anything starting a global trade war may weaken the US's economic standing on the global stage, as other countries are more likely to become less dependent on the US market and trade with each other, strengthening China's hand. I think that is likely to happen even after Trump leaves office because the US has shown itself to be an unpredictable trading partner. That's not even going into the likely counter tariffs imposed on the US from other nations who don't like the idea of a 20% tariff being imposed on them. — Mr Bee

The global economy is fairly integrated and the US is the primary stabilizer and engine. This is a situation the whole world is creating because everyone benefits from it. Transitioning to a different structure would require some kind of massive crisis. It's not the kind of thing anyone would choose. So China will continue to do the best it can with the US.

The global economy is fairly integrated and the US is the primary stabilizer and engine. This is a situation the whole world is creating because everyone benefits from it. Transitioning to a different structure would require some kind of massive crisis. It's not the kind of thing anyone would choose. So China will continue to do the best it can with the US. — frank

One can argue that the current situation is a crisis, or has the potential to lead to one. At the very least I think alot of countries are gonna reassess their reliance on the US, which is to the benefit of countries like China. Even after Trump leaves how long will it be before people elect another lunatic?

One can argue that the current situation is a crisis, or has the potential to lead to one. — Mr Bee

Things seem pretty peaceful to me. Where do you see crisis brewing?

At the very least I think alot of countries are gonna reassess their reliance on the US, which is to the benefit of countries like China. — Mr Bee

The US is a declining superpower, China is heading toward superpower status. For a while, I'm guessing the two will be a stable pair for the world.

Things seem pretty peaceful to me. Where do you see crisis brewing? — frank

Trade policy since we're talking about it. A global trade war sounds like it'd be pretty bad for everyone including the US ironically enough.

The US is a declining superpower, China is heading toward superpower status. For a while, I'm guessing the two will be a stable pair for the world. — frank

Exactly and I think this will accelerate that.

Trade policy since we're talking about it. A global trade war sounds like it'd be pretty bad for everyone including the US ironically enough. — Mr Bee

Yes. There was a trade war right before the Great Depression.

ssu anything to add? — Benkei

I think it's quite likely that Trump will entangle himself even more than Biden in the Middle East as wanting to be the loyal ally to Bibi. Bibi can play Trump well. I think here it would be beneficial for Europe to stay clear from this mess.

On your writing about security (in part 4). Well, that Trump would do away with Atlanticism is an exaggeration. He likely might try to do something with Ukraine what he has promised to be over in 24 hours. Here the EU should be consistent and not think (like Germany) that Finlandization would be the solution for Ukraine and not waiver in it's support to Ukraine. What Trump does, Trump does and it's separate from the EU. Americans waiver and abandon whom they have earlier suppported, they think that everything is an forever war made up by their own military industrial complex and wars don't have other reasons to erupt.

I think the real issue is really not to get stressed about the President of the US, really. We wouldn't get stressed if the leader of China would be suddenly replaced either. It's just four years.

What it probably will do is fall apart. — Vera Mont

The EU? This is something at the level that Civil war will erupt in the US ...like now or yesterday. Never underestimate the fact the other EU member states saw how bad Brexit worked for the UK. No appetite for inflicting self harm like the Brits did to themselves. Sure, the bureaucracy is lousy, but there's still some reasons to have that common market, common monetary system and the leaders constantly talking to each other.

Sure, the bureaucracy is lousy, but there's still some reasons to have that common market, common monetary system and the leaders constantly talking to each other. — ssu

Yes. However, things have been changing and will change faster now. As more small countries fall to totalitarian governments, into debt or under Russian influence, it becomes harder to discipline the membership and enforce commitments. Also, an alarming surge of xenophobia has been causing ructions, and will get worse. The richer nations will have to keep forking out more for mutual defence - especially if Trump-Vance scuttle NATO, and will be increasingly reluctant to protect states that are failing or turning into enemies.
OTOH, Europe can go ahead with any self-sufficiency projects and energy generation, but with the biggest contributor to global warming determined to increase its contribution and despoil more of the environment, even that tiny sliver of hope is extinguished and climate change is now guaranteed to be fatal.
So, it doesn't much matter what they do.

. As more small countries fall to totalitarian governments, — Vera Mont

What small countries are you talking about specifically?

into debt or under Russian influence, it becomes harder to discipline the membership and enforce commitments. — Vera Mont

I'm not an advocate or a supporter of the objectives of the federalists in the EU. It's their own delusional idea that the EU has to have strong federalism, that it has to be like the United States of Europe.

It isn't the United States and never will be. The European Union is really a confederacy. It's a confederacy of independent states that just tries to show off as a federalist entity. These countries are independent to the bone, when you just scratch the surface. This is really important to understand, Vera, because otherwise one can be swept away with the discourse coming from Brussels and then think the EU is on the verge of collapse. It isn't. It will just look as weak when it really isn't.

