On Nationalism

Nationalism has a beleaguered reputation of late. What with “my country right or wrong” sentiments and National Socialism, this should come as no surprise. Nationalism has had its problems and we need to be aware and weary of them. However, when rejecting something it is important to ask what we are pursuing in its place. If we are moving beyond nationalism towards greater faith and participation in God’s Kingdom, then by all means let us be done with nationalism! But I fear this is not the case. Nationalism emerged to unite people of various “tribal” identities into a greater whole. If we are moving from nationalism back towards these rightfully discarded identities, then we are almost certainly foolishly devolving.

Why have moved we away from nationalism? Why are we embracing tribalism? What will the consequences be? The movement from nationalism towards tribalism can be best understood in reference to the acceptance of a post-modern mindset and understanding of the world. Contemporaneous with this embrace has been a loss of the understanding of the importance of foundational “myths,” namely the “myth” that America is a melting pot. In terms of consequences we should expect greater civil strife and the further centralization of power in the federal government.

Let us first examine the consequences of post-modernism. Post-modernism is a slippery term that lacks an agreed upon definition. In fact, many leading post-modern thinkers deny the mantle themselves! While there are many ways to define the meaning, when I refer to post-modernism I mean simply the idea that a subject (i.e. a person) can never be objective in evaluating an object (i.e. anything outside of him or herself). It follows from this belief that no one can ever truly know anything—i.e. there is no knowable truth.

Post-modern thinkers reject the idea that man has an immutable nature—to wit, that man is made in God’s image, but corrupted by his sinful condition. Given this people create their own identities—e.g. there is no gender by which anyone is bound so a man may choose to identify as a man, woman, or something completely different. This assumed and fluid identity of the subject is projected into all that he or she sees, hears, smells, tastes, or touches. It follows that each subject thereby sees every object differently and there can be no objective knowledge of any object. This belief is everywhere. For example, instead of stating that she would interpret the Constitution objectively, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor explicitly stated that her experience as a Latina would give her a fundamentally different perspective. How is that? She, having a different subjective identity, would project it onto the law (the object) differently than, for example, an Asian man.

Now this is not to say that historical or other contingencies don’t influence the way we perceive things. Our ethnicity, religion, historical era, philosophy, sex, etc.: all of these things influence how we see, or more accurately interpret, reality. But post-modern theorists think this influence is so great that we cannot, none of us, know reality.

The results of this theory are clear. If we cannot know things we cannot find agreement. If we cannot agree on anything, there cannot be any voluntary unity. The lack of voluntary unity in turns pulls us into anarchy. As anarchy grows we naturally fear it and seek something to hold us together. But if there is no truth to hold us together, all that remains is power—hence the precipitous growth of the federal government. To put it in simple terms, if kids won’t get along they need spankings. The more they are naughty, the more spankings the need. Likewise, the more we harm and hurt each other, rob one another, kill one another, divorce or defraud one another, the more “spankings.” The government in turn must needs grow to be able to deliver those blows.

Along with this, and developing congruently with the acceptance of a post-modern mindset, has been the rejection of one of America’s foundational “myths”: that America is a melting pot. I should first define what I mean by foundational myth. By foundational myth I do not mean a false or untrue story, rather I mean a fundamental story that explains the past, gives meaning to the present, and guides the future. Man cannot live without these myths because man cannot live without meaning. Destroy one set of myths and man will quickly create another to fill the vacuum. (For example, how quickly did the Jacobins move from their anti-clerical crusade to embracing the cult of reason!)

The melting pot myth never meant that all Americans were identical or that all would equally succeed. Rather it meant that no matter who you were or where you were from you could have a fresh start in the United States. There was opportunity here and if you worked hard and had bit of good luck, you could find success.

Was this completely true? Of course not! There has never been, nor will there ever be ,equal opportunity. This is because men are born unequal. The clever will always have an advantage over the simple, the hardworking over the idle, the strong over the weak, etc. To say that all men are equal is not to say that all will have equal opportunity, let alone that they will have equal outcome. Rather it means that men have equal value in the eyes of God and should therefore have equal opportunity before the law. In other words, there should be no aristocratic type privilege. The United States explicitly provided for this in its Constitution. As a result there followed the highest level of social mobility in the world. 

