Im-Politic: A Century-Old Way Forward on Defining “True Americanism”

Tags

assimilation, Christianity, conservatism, Henry Olsen, Im-Politic, immigrants, Immigration, libertarianism, Louis D. Brandeis, national conservatism, national identity, progressivism, social conservatism, Trump, Washington Post

That sounds like a pretty interesting and important Washington, D.C. conference that took place last week that gathered a bunch of politicians, pundits, intellectuals (how I hate that word!) and activists of all kinds on the political Right. Their aim: Developing a form of “national conservatism.” Think of it as a large-scale attempt to create Trump-ism without the – ah – idiosyncracies of its namesake.

Not that it will be easy to accomplishing this worthy goal – which appears to amount to seeking to replace the economic libertarian- and globalist-dominated views that have predominated on the Right for so long with something much better suited to advance the interests of working-class Americans.

After all, like it or not, the President’s controversial character in general clearly pleases a big chunk of the electorate, and it’s probably a major contributor to the near-universal support he enjoys with avowedly Republican voters. Moreover, Trump-ism as practiced by the President includes a lot of economic libertarian-ism, as indicated by his early and avid support for a business-heavy tax cut plan, for major cuts in the discretionary portion of the federal government, and for substantially easing environmental and other regulations. And for good measure, as I’ve written, his foreign policy honors America-First precepts in the breach at least as often as not. 

So the presidential version of Trump-ism has not surprisingly attracted backers from all over the Right, and the big disagreements that apparently broke out at the conference were just as predictable. One of the thorniest has to do with the intertwined issues of identity politics and immigration, But however emotional such disputes are likely to remain, they seem to me among the easiest to resolve – at least if Trump-ism is to have any viable long-term political future, and more important, to play a constructive role in resolving them.

According to one sympathetic conservative writer, Henry Olsen, too many of the conservatives at the conference, and too many Trump supporters generally, seem insistent on emphasizing “the country’s past as a British Protestant nation, one where the vast supermajority of citizens took their moral cues from the Bible as the guide to its future.”

The author, a Washington Post columnist who is supportive in particular of much of the “nationalist” part of national conservatism (especially on the crucial trade and immigration fronts), argues correctly that “Since the 1890s, the country has successfully defined what it means to be American without recourse to denominational persuasion or British heritage.”

And in my view, he’s equally correct in contending that claims (mainly from the social conservative wing of conservatism) like “Christianity was the force that created America” simplistically overlook the more inclusive beliefs of the Founding Fathers, ignore centuries of massive demographic change, and “argue for modern America’s de facto dissolution.”

So what does hold us together – and just as important, has held us together for so long? Olsen’s pinpointing of 1890 brings the answer very close. Because its precise chronological location is the year 1915. That’s when soon-to-be-appointed Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis gave a speech in Boston titled, “True Americanism.”

If you think the title means that Brandeis was a jingoistic xenophobe, think again. He was the son of immigrants from Prague, the first Jew to sit on the high court, and a genuine titan of that era’s progressive movement. And in this address, he presented probably the strongest, most eloquent descriptions of what is unquestionably the most admirable, and effective, unifying forces a work throughout American history – what most of us would call the “American way of life.”

Indeed, Brandeis’ theme that day was why the country should welcome the immigrants arriving during that era in record numbers, and how it could maintain the consensus on bedrock national values and governing practices that’s vital to any society’s coherence – and therefore success.

I’ve quoted from this speech before, but it’s worth revisiting at some length. In Brandeis’ words, since its founding, America had

“admitted to our country and to citizenship immigrants from the diverse lands of Europe. We had faith that thereby we could best serve ourselves and mankind. This faith has been justified. The United States has grown great. The immigrants and their immediate descendants have proved themselves as loyal as any citizens of the country. Liberty has knit us closely together as Americans. Note the common devotion to our Country’s emblem expressed at the recent Flag Day celebration in New York by boys and girls representing more than twenty different nationalities warring abroad.”

He also implored his audience, “let us not forget that many a poor immigrant comes to us from distant lands, ignorant of our language, strange in tattered clothes and with jarring manners, who is already truly American in this most important sense; who has long shared our ideals and who, oppressed and persecuted abroad, has yearned for our land of liberty and for the opportunity of abiding in the realization of its aims.”

But crucially, he added, simple admission was not enough. Nor was the adoption by immigrants of “the clothes, the manners and the customs generally prevailing here” or even substituting “for his mother tongue, the English language as the common medium of speech.”

“To become Americanized,” Brandeis argued, “the change wrought must be fundamental. However great his outward conformity, the immigrant is not Americanized unless his interests and affections have become deeply rooted here. And we properly demand of the immigrant even more than this. He must be brought into complete harmony with our ideals and aspirations and cooperate with us for their attainment. Only when this has been done, will he possess the national consciousness of an American.”

