Out of Many, What?

Some have called for a new nationalism to unify our divided nation. A new book considers our past and present, and remains skeptical.

By
11

What is America? What was America? Most importantly of all—what should America become?

These are questions that have haunted the United States since its founding, becoming especially acute in times when what had felt like a consensus on the answers breaks down and the search for new ones begins.

It would appear that we live in such times now. Between the phenomenon of Trumpism on the right and the cultural crusades of the left, with the Cold War long over and the War on Terror presently on the backburner, American thinkers on right and left are desperately searching for unifying causes and principles, a way to reforge and heal a deeply divided America.

One of the solutions proposed, especially by thinkers such as Yoram Hazony and Rich Lowry, is nationalism. The idea is that the elements of at least a form of national identity—one based in religion, ideas, place, and so on—have always been present in the American national DNA, and that these need only be adapted to current circumstances.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
11
By
Comments (11)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Narwhal

    A long time ago I had a Canadian explain to me that America is, or tries to be, a melting pot and Canada is, or tries to be, a mosaic. Maybe the best we can hope for today is to like a Jackson Pollock drip painting.

    Collapse
  2. Danny Grizzle

    More like this please.

    Collapse
  3. Scroop Moth

    To unify the country, we need to nationalize our brilliant urban culture. America has a dozen world class cities that foster human flourishing at spectacular, encyclopedic levels. We have at least fifty more that could quickly become cultural capitals at that level, and 250 more with potential resources to equal any city of renown in history. Among those assets are widely dispersed standards in higher education and professional services.

    Cities contribute to our quality of life and are a source of pride. My suburban relatives drive into the city on weekends to attend church, eat, walk, learn, and visit their children. They subscribe to concerts and have memberships in museums. They reverse the moves of their parents two generations ago from city to suburbs.

    There are a thousand towns in America that could integrate citizens into thriving cultures of achievement and fulfillment. Young people don’t need to move to Atlanta. Smallish places can bridge the alienation between urban and rural America.

    Collapse
  4. Larry

    Dear Dispatch editors, Give Avi a raise . . . and more assignments.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    Nationalism is the antithesis of American Conservatism. Our country was founded on timeless universal principles of government, not blood and soil.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Bill Nelson

    “American thinkers on right and left are desperately searching for unifying causes and principles, a way to reforge and heal a deeply divided America.”
    How does one become identified as a “thinker”? Is this different from a “doer”? Are there “feelers”?
    America, based on its founding was always going to be divided, always going to have issues. What some founders hoped for were divisions based on issues and solutions but it was recognized that there were regional and class differences. Even in Massachusetts there were area and occupational differences.
    What one hopes for is a common gathering around the ideas of the Constitution. This is what has frayed, from the 2nd amendment, to abortion, to the commerce clause. There is an initial divide between those who want to accomplish goals and those who are more interested in the boundaries, the rules.
    During the Cold War, there was little consensus, or the consensus shifted. After 9-11, there was a short period of consensus which quickly faded into partisanship.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    The Bell Tower

    I like the “leave me alone” party. Where can I sign up? Maybe the Get Off My Lawn party will resonate with our aging population.

    Perhaps this is the aloof approach that the author speaks of but I think Americans - through all three phases described here - could agree that everyone who comes to America is generally trying to get away from other people who won’t stay the hell off their lawn.

    Certainly, America herself has spent plenty of time violating that concept. We’ve burned Indian lawns, forced black people to make lawns for white people, bombed a lot of Middle Eastern lawns, etc.

    Idealistically though, the point of America has been to provide an opportunity for anyone who wants it to come here and get a lawn for their very own.

    Everyone isn’t gonna have the same size lawn or do the same things on their lawn but that really shouldn’t be our concern. I don’t need a new nationalism or an old nationalism or a multiculturalism or a religious fundamentalism.

    I need you to go get a lawn so you can stay off mine and shoo me off yours. That is the American dream.

    Collapse
    1. Ingenero.lux

      They’re called the Libertarians, and they’re chiroptera-feces insane. Everyone’s conception of “stay off my lawn” is different, which leads to complete chaos when these people have been semi-unified around something. I’m very libertarian in my views, so I agree with your sentiment (though I do like inviting people onto my lawn quite a bit, and being neighborly within reason), but I haven’t seen anyone wrangle that strain of American thought very well - it’s pervasive, but never very unified. Which, given everyone I have known who live in a neighborhood with an HOA despises their HOA and its rules and simultaneously doesn’t want their neighbors to bring property values down by parking rusty cars on their lawn or building an ersatz chicken coop in their front yard, doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. People tend to want just enough freedom to do what they find comfortable and enough control to make sure their neighbors aren’t scandalous, with the latter defined by someone’s insane Victorian great-great Aunt who can’t remember if it’s 1900, 1950, 1960, 2112, or the world is an episode of Jersey Shore. Coming to a consensus even around that is a Herculean task.

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Kevin C. Smith

    Wow this is a great review! What a great topic for The Remnant! (Hint hint!)

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Ed P

    Interesting piece, thank you.

    Nationalism is definitely not it. It is a recipe for war and overzealous over-reactions, militarism, and abuse of minorities that don’t ft the mould.

    The unifying thread that should be pursued seems absolutely obvious to me. Ms Woolf notes that the cold war is over, but authoritarianism is gaining the world over, just not so much led by commies any more. But China is no less dangerous today than the Soviet Union was 40 years ago. And Russia causes all sorts of problems, as do Iran, N Korea etc.

    It is strategically critical that free nations fight this fight. If we want a peaceful prosperous world, we need all nations of the world to be self governed and for leadership to be liable to rule of law. All the “rogue nations” of the past century are always led by unaccountable, authoritarian leadership. We have not been to war against another free nation for decades. The record is clear - despots destabilize the world while freedom promotes prosperity.

    This is the fight that can unify the nation and the free world, and is in keeping with longstanding US values and smart, long-term strategy to promote peace and prosperity. It is a no brainer.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    TimNYC

    This is an interesting and thoughtful piece. Thank you, Avi!

    Collapse