And the debt? The current fiat monetary system is likely to sooner or later collapse, yet it can still run for decades, so who cares.

OTOH, Europe can go ahead with any self-sufficiency projects and energy generation, but with the biggest contributor to global warming determined to increase its contribution and despoil more of the environment, even that tiny sliver of hope is extinguished and climate change is now guaranteed to be fatal. — Vera Mont

Well, China will do what it will. It has it's own problems.

Interesting chart, particular since it's from 2015. I looked to see what's gone on since then (here): GHG emissions by China and India have increased, while US and EU has gone down.

Interesting chart, particular since it's from 2015. I looked to see what's gone on since then (here): GHG emissions by China and India have increased, while US and EU has gone down. — Relativist

Yep, India has surpassed the EU.

Quite telling where the actual industrial growth has been. We can easily forget the sheer enormous size of Chinese production and output. It's one of the things that many haven't noticed in the West: that these decades have been for us an era of slow growth and stagnation, while globally huge changes have happened in the world. Looking at just our own navel doesn't give the correct picture of the world.

And it's not only Asia that is changing. A lot of places are becoming part of the consumer society, which then drives industrial output further:

What small countries are you talking about specifically? — ssu

Sliding toward totalitarianism specifically: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland. Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria are openly pro-Russian; Poland has a rising pro-Rusian faction, Serbia will probably follow soon. I don't know the current political situation in Albania and Romania, but they're all scared of another wave of refugees: xenophobic parties keep gaining power even France and Germany. And most EU countries now have debt problems. Once Putin's taken Ukraine, they'll be unable and/or unwilling to mount a convincing defence without the support of NATO.

Well, China will do what it will. It has it's own problems. — ssu

It doesn't matter anymore. The tipping point is passed; global cooperation might have provided some mitigation, which isn't going to happen now. Nor will any effective prevention of the next pandemic.

I think the EU should focus on funding NATO or a EU-NATO alternative itself.

I have always been against the diversion of funds towards military expenditure; but, the EU simply needs its own defense force.

Sliding toward totalitarianism specifically: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland. — Vera Mont

Quite a list! :yikes:

I would be critical about this. How is Poland sliding to totalitarianism? Law and Order party lost the elections last year and a pro-EU candidate won or, is that the totalitarianism you mean by totalitarianism?

And do notice that the EU has quite changed it's stance about immigration. When Russia started to let into foreigners into Finland without any papers, we just shut the Russian border altogether. And the prime minister willingly acknowledged that this creates constitutional problems, but simply said that national security overrides this. Did the EU reject our actions? Nope, von der Leyen came to Finland, accepted and supported the actions. This already happened when Turkey let refugees to the Greek border and the Greece simply didn't let anybody through. And EU was OK with this. Does the media tell this? No. It's not something that picks up a media frenzy.

Just like I'm not buying the idea that the US is on a verge to collapse into a civil war tomorrow, I'm not convinced that so many Eastern European states heading into tyranny.

Law and Order party lost the elections last year and a pro-EU candidate won or, is that the totalitarianism you mean by totalitarianism? — ssu

No, I mean the rise of right-wing xenophobia all over the world, to which some nations are more susceptible than others, for reason of their location and/or history. Politically, Poland may be safe for the moment, but those antisemitic, anti-Muslim sentiments haven't gone that far underground - and the refugees keep on coming. Of course, if Putin picks them off one by one - a possibility of which they are all keenly aware, the question of elections becomes moot.

Just like I'm not buying the idea that the US is on a verge to collapse into a civil war tomorrow, I'm not convinced that so many Eastern European states heading into tyranny. — ssu

Okay. But keep your eye on your own overridable constitution.

As an old American, I'm plenty disturbed about the politics of this country. I loathe Trump but, the majority of Americans (working class) are suffering. Costs of housing, transportation, food, insurance, and clothing (never mind saving for retirement) make it difficult for many a lot of steadily employed people to make ends meet.

Like as not, Trump will do little to make life better for workers, but he did manage to make a connection with more working class people than Democrats have managed to do. You are worried about xenophobia; most workers are not. Xenophobia is one of our liberal bogeymen. Sorry, bogeypersons--pronouns are they, them, theirs.

Most working people are not prioritizing gay, bisexual, and trans rights; there isn't any compelling reason for them to be pro-Palestinian; no reason for them to be pro-immigrant--legal or otherwise. Even if their forebears came from Eastern Europe, they may not be grateful for us sending $64 billion to Ukraine. We have spent $150 billion on Israel since they were founded in 1948. Maybe the average worker doesn't care about Israel that much. (I'm a pro-Israel gentile).

