Like most, if not all, of my friends, I was shocked by
Donald Trump’s victory in the Electoral College, especially his victory in
Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. However, when I picked up a
book by Samuel Huntington that I read nearly ten years ago, the election and
its result in those states especially, made more sense to me. Huntington’s
book—Who Are We? The Challenge of
America’s National Identity—raises the question of which national identity America
will assume, given three possible alternatives (I’ll only consider two, which
were represented by the two major political parties in the United States).
Although Huntington’s description of the two identities may represent, in my
opinion, an extreme view of the alternatives, it does differentiate the choices
offered in the election and helps explain the choices made by many voters,
especially in the states mentioned above.
The first view, which Is exemplified in Hillary Clinton’s
campaign slogan “Better Together,” is the cosmopolitan alternative:
The
first, or cosmopolitan, alternative involves a renewal of the trends dominating
pre-September 11 America. America welcomes the world, its ideas, its goods,
and, most importantly, its people. The ideal would be an open society with open
borders, encouraging subnational ethnic, racial, and cultural identities, dual
citizenship, diasporas, and led by elites who increasingly identified with
global institutions, norms, and rules rather than national ones. America should
be multiethnic, multiracial, multicultural. Diversity is a prime if not the
prime value. (p.363)
The second view, exemplified by Donald Trump’s campaign
slogan “Make America Great Again,” is the national alternative:
. . . A national approach would recognize
and accept what distinguishes America from other societies. America cannot
become the world and still be America. Other people cannot become Americans and
still be themselves. America is different, and that difference is defined in large
part by its Anglo-Protestant culture and its religiosity. The alternative to
cosmopolitanism . . . is nationalism devoted to the preservation and
enhancement of those qualities that have defined America since its founding.
(pp. 364-365)
Huntington argues that the choice favored by most Americans
is nationalism:
Significant
elements of American elites are favorably disposed to America becoming a
cosmopolitan society. . . . The overwhelming bulk of the American people are
committed to a national alternative and to preserving and strengthening the
American identity that has existed for centuries. . . . America becomes the
world. . . . America remains America. Cosmopolitan? . . . National? The choices
Americans make will shape their future and the future of the world. (p. 366)
To a large extent, the election was framed in terms of what
kind of nation do we want to be: What is America’s national Identity? One can
argue that based on the popular vote plurality for Hillary Clinton, most
Americans want to become more like the world. However, for nearly an equal
number of Americans, the desire is for America to return to an American past.
This is a sobering, and for me, a difficult judgment to
accept. I have always viewed America as a nation that is identified by a set of
ideas or ideals---equality, liberty, individualism, democracy, and
constitutionalism. The history of America is one of accepting people, regardless
of their previous national identity, as Americans based on their allegiance to
those ideals. One does not have to give up his or her previous culture and
adopt an Anglo-Protestant culture and religiosity. Our granting of citizenship based
on a knowledge of American ideals and institutions reflects that history. The
trend has been to grant equality to those who may have been marginalized by
historical American traditions and institutions, whether because of race,
religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
In a previous book—American
Politics: The Promise of Disharmony, Huntington wrote:
Critics say that America is a lie because its reality falls
so far short or its ideals. They are wrong. America is not a lie; it is a
disappointment. But it can be a disappointment only because it is a hope.
Now, I see America as turning back
the clock of progress toward the ideal to an earlier, darker, and less
idealistic time. Making sense of an event doesn’t necessarily mean acceptance
of the event as a final answer to the question. So, I am recommitting myself to
making America’s national identity what I and many millions of Americans want
it to be—more like the ideals. I want the hope of America to continue!
No comments:
Post a Comment