The problem with establishing degrees or even just a gradient of Americanness is, well, what does that mean? I suppose in some cases it could establish a bona fide distinction between how rooted and assimilated two different people are,
—but in other cases not-at least not in a way that is not misleading or irrelevant. Making checklists might be helpful (but not conclusive) at a high level, but as a practical matter Americanness is something one does, or at least having beliefs that are demonstrated in action.
I also ask the same question: What is the consequence of some citizens being "less" American than others by virtue of having shallower roots here? Should there be a consequence, or is it simply a matter of symbolic scorekeeping and bragging rights? It is well documented that second and third generation immigrants frequently abandon the creedal points that their first generation parents or grandparents held to and which led them to undertake the arduous process of emigration. I do think that a demonstrated, multi-generational commitment to certain behavioral patterns and standards is the only sound evidence for distinctions and gradations, but I really don't know what ought to be the consequences to someone farther down the scale than another.
If Americanness is doing, then citizenship is meaningless. You can be more American as a foreigner living abroad than an American born citizen who doesn’t demonstrate in action their beliefs.
Great essay. It was a mistake for Vivek to posit a binary with using a characteristic that clearly exists on a continuum (even support for the Constitution exists on a continuum). I do agree with a more moderate version of Vivek’s argument, in that I do think that rootedness is less important to the American identity than it is for most nationalities, and an immigrant to America can be more American than native-born Americans depending on the persons being compared. Being an immigrant to America is itself very American. But taken at face value, I agree that Vivek’s narrative does not make much sense.
I will definitely check out that Samuel Huntington book! I enjoyed Clash of Civilizations.
My family's been here for 400 years. Yes, I'm more American than some subcontinental who's parents moved here and popped out an anchor baby. Especially a lying con artist like Vivek. And he doesn't get to dictate what "Americaness" means because it happens to endow him with some perceived moral stature to lecture me.
“But what about the millions of Democrats who support DEI and affirmative action, often with decent arguments?”
This really highlights the conundrum you are talking about but it goes much further than this. The libertarian philosopher Jan Lester has argued that the “liberalism” (the glue that is supposed to hold us together) defended by many philosophers/public intellectuals is an incoherent mishmash because it doesn’t square with having full liberty (social *and* economic), which means society becomes a perpetual cold war no matter how the identity issue is resolved. To achieve a genuine modus vivendi, we must have full liberty. That means a minimal (or no) state.
Well done explanation of the problem. The aggregate cost of privately given care, in time and money, will also rise. The UK is close to passing a "right to die" law, and I've heard the fear expressed that it's a cost savings initiative masked by a stand for compassion and individual choice.
My issue with Vivek's definition is that according to it the population of most of the OECD is American, and huge swaths of US citizens are not. Vivek defines the American creed in abstract platitudes that can be interpreted either broadly as liberal democratic principles shared across most of the Western world or narrowly as conservatarian ideas. He also says America's not about "blood and soil." While it's certainly not about the former, the latter seems pretty important. Can you really be an American without being on the American continent? If being an American is reducible to believing in general liberal democratic principles regardless of soil, then Europeans, Australians, Canadians, Koreans, New Zealanders, Japanese, Brazilians, Argentines, et cetera are all Americans too. If being American is about accepting a narrower conservatarian creed and not at all about soil, then (as you mentioned) many Americans fail to pass the test. Vivek quoted Reagan saying that anyone can become American but not everyone can become French, German, Turkish, or Japanese, but nowadays that's no longer the case (and was never the case in the French Republic). For decades now most of the Western world has naturalized and assimilated immigrants from other parts of the world and requires them to take an oath as part of the process.
There are gradients to Americanness, but soil seems to be the primary factor in them all. The more time you spend on American soil, the more American you inevitably become. By living in the USA, you end up speaking English in most interactions, your pronunciation tends towards an American accent, you shop at stores that sell brands that Americans wear, you buy food that's accessible in the country, you have a lifestyle that's characteristically American (driving instead of walking or public transit, Protestant work ethic, consumerism), and you celebrate American holidays. Magic dirt theory's correct because living in a particular country necessitates certain lifestyles and customs.