Yes all and well if you were a white male, critics might say. Equality before the law? Tell that to people of color or women! This critique is valid. Women to some degree, and African-Americans to a significant degree, were legally barred from full access to the American dream. Yet the genius of Western Civilization, of which America is a part, lies in this: its ability to critique itself and peacefully reform itself. It was not an internal uprising that gave women suffrage rights, it was peaceful and patient persuasion. It was not foreign invasion that buried Jim Crow, but a (largely) peaceful movement of non-violent resistance to unjust laws.

Critics are right in pointing out that the melting pot myth was never a perfect reality. But it is wrong to assume that something false in part is fully false and without value. The melting pot myth was in part true and, as time went on, it was becoming truer. Moreover, it was uniting people of diverse tongues, creeds, and backgrounds into a greater whole. As we debunk and reject it, it is not as if we are free from myth. Instead a new myth is filling the gap.

The myth we are embracing in place of the melting pot narrative is “tribalism.” By tribalism I don’t mean we are organizing ourselves like Celtic or Native American tribes, but rather that we are finding our identities in small, exclusive groups. These groups can be non-silly or harmless, e.g. I drive Chevys or I am a Packers fan. They can be focused around sexual identity or orientation, I am a cis-gender pansexual, around ethnicity, I am a wise Latina, or religion I am a Sikh.

So what’s the problem? Can’t a woman state that she is a woman, isn’t that obvious enough? Can’t an African-American be proud of his or her heritage? Of course! Nobody that believed in the melting pot ideal pretended not to see ethnicity or gender or to say that they didn’t matter. The claim, for example, to be colorblind was never meant to be taken literally, but rather to be seen as an ideal of how someone should live their life—i.e. to treat all men the same, no matter their contingent differences. (By contingent I mean “could have been otherwise.” For example, sex, age, ethnicity, height—all of these are contingent characteristics. I could have been a tall woman that lived 500 years ago in the Incan Empire and still have been human. Whereas I could not be without a body or without a rational mind and be human—I would have been an angel or animal instead.)

Why was the melting pot myth so great? The melting pot was an inclusive myth—it didn’t matter where you were from or what language you spoke at home, you could be a part of the American nation. Again, this ideal was never perfectly fulfilled, but it was and remains a noble ideal. One can have other identities, but these identities are secondary and subsumed into something that can unite us all. To put it another way, the American “story” was so great that it could fit all the individual “stories” of its immigrants, no matter their backgrounds. In America, every person could remain themselves while becoming a part of something transcendent.

On the contrary, the tribal narrative is exclusive. I will never be Asian. I will never be a Muslim, a woman, a transsexual, or a homosexual. If my primary identity is found in one of these contingent identities and there is nothing above or beyond these identities to give me a higher and deeper meaning, how can I be united with those outside my “tribe”? I can’t. And there will be an absolute breakdown of dialogue and understanding.

Think about how difficult it is to discuss controversial issues. On the one hand there is a constant invitation to dialogue, but once that dialogue begins it quickly becomes a one-sided lecture as participants say things like, how can you say I am wrong, you’ve never been a __________ and then proceed to identify themselves with their tribe. We see this all the time. How can you comment on abortion, you are a male and will never be pregnant! You’re white and don’t know what it is like to worry about getting shot by the police, so shut your mouth about police shootings! You get the idea.

Sentiments like this would have been incomprehensible to anyone living at any period in the past. A person in the past would have responded to the effect, yes I have my contingent characteristics and you have yours, but we are both rational animals made in the image of God and as such there is infinitely more that unites us than separates us. Certainly as rational men we can discuss this profitably. But our worldview prevents us from having this type of rational discussion. Instead we fall into the ad hominem fallacy and disqualify one another based on who we or they are. Well, you are X so of course you think that! You could never understand this issue, only Y can understand it!