I won’t describe Brandeis’ specific definition of that consciousness (you really should read it), but I can’t imagine that any American of good faith would quarrel significantly with it (although Brandeis’ view that this system of beliefs was distinctive and distinctively virtuous wouldn’t sit too well with many on the Left).

What plainly has been even more controversial in recent decades, however, is the equally Brandeis-ian idea that these beliefs need to be actively propagated, and his emphasis on lifelong education makes clear that this mission needed to be carried out not just by the schools, but by many of society’s most important institutions: “the public platform [i.e., by political leaders]…discussion in the lodges and the trade unions….”

So if national conservatism wants to be truly national, and therefore, successful, it will have no choice but to rally round the view that anyone from any part of the world can become an American – if Americanizing them becomes a national priority again. Of course, that’s the key to success for liberalism, too – which unlike too much of conservatism, is fine with the “anyone” part of the above conviction, but seems convinced that diversity should be sought uber alles, and perhaps exclusively.

Which portion of the political spectrum will be the first to recognize the synthesis – which will be a win not only for its own fortunes but, as history has taught, for the nation as a whole? So far, I’d bet on the conservatives. But not heavily.

Im-Politic: Why the Court Got Marriage Equality Right

Tags

Christianity, gay marriage, Im-Politic, Judeo-Christian values, marriage, marriage equality, New Testament, Old Testament, same-sex marriage, Supreme Court

I’m not a lawyer, and I’m enough of an oldish fogey to harbor lingering beliefs (prejudices?) that the best formula for child-rearing, all else equal (and that’s a really big qualifier in this instance), is a heterosexual “traditional” marriage. But the marriage equality issue is not about my own individual preferences and hunches – or anyone else’s. More important, the more I think about the issue, the clearer it becomes that what should trump all other aspects of the marriage equality issue that the Supreme Court largely settled yesterday is a consideration that seems largely overlooked.

As made stunningly clear by the reactions of marriage equality supporters, and particularly those in the LGBT population, the Court has just provided the nation with a terrific yardstick for judging public policy: Any government decision that makes this many people so thoroughly overjoyed for all the right reasons boasts a powerful claim to be the law of the land.

This isn’t an argument for authorizing government at any level to satisfy the desires of every individual or group, no matter how numerous or large, whenever political or social or cultural or economic forces line up in their favor. Much less is it an argument for any overriding human right to happiness. It is instead an argument to appreciate the form of happiness the Court has just made possible.

It’s not happiness at the expense of the material possessions or rights of any individuals or groups. It’s not happiness that directly or intrinsically denigrates or insults anyone or any collective or institution. It’s not happiness that rewards hatred or selfishness or shortsightedness or hatred or jealousy or lust or greed or any other sins, deadly or otherwise, that I can think of, on the individual or group level.

Yes, there’s a case that it validates selfishness and shortsightedness – in the sense that it threatens a vital underpinning of any successful (and ultimately, enduringly happy) society. It’s not a case that should be dismissed out of hand, either. But it’s imperative to recognize that it’s a case based on nothing more than speculation. And any intellectually honest invocation of this future possibility must also recognize that the evidence of an outbreak of moral and social decay tied to the legalization of marriage equality where it had hitherto been established is pretty meager, if it exists at all. Such evidence is similarly threadbare at best in those U.S. states where same sex couples have existed for many years even though lacking the new rights and protections created yesterday.

Moreover, on the other side of this ledger must be placed the virtues that the Supreme Court decision reinforces, that the favorable popular reactions celebrate, that exist in the here and now, and that are surely not passing fancies – like love, and strong, stable families, not to mention liberty, equality, and dignity.  In other words, the kind of happiness created by the marriage equality decision is the kind we could use a lot more of.

More specific, and more easily addressed, is the claim that Judeo-Christian values undergirded America’s founding and remain its essential moral lodestars. I actually agree, contrary to libertarian thought, that any successful and decent society, even one that (rightly) prioritizes individual liberty, needs a shared (though necessarily general, given this nation’s size and diversity) moral consensus. And though they aren’t perfect, the evidence abounds that Judeo-Christian values have been an excellent choice. Looking around the world, I don’t seem too many societies not based on these beliefs where I’d like to live.

But it should be abundantly clear by now that the ancient Old and New Testaments have been much better at identifying worthy, and indeed transcendent, guides for individual behavior than at identifying which political and social institutions should be created and maintained. Nor should anyone be surprised. Their teachings originated at a time when democracy or any form of popularly accountable government was barely known, where slavery was common, and where polygamy was often the norm. Indeed, many leading Old Testament figures were polygamists and slaveholders. That’s not the case with the New Testament. But no offense intended to my Christian friends, that isn’t the only Testament, it’s not mine, and it deserves no official status in this country.