He says being a citizen is a precondition. How does that include the rest of the OECD?
Also, by the same logic, the "lifestyle that is characteristically American" is something a very large number of Americans don't follow. At bare minimum, many individual characteristics you've stated are absent in large chunks of the population.
I don't think it's absent in the population except among expats, as it's necessitated by living in the USA. Americans all wear certain brands and consume certain products because only those are available in the country, so unless they live abroad, regularly go on shopping sprees overseas, or have foreign connections to bring in such products, they inevitably follow the same consumption habits. Outside of NYC the whole country's car-centric (yes even supposedly walkable cities like DC or Boston are more convenient in a vehicle). There are just a lot of patterns that living in the USA requires and that pretty much everyone ends up following by living within its borders, and these really only become apparent when living outside the country
I was raised to believe in America as a creedal nation, with patriotism founded on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Any other conception feels deeply alien and inimical to the traditions in which I was raised.
And as soon as you depart from a purely creedal+social contract conception of American identity, race becomes an insoluble problem. Black people have a very different heritage and very different historical experiences. If American identity rests on the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the ideals of liberty and justice for all, then white and black can believe in that and be citizens together. But if it's about being Anglo-Protestant, that collapses.
The trouble is that Groypers don't believe in the American creed. So the only available common identity is creedal, but Groypers don't share it. Where does that leave us?
To me - who is an American is a complicated question, but to me the real issue here is simple. No matter how "American" your ancestors are, YOU are not entitled to any more respect, say or riches. Those who base their claim on authority on their ancestors fail to understand what this country is about. Your Mayflower ancestor, your Grandfather who landed in Normandy are things you should take pride in. But those don't make you anything more than newest Somali immigrant. If you think it does - you are unamerican and dead wrong.
There’s obviously a variety of opinions on what constitutes an American identity. Whether you’re a Mayflower descendant or an assimilated Somali, the litmus test for both is what historian Philip Gleason calls the “universalist ideological character of American nationality”:
“To be or to become an American, a person did not have to be any particular national, linguistic, religious, or ethnic background. All he had to do was to commit himself to the political ideology centered on the abstract ideals of liberty, equality, and republicanism. Thus the universalist ideological character of American nationality meant that it was open to anyone who willed to become an American.” I would agree.
I'm willing to cut Ramaswamy some slack due the the effects of his secondary education. Virtually everyone I know well who attended St. Xavier High School in Cincinnati has a propensity to reason and debate as if they were taught by Jesuits.
Rootedness is impotent but you’re missing the importance of the founding group and its culture, language and mores. The Dutch have been in NY longer than the English but it doesn’t make them more American. The reality is civic identity inevitably rubs into ethnic identity and only can be more important. The ethnics in the U.S. are being replaced and they’re being told it’s fine because the newer Americans have the same beliefs as them and so they shouldn’t not e, much less worry about, their diminishing size and importance.
People are deeply uncomfortable saying core Americanness is NW European Protestant or basically WASP. The rest of us have adopted their language, culture and values but we are not the same. Why is that so controversial?
"what about the millions of Democrats who support DEI and affirmative action, often with decent arguments? Are Joe Biden and Kamala Harris suddenly less American?"
Yes, absolutely. Not solely for that reason, but that is one aspect of their turning their backs on the American identity (even one that can be vaguely articulated should at least exclude DEI and actual racism). As you say, they may be citizens, but are they really Americans?
"that is one aspect of their turning their backs on the American identity (even one that can be vaguely articulated should at least exclude DEI and actual racism)"
You're, thus, excluding the very founders of the country from American identity. If they weren't "Americans," then no one is
The founders inhabited a society where slaves were the norm. They produced a document, an idea, and a country that was designed (and succeeded) to destroy this and many other norms.
