What is Reddit's opinion of The Emerging Democratic Majority?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

Who wrote that book, "The Emerging Democrat Majority"? Do you guys remember that? Demographic trends meant Democrats could do whatever they wanted because within a few years straight white males would all die off and there'd only be Democrats left.

https://www.amazon.com/Emerging-Democratic-Majority-John-Judis-ebook/dp/B0036QVPEU

>Now Judis, a senior editor at the New Republic, and Teixeira, a fellow at the Century Foundation and author of The Disappearing American Voter, argue that, if current demographic and political trends continue, a new realignment of political power is inevitable, this time sweeping Democrats to power. In support of their thesis they argue that the electorate is becoming increasingly diverse, with growing Asian, Hispanic and African-American populations-all groups that tend to vote Democratic. On the other hand, the number of white Americans, the voting population most likely to favor Republicans, remains static. Further, according to the authors, America's transition from an industrial to a postindustrial economy is also producing voters who trend strongly Democratic. Judis and Teixeira coin the word "ideopolis" for the geographic areas where the postindustrial economy thrives. They also argue that other changes, specifically the growing educated professional class and the continuing "gender gap," will benefit Democrats, whose political ideology is more consonant with the needs and beliefs of women and professionals. Judis and Teixeira predict that all these elements will converge by 2008, at the latest, when a new Democratic majority will emerge.

First thing's first...

>Twenty years later, we are still told by important professors and politicians that ‘identity politics’ are dangerous, a genuine threat to civilization. Rather than the Jewish thinkers of the Frankfurt School, an idea with roots in anti-Semitic ‘cultural bolshevism,’ the new intellectual source for mainstream right-wingers is now ‘postmodernism’ — a dubious source given post-modern’s distinctive brand of skepticism towards all-encompassing systems.

That is a filthy lie.

1. "Cultural bolshevism" was only about art, it was about targeting art that was perceived as "subversive" by the Nazi State and nothing to do with political movements attacking cultural institutions
2. Google's Ngram Viewer reveals that the term associated with this, "cultural marxism" has no connection whatsoever with "cultural bolshevism", appearing decades after WWII in the era of the New Left

Now that this is done, the author is doing one big sleight of hand... pretending that because Republicans leveraged identity politics to win the South back in the 70s that they and they alone bear the fault for identity politics today. This is a form of whataboutism, trying to deflect criticism by pretending someone else did something similar first.

The reality is that both can be true: Republicans can have leaned on white identity politics to gain the South AND leftist activists can be deeply involved in identity politics today for political gains. These are not mutually exclusive claims, and the author's whole argument hinges entirely on the reader accepting the implied statement that they are mutually exclusive. The author also pretends that this flirtation with "white identity politics" has never ended in the Republican party, which is not at all supported in hist text nor in reality.

The facts are that leftist thinkers have been harping about "The Emerging Democatic Majority" and the "Coaltition of the Ascendant", focusing on identity politics to attract the votes of rising demographics of college-educated women, ethnic minorities and the like to fashion a new coalition. Just saying "buh the Republicans did it too decades ago!" is not a defense.