I'm not a typical working class guy -- I'm gay, have a graduate degree, have belonged to socialist organizations, read widely, etc. In many respects I align with liberal elites. I may loathe Trump, but I don't think Democrats have done a great job meeting run-of-the-mill working class needs, plus there's the "basket of deplorables" and "garbage" problem. The "leftist agenda" which developed out of post-modernism and identitarian politics is of no help to 90% of Americans. It isn't much help, for that matter, to the preferred "marginalized oppressed people" that the left concerns itself with. It's mostly an irrelevancy.

Are we heading toward collapse? Civil War? A fascist dictatorship? I don't think so. What I am more afraid of is 4 years of seriously incompetent and corrupt management of the government, and an altogether failing effort to deal with basic problems ike Social Security funding, environmental protection, global warming, health care costs, etc.

Like as not, Trump will do little to make life better for workers, — BC

Oh, he'll make it much worse, if he gets the chance.

You are worried about xenophobia; most workers are not. — BC

I'm worried about fascism, which rides in on nationalism, racism and the fear of strangers. Trump didn't say all those horrible things about immigrants just to piss off the liberals; it always got big cheers. He got elected on paranoia and misdirected anger, not for his concepts of a plan to improve health care. And if he puts the migrants in concentration camps (mass deportation is too expensive, even if Venezuela, the only Latin American country Trump knows, wanted them) the price of food will go through the roof.

Democrats have done a great job meeting run-of-the-mill working class needs, plus there's the "basket of deplorables" and "garbage" problem. — BC

Now there is a perfect example of double standards!! Two isolated comments by two unrelated people over 10 years - in reaction to the continuous toxic spewage from Trump and his many mouthpieces. (What, no indictment of the Democrats' response to Covid? Or how they let down the labour unions?)

What I am more afraid of is 4 years of seriously incompetent and corrupt management of the government, and an altogether failing effort to deal with basic problems ike Social Security funding, environmental protection, global warming, health care costs, etc. — BC

You needn't worry too much about incompetence. Chances are, it will be a Vance presidency. He has an agenda. Maybe it's the one laid out in the book, maybe not: nobody knows what the next Vance incarnation believes or wants to do, though we can be sure he'll please as many billionnaires as possible. He'd probably try to keep the Wall Street feeding frenzy going, which doesn't bode well for the working class. We don't know whether he can keep the Inverterbrate Party or its tame judges in lock-step; we don't know whether he has a foreign policy the military can stomach. All we know is, he's sane, smart, utterly uncharismatic and unreadable.
You've got what you've got; you'll cope as you can.

Politically, Poland may be safe for the moment, but those antisemitic, anti-Muslim sentiments haven't gone that far underground - and the refugees keep on coming. Of course, if Putin picks them off one by one - a possibility of which they are all keenly aware, the question of elections becomes moot

Demagogues might often use xenophobic rhetoric to take advantage of the fact that the West's migration policies are deeply unpopular, even among many minority communities at this point. However, the key reason the center and the left's efforts to push back on the ascendent far-right have failed is an absolute inability to countenance major changes or compromises on migration.

First, because the current policies disproportionately benefit the elite, keeping wages low, rents high, and unions out, but probably moreso because elite opinion has shifted such that any opposition to high levels of immigrant is necessarily racist.

I think Musa al-Gharbi's "We Were Never Woke: The Cultural Contradictions of the New Elite," does a pretty good job explaining how this happened. “Why is it that the ‘winners’ in the prevailing order seem so eager to associate themselves with the marginalized and disadvantaged in society?” is its key question. The main thesis is that, in the wake of the 2008 Financial Crisis, faced with surging inequality, elites (in both status and wealth) felt the need to justify their own success to themselves and others. They did this by framing themselves as defenders of the oppressed—of minorities of all sorts. Long gone are the days where Clinton ran to the right of Bush on immigration, to the applause of labor unions (and long gone is the relevance of unions to national elections in the US).

I find this eminently plausible (and the book itself is well argued). It also explains why virtually every issue for the elite tends to get framed as a sort of rehash of the American Civil Rights Movement or the decolonization efforts of the mid-20th century vis-á-vis Europe. One need not worry too much about public opinion if one is on the "right side of history." After all, the Civil Rights Movement was initially very unpopular as well.

The problem here is that it's unclear if immigration is appropriately thought of as a "civil right" of sorts. Nor is it clear what the potential scale of the consequences will be if migration continues to undermine public support for the modern welfare states that underpin the success of liberal democracies.

At any rate, it isn't good for winning elections. While Biden's border policies might still seem racist, oppressive, and far from just for elites, they are deeply unpopular with the public for the opposite reasons. Increasing migration is less popular in the United States than Kamala Harris was in rural Kentucky counties this election. Support for a meaningful constriction of migrant flows is the majority position and the highest it has been in a quarter century.

But could Democrats even pivot on this? I sort of doubt it. Already the finger pointing has started for their latest disgraceful showing and, on seeing that Trump won a majority of Latino men, "toxic masculinity" seems to be getting identified as the main problem, not a disconnect on priorities.