This is the same argument as those made by leftists - most of them neither want nor believe these policies should remain forever.
What's a fugitive slave clause?
Do you believe owning slaves, as long you either believe in doing away with slavery sometime in the future, or have signed a document that you believe will lead there, doesn't impact one's "American identity"? What if you're a "racist" because of reality but wish you live in a world where "racism" didn't exist?
Does "they produced a document, an idea" stop at some point? Because we can see what type of society was eventually created, and it's certainly true that the basis of said society were those documents - or is it based on intent again, rather than reality of those it turned out?
Genuine questions btw, no intent to argue here or convince you about anything, I just found your comment curious
1st. Your entire argument about slavery is irrelevant. Hence the, "who cares".
2nd. An argument or position stands or falls on whether or not it is true, not whether or not the person is "sinless". Otherwise, every argument or position fails. No one cares if the founders were perfect sinless people (as no one is), but whether or not their arguments, documents, and fruits are sound.
3rd. "The American Ideal", whatever that may be, is NOT kneeling at a George Floyd event, throwing the public to the wolves during Covid, pushing for globalism over nationalism, multiculturalism over patriotism, Illegals over citizens, secularism over faith, DEI over blind justice, actual racism over "anti-racism", chaos over nuclear family, beuracracy over limited government, nanny state over personal responsibility, infanticide over life, bondage over freedom, or postmodernism over reality.
Pretty sure this is a good beginning of what is summed up with the Obama, Biden, Harris platform.
The problem with establishing degrees or even just a gradient of Americanness is, well, what does that mean? I suppose in some cases it could establish a bona fide distinction between how rooted and assimilated two different people are,
—but in other cases not-at least not in a way that is not misleading or irrelevant. Making checklists might be helpful (but not conclusive) at a high level, but as a practical matter Americanness is something one does, or at least having beliefs that are demonstrated in action.
I also ask the same question: What is the consequence of some citizens being "less" American than others by virtue of having shallower roots here? Should there be a consequence, or is it simply a matter of symbolic scorekeeping and bragging rights? It is well documented that second and third generation immigrants frequently abandon the creedal points that their first generation parents or grandparents held to and which led them to undertake the arduous process of emigration. I do think that a demonstrated, multi-generational commitment to certain behavioral patterns and standards is the only sound evidence for distinctions and gradations, but I really don't know what ought to be the consequences to someone farther down the scale than another.
If Americanness is doing, then citizenship is meaningless. You can be more American as a foreigner living abroad than an American born citizen who doesn’t demonstrate in action their beliefs.
Beautifully argued. Vivek is a fake.
Thank you 🫡
Vivek has shown how culturally out of touch he is with Americans despite being born one.
Great post. All should read Huntington’s book, thanks for sharing it. 🇺🇸
Thanks. I agree re book.
Great essay. It was a mistake for Vivek to posit a binary with using a characteristic that clearly exists on a continuum (even support for the Constitution exists on a continuum). I do agree with a more moderate version of Vivek’s argument, in that I do think that rootedness is less important to the American identity than it is for most nationalities, and an immigrant to America can be more American than native-born Americans depending on the persons being compared. Being an immigrant to America is itself very American. But taken at face value, I agree that Vivek’s narrative does not make much sense.
I will definitely check out that Samuel Huntington book! I enjoyed Clash of Civilizations.
My family's been here for 400 years. Yes, I'm more American than some subcontinental who's parents moved here and popped out an anchor baby. Especially a lying con artist like Vivek. And he doesn't get to dictate what "Americaness" means because it happens to endow him with some perceived moral stature to lecture me.
“But what about the millions of Democrats who support DEI and affirmative action, often with decent arguments?”
This really highlights the conundrum you are talking about but it goes much further than this. The libertarian philosopher Jan Lester has argued that the “liberalism” (the glue that is supposed to hold us together) defended by many philosophers/public intellectuals is an incoherent mishmash because it doesn’t square with having full liberty (social *and* economic), which means society becomes a perpetual cold war no matter how the identity issue is resolved. To achieve a genuine modus vivendi, we must have full liberty. That means a minimal (or no) state.
