That's a mighty ambitious sea-change you're prophecying, there.
I don't see so much change, but I can describe it in more words. At least that's something.
Estimates say that by that year, we will be a white minority nation.
Demographers are dimwits. I should know; they come out of my academic discipline. I spent my entire grad school arguing them into silence.
Current demographics defines anyone as whatever they self-identify as, which is the least reliable and most corruptible form of social research. As a result, demography is unreliable and corrupted. But they have "suggestions".
The current accepted definition of "black" or "african-american" - the one demographers suggest to the folks they are interviewing - is anyone who has any black African lineage. Stress: ANY.
Similarly, the current accepted definition of "hispanic" is anyone who has any "hispanic" lineage. Stress: ANY. And "hispanic" itself was coined in the last generation as a hodge-podge catchall, and loosely refers to anyone from [a western-hemisphere] Spanish-heritage nation [which sometimes includes Portugeuse-heritage] "regardless of race".
The current accepted definition of "white", on the other hand, is anyone who has only non-hispanic European ancestry.
With dishonest groundrules like this, "whites" are destined for extinction, if only academically. And since these groundrules came out of academia, academic extinction may, in fact, be the motive.
The fastest-growing demographic in the US in the last two generations is not blacks, nor whites, nor hispanics, nor "asian" immigrants [another mincing term - they are orientals]; it is mixed-race mutts.
The Republican Party will split in two. You cannot put everyone right of center into one party.
Balderdash; and sure you can - they've done it for generations.
The US - and more particularly, the ijjits who dominate and domineer the political landscape - has a very difficult problem comprehending more than two alternatives at a time. Everyone to the right of an arbitrary "center line" will be defined as "conservative", "neo-con", "Republican", and everyone to the left of that same line will be defined as "liberal", "socialist", "Democrat".
This is the even the way it works among those who would call themselves libertarians, who are a political third-wheel on the two-wheeled American Political Bicycle. Even they can't get out of the false-dichotomy habit; see how quickly they accused Tea Partying of being just another "neo-con" outlet.
The traditional notions of East-West, or Communism-Capitalism no longer apply.
East-West as Communism/Capitalism?
No, you're right; it doesn't. Not exactly. Communism - despite the nails-on-the-chalkboard of holdouts like Chavez, the Merry Castro Boys, and L'il Kim - is in its dying throes. China will "reinvent" communism as capitalism and officiously regiment it - as they've regimented everything for millenia.
The East-West struggle is being replaced as rapidly as the Imams can arrange it by a Panislamist versus The World cage match. The fodder for all this is, of course, the poor and destitute from muslim-dominated nations - which breed poor destitution with their sad mixture of mandatory state-religion and mandatory despotism. These poor, destitute fodders only get encouragement by those in the West who don't seem to understand the recurrence of long-cycle historic patterns, and can't seem to be dislodged from their Wii and blackberry long enough to pay attention.
Whether it comes to the eschatalogical head the Imams desire, though, is based in large part on Iran. Their leadership is either greatly or moderately in favor of the new East-West schism, but a majority of their people recall too fondly that despite the Shah being tough on the growing panislamist movement, he turned out to have been right about it, and they preferred their "decadent" westernisms to the islamic version of Amish-land they've been enjoying since '79.
The US is going to have to come to grips with its soft-heartedness. The same soft-heartedness that looked at Kosovo in '99 and wept great tears of sympathy - "Oh those poor, poor Kosovs ... being so brutally slaughtered just because they started a revolution..." - and injecting ourselves into their self-made mess.
Many soft-hearted liberal dinks now look just as doe-eyed at Darfur, which is another group of revolutionaries being put down by the government they are revolting against.
Soft-heartedness in foreign affairs leads inexoribly to soft-skulledness. Just because someone in the world is, boo friggin hoo, being put upon and asks for our help does not mean we should give it. Life's tough, you'll never come out of it alive. You start revolutions, expect to get shot at.
And even the "cold and heartless" "neo-cons" get soft-hearted ... and then soft-skulled. Iraq. Okay; they pissed us off. That calls for an ass-kicking. Once their ass was sufficiently kicked, what'd we do?
We stayed, because, boo friggin hoo, they don't have a government, they don't have this, they don't have that, ... and we should give it to them.
BZZZZT. We already gave it to them. If they want anything better, let them get it for themselves.
We've seen the mess that "dovish" wars get for us; we've seen the mess that "hawkish" wars get for us. And just because we're soft-hearted. It gets us more of the same: more people asking us to help them with their particular bully.
The US is going to learn - and hopefully within the decade - that the purpose of the world's most powerful military, if it is to be used benevolently, is to kick the asses of those who need it, and only when they need it, and to leave everyone else alone in the meantime. Those who need an ass kicking are those who piss us off.
"Benevolence" is always misunderstood under the best of circumstances. "Benevolent" use of the US military for Kosovo - where we had no national interest - is viewed as interference and buttinskying. "Benevolent" use of the US military in A'stan - where we DID have an interest - is understood by everyone as "well, y'know, al Qaida did piss them off...". Even Iraq was understood as "Hussein pissed off the Americans".
And historically, that is all the justification anyone needs for wars. What is seen as the interference and buttinskying is when we overstay. If we're truly not attempting to build an empire with little proxy states running around bumping into furniture, then we need to kick ass and leave, not kick ass and stay, and put on bandaids, and fluff pillows, and pick up toys. It's almost as if we're apologizing for them pissing us off.
And we need to develop somewhat thicker skin when other nations start their pissing, so that it doesn't soak in and make our hearts and skulls soft so easily. Our hawks and doves are almost indifferentiable in how they react to the rest of the world. But by god! to each other they find no end to the differences!
If NKorea wants to rattle its rusty saber, let them. If Japan and SKorea don't want to put up with it, let THEM deal with it. If Syria and Iran want to play 21st-Century "Bronze-Age Empire Rebuilder" over the remains of Iraq, let them. Split the place in two along Sunni-Shia boundaries and let the games begin. Administration of imperial frontiers is a headache.
Let others micromanage. We need to stay home and make money.