Interestingly, I just came across an evangelical website that tries to explain and justify the above Old Testament feature by arguing that all of its bigamists and polygamist ran into some form of major trouble, or their descendants did. Therefore, the Lord clearly disapproved. But here’s what certainly much more important: None of these figures was consigned to damnation or any form of eternal punishment, or even vilification because of how their marriages were structured. Indeed, in my Sunday school classes, they were treated as honorable patriarchs who (of course) displayed some entirely human failings. Why don’t Americans today who also choose to form non-traditional marriages deserve the same tolerance and understanding?

Indeed, that point made by the website, and the Old Testament, about complications, is worth keeping in mind by all sides of the marriage equality debate. There will inevitably be complications, unforeseen consequences, and even counterproductive results. Broad social and economic change tends to work that way. The above interpretation of the Old Testament suggests that the Creator recognized that, and even so was more than willing to continue the story of humanity, and of these individuals.

This Divine decision in fact strongly reminds of a leading view of justice – as involving a weighing of the scales. This concept, which is surely on target, inherently holds that for the most part, an admirable system of justice doesn’t, and perhaps can’t, seek verdicts that achieve perfect results. Instead, it seeks results in which the good achieved exceeds the problems created. The jubilation touched off by the Supreme Court’s marriage equality decision, and the lack of visible, remotely comparable downsides, adds up to compelling evidence that the Justices in the majority got this balancing act right.

Im-Politic: The Real Problems with Obama’s Prayer Breakfast Remarks

Tags

Catholicism, Christianity, Crusades, Im-Politic, Inquisition, Islam, Judaism, misogyny, moral equivalence Saudi Arabia, National Prayer Breakfast, Obama, racism, radical Islam, slavery, terrorism, tolerance, Wahhabism

That the storm of controversy stirred by President Obama’s recent annual National Prayer Breakfast remarks about Islam and Christianity was entirely predictable doesn’t mean that it was unimportant. Quite the contrary – the by-now-formulaic exchanges between the president’s supporters and opponents show the frightening ease with which history’s lessons can be twisted through a combination of ignorance and ideological distortions.

At the heart of the ruckus have been Mr. Obama’s warning, “And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.  In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.” Therefore, the president concluded, “this is not unique to one group or one religion” – especially Islam.

But what both sides have missed – along with Mr. Obama himself – is that this description of Christianity’s historical record coddles that faith as troublingly as he has coddled Islam in the case of its radicals’ atrocities across the globe.

For just as the abominations committed by jihadists are not simply carried out “in the name of Islam” but faithfully reflect some of its major strains’ brutal intolerance and misogynism, the Crusades and the inquisition were not simply isolated outrages perpetrated by isolated fanatics or groups of zealots.  They were campaigns of holy war and persecution launched and directed by the Catholic Church itself.

In fact, as noted by one of Obama’s defenders, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, much more recent U.S. Christian support for slavery and segregation was the position of many clerics – not just racist parishioners. My post here last month about radical Islam denialism, moreover, noted that organized Christianity’s record has been deeply shameful in many respects in both halves of Europe and in Russia through the Nazi era as well. Further, if you want to go far back enough, my own Jewish faith was hardly preaching live-and-let-live in Old Testament days.

Of course, these Mosaic religions are responsible for much that is good and noble and compassionate in or world, too. Clerics and theologians and philosophers and the like have been examining the agonizingly complex relationship between the light and dark sides of these and other religions for millennia, without arriving at widely shared conclusions. They doubtless will and should continue their inquiries long into the future – even though completely satisfying answers will likely remain elusive.

But here’s where we approach ground where some of President Obama’s critics have the upper hand. Although Americans understandably have always looked to their leaders to varying degrees for moral guidance, preaching and philosophizing is not their main job – or even close. Their paramount priorities are defending and enhancing the safety and well-being of the American people.

In recent decades, American security has faced major threats from terrorists who have enjoyed strong ideological and financial support from important branches of Islam, including the Wahhabi sect whose members include the Saudi monarchy. As I’ve written before, the president’s stated reasons for not explicitly fingering Islam’s responsibility for this threat are defensible tactically – though I disagree with them. What’s not defensible is for Mr. Obama’s determination to absolve any Islamic factions of any responsibility for endangering America and allies to grow so strong that it degenerates into moral equivalence in the here and now. As a result, amid a struggle whose crucial ideological/propaganda dimension the president claims to recognize, he has actually handed the terrorists invaluable talking points.

The President is slated to speak at two more National Prayer Breakfasts before he leaves office. Assuming the terrorists are not defeated by then, if he can’t limit himself to a few bland homilies, the U.S. security interests he’s pledged to defend demand that he decline the honor.  He can  pontificate all he wants once he’s a private citizen again.