I mean, the idea of deporting everyone who supports affirmative action is funny but makes no sense.
We only need to deport one or two and the rest will fall in line! 😉
Well done explanation of the problem. The aggregate cost of privately given care, in time and money, will also rise. The UK is close to passing a "right to die" law, and I've heard the fear expressed that it's a cost savings initiative masked by a stand for compassion and individual choice.
thanks David and hi! I wonder if you meant this comment for my "boomer caregiving" piece?
My issue with Vivek's definition is that according to it the population of most of the OECD is American, and huge swaths of US citizens are not. Vivek defines the American creed in abstract platitudes that can be interpreted either broadly as liberal democratic principles shared across most of the Western world or narrowly as conservatarian ideas. He also says America's not about "blood and soil." While it's certainly not about the former, the latter seems pretty important. Can you really be an American without being on the American continent? If being an American is reducible to believing in general liberal democratic principles regardless of soil, then Europeans, Australians, Canadians, Koreans, New Zealanders, Japanese, Brazilians, Argentines, et cetera are all Americans too. If being American is about accepting a narrower conservatarian creed and not at all about soil, then (as you mentioned) many Americans fail to pass the test. Vivek quoted Reagan saying that anyone can become American but not everyone can become French, German, Turkish, or Japanese, but nowadays that's no longer the case (and was never the case in the French Republic). For decades now most of the Western world has naturalized and assimilated immigrants from other parts of the world and requires them to take an oath as part of the process.
There are gradients to Americanness, but soil seems to be the primary factor in them all. The more time you spend on American soil, the more American you inevitably become. By living in the USA, you end up speaking English in most interactions, your pronunciation tends towards an American accent, you shop at stores that sell brands that Americans wear, you buy food that's accessible in the country, you have a lifestyle that's characteristically American (driving instead of walking or public transit, Protestant work ethic, consumerism), and you celebrate American holidays. Magic dirt theory's correct because living in a particular country necessitates certain lifestyles and customs.
I like the blood/soil distinction. That's what I realized while writing this: creedalism is meaningless outside culture and place.
He says being a citizen is a precondition. How does that include the rest of the OECD?
Also, by the same logic, the "lifestyle that is characteristically American" is something a very large number of Americans don't follow. At bare minimum, many individual characteristics you've stated are absent in large chunks of the population.
I don't think it's absent in the population except among expats, as it's necessitated by living in the USA. Americans all wear certain brands and consume certain products because only those are available in the country, so unless they live abroad, regularly go on shopping sprees overseas, or have foreign connections to bring in such products, they inevitably follow the same consumption habits. Outside of NYC the whole country's car-centric (yes even supposedly walkable cities like DC or Boston are more convenient in a vehicle). There are just a lot of patterns that living in the USA requires and that pretty much everyone ends up following by living within its borders, and these really only become apparent when living outside the country
Great piece. While I was reassured (not sure that’s the right word) by Ramaswamy’s NYT piece, I also felt it had some holes.
I think you named what I was feeling.
Well done.
Thanks Ken!
I was raised to believe in America as a creedal nation, with patriotism founded on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Any other conception feels deeply alien and inimical to the traditions in which I was raised.
And as soon as you depart from a purely creedal+social contract conception of American identity, race becomes an insoluble problem. Black people have a very different heritage and very different historical experiences. If American identity rests on the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the ideals of liberty and justice for all, then white and black can believe in that and be citizens together. But if it's about being Anglo-Protestant, that collapses.
The trouble is that Groypers don't believe in the American creed. So the only available common identity is creedal, but Groypers don't share it. Where does that leave us?
