Unifying America

E pluribus unum. One from many.

Two principles vie to make the one-from-many.  One of those principles ironically breaks America--and all Republics in the world. And that principle is now being preached from many pulpits, including the highest--inviting a new civil war or perhaps rekindling the old one.

This is more than a war of ideas. It consists of physical assault and murder in the name of defense. It determines who is a criminal, who is punished and who is pardoned. But it is also a war of ideas and needs to be understood at that level. It can only be fully resolved through thinking, critical and sustained thinking that reforms behavior.

One principle of unity is cultural.  The other is political. They are in mortal combat for supremacy. And they determine whether our nation and perhaps our species will survive.

The divisive principle would have us suppress our differences by assimilating or melting them into a common belief system by which we adopt similar customs, styles, language, religious tradition, ethnicity, conventional values, and identity. This principle would have a single cultural standard that defines the true and successful citizen in America: adult, white, male, Judeo-Christian, straight, and propertied. This cultural standard is what turned the Irish, once considered black servants, to dominant white citizens.  This cultural standard would have women act more like men, require homosexuals to become straight, expect Muslims to convert to a Judeo-Christian style of life, and of course seek African Americans to be like Euro-Americans and Latinos like Anglos.

The second principle would have us expose our differences by joining them in the public space where each and every individual, tribe, culture, sex, age, will speak out and act to achieve a unity in intention, in hope, in values not as conventionally expressed, but as lived in common celebration of our differences. This principle rejects "melting pot" assimilationism for "stone soup" pluralism. It is a union in intentionality, not expression, in faith and hope, not beliefs, in aspiration, not achievement. Our unity is in our natural desire for a productive life, for meaning of ourselves and of our universe, and for recognition and respect as equals. No matter how we might express or explain the origin and fulfillment of these drives of our being.

The conflict in these two principles explains the tensions between church and state, religion and politics, faith and science, race relations, marriage equality, transgendered Americans serving in the military, nationalism and globalism, and even genocide.  It explains why traditional Catholics, Jewish Zionists, evangelical Protestant fundamentalists, Islamic extremists, Myanmar Buddhists, Hindu fundamentalists are in conflict with each other and with others who are not in their or any religious tradition including secular humanists and skeptics of religious belief, ethnic identity, and national character.

It also explains the irony of the charges of "political correctness" and "identity politics" on progressives who would strive for inclusive language and advocate the participation of those who have been kept out of the fullness of political, economic, and social life and action because their identity does not meet some fixed cultural standard. It is the divisive assimilation principle that most focuses on conventional correctness and identity drawn from some idealized past.

If you haven't guessed it by now, I am clearly advocating the pluralistic principle over the assimilationist one. I believe that the continuation of the democratic American Republic and all democratic republics requires it. Nevertheless, I do see the worth of sharing cultures, learning from other customs and life styles, understanding others' religious beliefs, and building a common history out of the diverse stories of neighbors. It is just that I also believe that our common story occurs not in the private sphere of tribe, clan, and church, but in the public sphere of speech and action to build and sustain the Republic. I subordinate culture to politics, religious beliefs to faith in human process.

In the beginning, i.e. the hunting and gathering period of tribe and clan, the first principle dominated. Those of other cultural differences were feared and despised. When, in the age of agriculture, tribes and clans joined their stories and behaviors to collaborate in civilizations, a separation arose between the household gods of private life and the official gods of the civil society. Even in the most tolerant of civilizations, e.g. the Babylonian, Roman, and Islamic civilizations, although tribes could keep their private beliefs and rituals, the public life was governed by the gods, rites, practices, and laws in a  hierarchy of the rulers.

The Enlightenment, a turning to reason over superstition, to science, and especially the organization of republics, led to the rediscovery of the second principle, always inchoative in human existence. The American Revolution and the foundation of the American Republic lifted this principle to the forefront in the name of free speech and assembly and religious liberty.

Thomas Jefferson declared the separation of church and state, making religious belief a matter of the private realm, excising it from the public realm of the nation. He recognized that these were private citizens who came together to create public space; and though they had personal persuasions and diverse cultures which influenced their thinking and behavior, they must appeal to a higher principle of the body politic to unify them. Jefferson, though an admirer of Jesus and a student of the gospels and of Islam, was not a Christian or Muslim and would not have any religion, including Judeo-Christianity, as the foundation of the Republic.

The principle that would promote unity through an assimilated culture, including religion, language, and beliefs, is now advocated by white supremacists, homophobic anti-feminists, immigrant bashers, economic nationalists and wall builders. This assimilation principle is in fact destroying America even though its proponents say they want to make it great by restoring it to a more nostalgic, idealized time when men were men and women were women and inferiors knew their place. This is a principle that has been rejected in a democratic Republic.

If America desires to stand and keep its soul as a democratic Republic, we must reject the principle of assimilation and hold with all our hearts and might the enlightenment principle of pluralism that lifts the public good to a power higher than our private, individual interests. Some call it our civil religion. I believe that this expression of transcendence beyond our selfish tribalism and nationalism through the creation of safe places for speech and action for all without exception, i.e. publics, is the most exceptional of values.  It is an instance of humanity's higher power.


Next: How can both these principles coexist in human nature?