For the last 30 years students in universities have been told how important ethnicity and gender are. Instead of being told that in America they can join something great without losing their individuality, they have been told that the melting pot myth destroys their individuality and that it is natural and desirable for them to self-segregate in order to preserve their various tribal identities.

But ideas have consequences! We should not be surprised when people, like those in the emerging alt-right, take those ideas seriously and act in accordance to their ideology. When you tell people that they are fundamentally different and that these differences are essential, as opposed to contingent, you will create division. You can tell people all you want to embrace “tolerance,” but the fact is when people feel separated they don’t feel equal to the “others.” Rather, given their sinful condition people will always feel superior than those that are fundamentally different and separate than them. (Herodotus noticed this 2,400 years ago!) That is when men formed nations—they wanted to unite with their neighbors in an attempt to destroy notions of superiority and the problems that come with it.

So what is the consequence of the loss of nationalism? In a word: death—the death of our republic. Every republic and democracy, every government in which men have fundamental individual rights, has only been able to maintain its liberty so long as some higher identity held its citizens together. Rome was able to expand in Italy throughout a number of diverse tribes because they exported, and people bought into, an idea of “Romaness.” Romaness, in essence, was the idea that no matter who you were or where you were from you could be part of Rome if you embraced certain ideas. As Rome began to splinter along class lines so too did its liberties diminish. Rome endured for centuries, but as an empire devoid of political liberty. As people moved away from a myth that united them they embraced myths that divided them. As a result they could no longer freely unite and strongmen had to unite them on the bases of fear and power.

I fear the same is in store for Americans. Nations arose because civil strife and unrest is unbearable.  If we cannot find a unity to rally around and voluntarily united with one another, only law and its consequences will unite us. As our ideologies further converge and the ties that bind us continue to disintegrate, our laws will have to become more invasive and harsh to hold us together. As a result, we will lose much of the liberty we once had and held dear.

We need to be drawn out of ourselves into something higher. Ideally it would be Christ’s Kingdom, but short of that we are far better off uniting our tribes into a nation than living in the anarchy that tribalism produces. Are there problems left for us to deal with as a nation? Yes, and there will always be. But they must be dealt with from within, not without. Burning flags or kneeling during anthems signifies a rejection and abandonment of the nation. People can never reform what they are destroying. Fixing this country can only be done by those that first accept it and love it. Nationalism is imperfect and will someday be replaced by something even higher and transcendent. But until that happens we should be hesitant to bury what has up until now been the greatest protector of individual rights and the greatest provider and protector of prosperity and political freedom.

Evangelicals and Trump

It does concern me that Christians are so tightly connected with the Republican Party. I think as Christians we need to keep our independence. And I think a lot of Christians have done a good job of this. Russell Moore definitely fits in this camp. He is a conservative (I think at least) but a man of very high character and principle and a man trying to bring attention to issues conservatives generally overlook.

Maybe it’s just the bubble I live in, but I don’t know anyone and haven’t read anyone that thinks Trump is God’s anointed. I regularly read Michael B. Dougherty and Ross Douthat (both conservative Catholics) as well as Niall Ferguson (a conservative atheist) and all endorsed Clinton. Jonah Goldberg, Yuval Levin, Bill Kristol, Ben Shapiro, Charles Murray—all these conservatives and many more were Never Trumpers. Regarding my friends, every Christian I talked to my age or younger (admittedly it was only a few) voted 3rd party. The fact is there were a lot of religious people that didn’t support him.

From what I read in the New York Times, of all the contingents in the Republican coalition Trump’s lowest support during the primaries was among church going evangelicals. Ironically (or maybe predictably?) Trump's support was highest support was among people that consider themselves evangelical but don’t attend church. In other words, it was nominal/cultural Christians that paved the way for Trump’s nomination, not legitimate Christians. Now did most Christians end up supporting him in the general election? Of the 50% or so that bothered to vote, yes. But most did so while holding their noses. Even Michael Moore, no friend of conservatives, recently said that Trump supporters are by and large good people that dislike Trump but see no other viable option.

