At least that is Jonathan Chait’s position in a recent article at the New Republic:
[T]he Emerging Democratic Majority thesis iterated by Judis . . . is that the demographics of the national electorate are slowly moving in the Democrats’ direction. The minority share of the electorate is growing. And younger generations of voters are considerably more liberal than older generations, and the ideological/partisan affiliations of voters tend to stay relatively constant over time. . . . There are some decent criticisms to be made of the Emerging Democratic Majority thesis. The best is that, as the electorate slowly gets more liberal, the Republicans will adjust and move to the center — it’s more of an emerging center-left majority than an emerging Democratic majority. The Emerging Democratic Majority actually came out shortly before the electorate was temporarily reshaped by the 9/11 attacks. The authors endured quite a bit of ridicule before subsequent elections eventually began to bear out their argument. In American politics, there’s no such thing as an unbeatable majority. Short-term factors like wars, scandals, and the economy overwhelm everything else. But the basic premise of an electorate slowly, slowly moving leftward remains as true as ever.
Barring a catastrophe (for example, a nuclear weapon on an American city), I tend to agree. Ten years from now, the country will be less conventionally conservative than it is today, not more so (just as the country is, on balance, more liberal today than it was ten years ago). Indeed, the conservative politics that resonate today will seem dated very soon, but liberal Enlightenment humanism will never seem dated because it is, essentially, true and makes for human flourishing.
Human freedom really is like the sun at dawn; once its rays touch hearts and minds, they begin to open, and the landscape starts to take on a decidedly different color. One of the persistent bearers of those rays is YouTube.