To me - who is an American is a complicated question, but to me the real issue here is simple. No matter how "American" your ancestors are, YOU are not entitled to any more respect, say or riches. Those who base their claim on authority on their ancestors fail to understand what this country is about. Your Mayflower ancestor, your Grandfather who landed in Normandy are things you should take pride in. But those don't make you anything more than newest Somali immigrant. If you think it does - you are unamerican and dead wrong.
I don't think anything I said contradicts this.
I agree, but I think you maybe focusing on the wrong question....
There’s obviously a variety of opinions on what constitutes an American identity. Whether you’re a Mayflower descendant or an assimilated Somali, the litmus test for both is what historian Philip Gleason calls the “universalist ideological character of American nationality”:
“To be or to become an American, a person did not have to be any particular national, linguistic, religious, or ethnic background. All he had to do was to commit himself to the political ideology centered on the abstract ideals of liberty, equality, and republicanism. Thus the universalist ideological character of American nationality meant that it was open to anyone who willed to become an American.” I would agree.
“Willed to become an American “. Perfect.
I'm willing to cut Ramaswamy some slack due the the effects of his secondary education. Virtually everyone I know well who attended St. Xavier High School in Cincinnati has a propensity to reason and debate as if they were taught by Jesuits.
Rootedness is impotent but you’re missing the importance of the founding group and its culture, language and mores. The Dutch have been in NY longer than the English but it doesn’t make them more American. The reality is civic identity inevitably rubs into ethnic identity and only can be more important. The ethnics in the U.S. are being replaced and they’re being told it’s fine because the newer Americans have the same beliefs as them and so they shouldn’t not e, much less worry about, their diminishing size and importance.
People are deeply uncomfortable saying core Americanness is NW European Protestant or basically WASP. The rest of us have adopted their language, culture and values but we are not the same. Why is that so controversial?
"what about the millions of Democrats who support DEI and affirmative action, often with decent arguments? Are Joe Biden and Kamala Harris suddenly less American?"
Yes, absolutely. Not solely for that reason, but that is one aspect of their turning their backs on the American identity (even one that can be vaguely articulated should at least exclude DEI and actual racism). As you say, they may be citizens, but are they really Americans?
How many of the founders had slaves
Who cares?
"that is one aspect of their turning their backs on the American identity (even one that can be vaguely articulated should at least exclude DEI and actual racism)"
You're, thus, excluding the very founders of the country from American identity. If they weren't "Americans," then no one is
The founders inhabited a society where slaves were the norm. They produced a document, an idea, and a country that was designed (and succeeded) to destroy this and many other norms.
Your argument has no sway.
This is the same argument as those made by leftists - most of them neither want nor believe these policies should remain forever.
What's a fugitive slave clause?
Do you believe owning slaves, as long you either believe in doing away with slavery sometime in the future, or have signed a document that you believe will lead there, doesn't impact one's "American identity"? What if you're a "racist" because of reality but wish you live in a world where "racism" didn't exist?
Does "they produced a document, an idea" stop at some point? Because we can see what type of society was eventually created, and it's certainly true that the basis of said society were those documents - or is it based on intent again, rather than reality of those it turned out?
Genuine questions btw, no intent to argue here or convince you about anything, I just found your comment curious
1st. Your entire argument about slavery is irrelevant. Hence the, "who cares".
2nd. An argument or position stands or falls on whether or not it is true, not whether or not the person is "sinless". Otherwise, every argument or position fails. No one cares if the founders were perfect sinless people (as no one is), but whether or not their arguments, documents, and fruits are sound.
3rd. "The American Ideal", whatever that may be, is NOT kneeling at a George Floyd event, throwing the public to the wolves during Covid, pushing for globalism over nationalism, multiculturalism over patriotism, Illegals over citizens, secularism over faith, DEI over blind justice, actual racism over "anti-racism", chaos over nuclear family, beuracracy over limited government, nanny state over personal responsibility, infanticide over life, bondage over freedom, or postmodernism over reality.
Pretty sure this is a good beginning of what is summed up with the Obama, Biden, Harris platform.