I think it is fair to debate who was the better choice, but I don’t think this was in any way an easy election, especially for Christians. Civil cases against religious speech and practice are up 125% over the last two years! Abortion, same-sex marriage (and the pressure on businesses to support it), transgender bathroom issues—Christians have lost the culture war and there is a sense that their liberties are under attack. When the CEO of a major company (Mozilla) can lose his over a political opinion, when the mayor of the 3rd biggest city in America (Houston) subpoenas pastors sermons, California is moving to consider all churches public spaces and thereby force them to open bathrooms to both sexes, and the fire chief of Atlanta lose his job for what he said outside of work at his church, who feels safe? And when these attacks, and many more, are all coming from one political persuasion it is tough for me to lend it my support.

Now we can disagree whether or not it is a sin to bake a cake for a same-sex marriage wedding—I personally don’t think it is—but the idea of living in a country where the government has the power to force a person to act against their conscience is terrifying. Think about it. Do we really want a government that says, I know you feel like this is wrong, but if you don’t do it I will put you in jail? If there is one liberty that our country was founded on it was the freedom of conscience. This is because the early settlers recognized that freedom of conscience is fundamental to any meaningful right or liberty.  Now it has been members of the Democratic Party (or their allies) that have been in the forefront of the attack against conscience in the name of LGBTQ or other non-discriminatory rights. I know Republicans use Christian conservatives and never follow through with their promises. But who am I going to vote for? The party that says they are sympathetic towards me and fails to follow through? Or the one that has Lena Dunham and Samantha Bee and a host of like-minded people in its ranks that all think that everything that I believe is ridiculous and dangerous and has no qualms of mocking me and fellow Christians? Ten years ago the Democratic Party made a push for evangelicals, was more moderate in its platform, and allowed more deviation from the party line. They’ve moved so militantly to the left in some of these social issues that it is hard for me to support a party whose social policies would undoubtedly violate what I take to be absolute and fundamental freedoms. If the government wants to allow same-sex marriage, fine. But it should not force those that think this is wrong to participate. And if the Democratic Party wants my vote, they shouldn’t call me bigoted or mock me for being on “the wrong side of history” because I believe and follow the teachings in the Bible. I could have supported Bill Clinton in the 1990s or even Hillary 8 years ago, but the party has moved too far to the left in these social issues. So far to the left that I will reluctantly and mournfully vote for a man to run the country that I wouldn’t trust to run my school. It is not a place I wish I was in, but it is the state of politics as I see them.

There isn’t a clear or easy path. To say that Trump is God’s anointed or whatever is blaspheme in my opinion. But to say that Clinton is clearly better I don’t think is true either. It is true that Trump lacks character, but so have many other presidents! FDR died in the arms of his mistress and JFK was the Charlie Sheen of his age! This doesn't excuse them or Trump, but we’ve survived disreputable men before and God willing we’ll survive Trump too.

Politics is messy. I think Christians should not and cannot let it divide us. I think we also need to find places that we agree on, things like the sanctity of life, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, policies that help families form instead of policies that put stress on the family, etc. and try to move both parties towards these. Until they move we need to pray and think and talk to try to figure out the best way to engage.

Thoughts on President Trump

How do I feel about Donald Trump being the next President of the United States of America?

I would say that I am cautiously optimistic. By that I mean I am hopeful that good will come out of this, but I am not expecting good to come out of this.

I think the doom and gloom, sky is falling view is just plain silly—I thought the same was silly when conservatives overreacted to Obama’s election and reelection (he’s a socialist, he hates America etc.) Likewise, I thought and think the “YES WE CAN!” type of optimism is misguided and foolhardy. People expect too much from politics and are therefore unduly enthusiastic or fearful. God is sovereign. Period. This alone should cause us as Christians to temper our responses to any advance or set back. (I think this is a great article that puts things in perspective.)

As much as I dislike and distrust Trump, I think Clinton would have made a worse President. She is for more or less unrestricted access to abortion in the United States, wants to help fund and spread abortion abroad, was the favored candidate of Wall Street, and is arguably the most corrupt politician of our generation. Don’t get me wrong, Trump is an obscene and vulgar, self-centered egoists. I have no illusions about him. Nonetheless I think Clinton is worse.

