Unity in American Identity

Andrew Beck presents an interesting argument regarding the need for cultural and moral unity in the United States, akin to other nations. He suggests that such unity is essential to protect the national character and serve the common good. Reflecting on America’s foundations, he references John Jay’s Federalist 2, which encapsulates this original identity well.

Providence is pleased to give this one united person this one united nation. Derived from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the principles of the same government, very similar to manners and customs, and by joint counsels, arms and efforts, he established future freedom and independence through long and bloody wars.

By that time, the American state was predominantly formed by Northern European Protestants, with its legal systems deeply rooted in British traditions.

The initial uniformity that the US boasted likely served as a vital strength for several generations.

This shared culture was influenced significantly by the King James Bible. Among educated circles, this biblical foundation was often complemented by classics like Blackstone’s “Commentary on English Law,” Shakespeare, and to some extent, Plutarch. Protestant theologians probably engaged more with works from John Calvin, St. Augustine, and various dialogues by Plato. Political philosophers of the era like John Locke and Montesquieu were also part of the intellectual landscape.

In the early American context, citizen virtues and societal etiquette derived from a common reverence for these classics, coupled with similar religious convictions, often tracing back to shared ancestry.

Even when James Madison discussed the potential for an extended republic in Federalist 10 and Federalist 51, he didn’t advocate for contemporary notions of diversity. Instead, he examined how a nation based on commerce and agriculture could unite through shared interests. His idea proposed that representative governments could mediate popular wills while accounting for collective benefits.

This foundational uniformity was, I believe, a crucial asset, strengthening the country even during its Civil War. As Lincoln noted, despite significant differences, both sides were bound by a shared faith and scripture.

Unforced Unity

To me, the cultural ties that naturally foster unity are what define a political identity. This unity existed at the inception of the American Republic, independent of coercion from state or military forces. The legacy John Jay spoke of is more profound than the forced unity imposed on German Americans during WWI, or even Japanese-Americans in WWII. I suppose Andrew Beck and I might interpret this aspect of our national chronicle differently.

While European nation-states often formed through coercion, those political bodies emerged from the awareness of already established cultural identities. Nations like France, Germany, and Italy had already cultivated distinct historical narratives before any centralized authority was enforced. Here, force did not primarily dictate the formation of a historic nation-state.

In the early 20th century, German Americans recognized themselves as part of the American fabric, yet many dismantled their ancestral heritage, often aided by government incentives. This occurred post-Wilson administration as the U.S. became involved in WWI.

In my hometown in Pennsylvania, where German Pietist farmers settled, the pressure had a significant effect. German inscriptions were prevalent in churches and public spaces, but those gradually ceased. Schools like Lindenhall, rooted in German culture, stopped offering German classes, and they never resumed.

I’m not delving into the horrifying treatment of Japanese Americans post-Pearl Harbor; you likely already know that story. What’s striking is how German Americans experienced similar pressures decades earlier. In contrast, groups like Norwegians and Swedes assimilated more seamlessly through natural—not forced—processes.

Today, it seems that the unity Beck values has largely eroded. I wonder if the “America First” movement could regain traction? After the original ethnic and religious unity faded, leaders and thinkers sought new ways to connect American citizens. In my youth, public education still highlighted national pride and a shared pantheon of heroes.

This citizen patriotism persisted until radical minorities expressed their disdain for “America.” These voices have dominated mainstream media and educational institutions, rendering traditional paths to assimilation and a unified American identity far less effective.

Undefined Unity

Past efforts to forge unity eventually hit obstacles. The rise in Catholic populations began to challenge Protestant-dominated public schools, and conflicting religious and cultural traditions led to demands for secular spaces. Later, the Jewish left and anti-Catholic groups pushed for more thorough secularization and pluralism.

Currently, various influencers are trying to sever this country’s connections to its Western roots. A widely circulated brochure last year labeled “New Primers for White Supremacy” went as far as declaring the term “Western” a code for white racism.

The ADL further contended that terms associated with “Euro-American” identity are also tied to racism. This rhetoric tends to arise among those opposing large Muslim immigration to Europe and resisting the LGBTQ agenda.

Another contemporary construct surrounding American assimilation involves the melting pot analogy, still finding some support among conservative circles. The recent news cycle featured a Muslim funeral commemorating a Bangladeshi police officer killed in New York City, showcasing a narrative of diversity and pluralism as a demonstration of this melting pot concept.

Ironically, while promoting a multicultural view of identity, some voices in the same city seem to incite anti-Western sentiments. Such movements signal a challenge for cities like Minneapolis should they elect representatives who endorse divisive perspectives.

Today, the focus on melting pot ideology seems to have stagnated, and it’s become a feeble alternative to a cohesive American cultural identity.

Unless we can transcend this divisive narrative, we may struggle to reshape the broader perspective on American identity. Singling out white male Christian heterosexuals as the problem doesn’t appear to serve as a fruitful path toward unity. Unfortunately, many demographics, particularly educated women, have conflicting views on how society should be governed.