The United States has generally prided itself as being the "Great American Melting Pot," but is our society rapidly moving from crucible to centrifuge, and can our federation survive it?
On 31 May 1916, Teddy Roosevelt made a lasting observation. Addressing the Knights of Columbus at a time when war hysteria and xenophobia were percolating through the country he asserted...
"I stand for straight Americanism unconditioned and unqualified, and I stand against every form of hyphenated Americanism. I do not speak of the hyphen when it is employed as a mere convenience, although personally, I like to avoid its use even in such manner. I speak and condemn its use whenever it represents an effort to form political parties along racial lines or to bring pressure to bear on parties and politicians, not for American purposes, but in the interest of some group of voters of a certain national origin, or of the country from which they or their fathers came."
Although we don't suffer the same sort of nationalistic identity politics that we did in 1916, we certainly have no shortage of other forms of political hyphenation. Gay-Americans, Trans-Americans, Latino/Latinx-Americans, Reproductive-capable-Americans, Menstruating-Americans, non-menstruating-Americans... The list goes on for as far as you can mince a concept of self, and this is even before we fold all the religious hyphenations into the lumpy conglomeration.
Roosevelt's point was simple and succinct, and one not far afield from Lincoln's in the years leading up to the Civil War; divided houses do not stand well against themselves and ultimately - they fall. In Roosevelt's case however, his pragmatism as a master politician who'd clawed his way though New York City and state politics was more surgical in its assessment - identity politics made for profitable politics, since the counterpoint of one tribe against another enabled a suzerainty of the whole.
It's also interesting that his speech came at a time when Marxism was a serious threat here and abroad, since a core requirement of Marxism is the exploitation of minorities or "marginalized" identities, whether they be ethnicity, caste, or socioeconomic status, who become the"us" versus the uncaring and unsympathetic majority that become the"them." A healthy, well-integrated middle-class or "bourgeoisie" is not only derided by Marxists as "decadent," it's viewed as an anathema to Marxism's itself, since the difference between "us" and "them" is virtually indistinguishable.
The same could be said of religion. Marxism is a jealous god. In Marxism, the secular must replace the religious out of practicality. It would be very hard to divide people into seeking salvation from the state if they had any other options available, or as Voltaire astutely put it... "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." It's interesting to note however, that no matter how much secular Marxism tries to eliminate God, it rarely lasts, which only underscores Voltaire's point.
All this said, one might wonder why I would choose Christmas for this particular topic; but actually its a rather good time to talk about identity politics and Marxism, especially when Christians (still the majority religion in the United States) tremble at the thought of uttering "Merry Christmas" in public, or fear that their nativity sets may be stolen, vandalized or worse yet, outright banned by their neighbors. And beyond the religious aspects, what is the core glue that holds the American experience together? How can an endless conglomeration of hyphens hope to compromise and jointly govern a federated republic?
In the title of this piece is the first clue - "One Nation Under... What?" We all know the original is "One Nation Under God" but of course, that is at best optimistic since (as discussed here before) the United States is nothing like a "nation" and was never intended to be. Even our most revered "Nation-States" are suspect in this department. Spain is at least five nations; the United Kingdom is three; France around seven; and Italy and German over a dozen each. When we come to the United States the core around which any "nation" would be founded is lacking in the extreme. If there is one unifying "God" in the American experience it would be aspiration; the so-called American Dream, which has lured (and sustained) immigrants to come to this country in droves and integrate for over two centuries.
Part of that experience however, has been assimilation and mutual respect. When I was a kid in Baltimore, the city hosted a serious of "Ethnic Festivals" every summer on Rash Field in the city's Inner Harbor. I can't even imagine what the reaction would be today if we hosted "Ethnic Festivals"to celebrate rather than politicize diversity. The fairs (which admittedly capitalized on stereotypes wrought by the very communities they represented) served the simultaneous purpose of highlighting the contribution to the whole as well as pride in the component; a model that was successful replicated with the early Gay Pride festivals I might add.
This parade of hyphenated festivity however, was significantly different than today. When you went to the Italian Festival for example, it was more about fried dough and sausage and peppers than about early Twentieth Century housing discrimination, the plight of Italian stone masons, anti-Catholicism from the "No Nothings" to Al Smith, and the universal disparagement of Italians as "garlic eaters." In short - victim-hood was not on the menu.
We now live in an era where a sitting Vice President who has limited experience in politics, a terrible reputation as a manager in her native California, and who was utterly rejected by her party in primaries for the presidency - is not suspected of being incompetent or even "in over her head" in national office - but is rather a "victim of racism and misogyny."
I choose the Vice President as an example on purpose. What a difference it would be if hers was a narrative of assimilation and success above all odds (as it started out) rather than a specious diatribe against racism and misogyny when she was on a ticket that received more votes than any other ticket in American history. Did this racism and misogyny suddenly materialize out of whole cloth in a miraculous eleven months? Hardly.
These illogical misrepresentations and divisions are deadly to consensus and responsible political dialogue, as are the silly attacks on religion. On 14 DEC 2021 - France 24 reported that 29% of American adults are now religiously unaffiliated. In the piece entitled Non-religious surge in US as Christianity declines the writer focuses primarily on the so called... "socially conservative Christian right-wing political faction." They do however point out that this is primarily affecting Protestants, since Catholics are holding relatively steady.
The invective prose not withstanding, it does offer an interesting if unintended question - how will the diminution of religion in the United States ultimately affect its ability to remain a federated republic?
When we discuss the "culture war" (intentionally lowercase) we don't always discuss that at its core it is the same battle of the secular versus the religious that has fraught humankind with angst since Eden. But in the United States it is even more than just that - it is an essential component of our historical fiber from the founding, and the ethics and underpinnings of the Abrahamic faiths exude beyond mere practice into all kinds of directions whether this was a result of active religiosity, deism, or even agnosticism in our early republic. We can reexamine forever the disparity between faith in dogma and faith in practice, and the United States is no more immune to that hypocrisy than any other "nation under God." We can despair of the inequality of races and creeds in our history, but this does not foreordain that a secular order will be any better than the religious has been in correcting these disparities, especially when the secular takes on the same tone and tenor of religious dogma.
Perhaps the difference is merely aesthetic. Whatever an individual politician's personal faith, the perceived faith of equality under a personal or impersonal God has a unifying effect - at least more so than a government. Can we really say to ourselves that "One Nation Under The Government" inspires anyone with real confidence? What would Voltaire think about that? And is "Several Hyphenated Tribes Under A Government" any more reassuring? I dare say it is not. And in a country that has very little to hold it together beyond religion and common identity in the first place, what will happen as religion and common identity evaporate from the scene entirely?
We are getting glimpses of this future primarily in the two largest states of the U.S. California and Texas are seemingly setting up their own respective spheres of influence, which could be very illustrative of the continent's future. California is pursuing its role as the secular Anti-Theocracy while Texas is pursuing its role as the premier Mega-Theocracy. In neither case however, is moderation or compromise even remotely a factor. If either California or Texas is our future, our future is not very bright, because no where in either locale are the American ideals of liberality and tolerance even remotely visible. How the other 48 states view this, and where their own loyalties will follow is anyone's guess, but it doesn't take much imagination to see two hegemonic blocks forming under two aegis.
The Marxists, secularists, and atheists may have dreamt this day would come, but it will be a hollow victory. In history hyphens (like the related minus sign) diminish power and potency not increase it. Each hyphen does not augment political power it pulverizes it into a swirl of gray muck as unpalatable as it is indiscernible. If we want one nation under anything let's try for tolerance. It should be the one thing that both the religious and the secular can agree upon.
Comments