Likewise, I think Clinton’s foreign policy would have been a disaster. She was unnecessarily heating up rhetoric against Russia (though Trump is too cozy with Russia—can’t anyone hit the virtuous middle!)The Obama foreign policy in the Middle East was a disaster. More people have been killed in the Middle East under the Obama presidency than the Bush presidency—isn’t that a crazy statistic! I was talking to a friend that lives in the Middle East about the election. She is well informed and told me that Clinton is far less popular than Trump. She said Clinton has had so many corrupt dealings in the region that people distrust and dislike her and prefer Trump, whom they see as a wildcard. I found this unbelievable—that, in her opinion, the Arab/Muslim world prefers Trump! She went on to say that right now the United States is currently bombing seven (!) countries: Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and Somalia. She regularly sees refugees and meets people whose homes and lives have been destroyed. Bush began this policy bu Clinton expanded it during her tenure as Obama’s Secretary of State. The expectation of Arab-Muslims was that if Clinton was elected, this policy would continue whereas Trump is likely to pull out of the region (which is what they desire). Given that Trump is a populist and populists rarely in engage in foreign wars, I think they are probably right.

Why did Trump win?

I think Trump won because he paid attention to the breakdownof order in rural communities that both parties have ignored. Poverty is up, suicide is up, drug use is way up as is divorce—I don’t think Trump is going to fix these problems, but referring to these people as a “basket of deplorables” (as Clinton did) or telling them they are “privileged” and just need to get over themselves isn’t going to help.

The fact is globalization has led to a massive increase of wealth. (By globalization I mean the free movement of people, goods, and capitol—i.e. immigration, trade, and foreign investment.) But this increase of wealth has been concentrated. For example, in the early 1990s 50% of our economic growth was spread out over about 300 cities; today about 50% of our economic growth is concentrated in about 20 cities! Of all the growth over the past 40 years, virtually none has trickled down into the middle and working classes—their wages are stagnant. Instead that growth has been concentrated in the upper class that mainly resides on the coasts. I think Trump as well as Sanders recognized this problem and that was their draw. Think about it: each talked about immigration, our trade deals, and bringing jobs back (which is an issue of foreign investment). They recognize a problem, I just don’t think either has good solutions.

I know a lot of people are trying to chalk this up to racism or sexism—that this was a reaction to black President or that men can’t handle the idea of a woman in charge. I don’t think that holds. First, I think racists would have been more mobilized against a black man than a white woman! Per the New York Times, more African-Americans and Latinos voted for Trump than voted for Romney. What is more, Trump carried a number of white, rural areas that Obama carried twice. Likewise, around 43% of women voted for Trump. These people want change. They didn’t get the change they wanted with Obama, so they voted for another candidate that said he would bring change.

Trump won because he ran as an outsider. The recovery from the recession has been very concentrated—there is a desire for change in areas that haven’t yet recovered. You don’t run an establishment candidate in a year where people want change! Had Sanders run, I believe he would have walked away with this election. Clinton was the wrong candidate. What is more, she was a weak candidate.

I saw one exit poll from Wisconsin wherein 63% of respondents viewed Trump unfavorably. Yet over 20% of these people voted for him! That high of an unfavorable rating should have sunk Trump. It didn’t because as much as people disliked Trump they disliked Clinton more. Further proof of this is the fact that Trump received 3 million fewer votes than Romney and still won (this despite the fact that our population grew!). Disgusted with both candidates, millions of people that generally vote stayed home and about 5% of people voted for a third party when no major third party candidate ran! This is not a case of a bunch of bigots champing at the bit to elect some misogynist, white supremacist (though some may have voted for these reasons), but a by and large disgusted America choosing what they took to be the lesser of two evils.

Ultimately American politics are always volatile. In the last century the Democrats have only once held the presidency for more than 8 years (with FDR and Truman); the Republicans have only held it once for more than 8 years (Reagan and Bush). So this was almost to be expected.

So what does the future hold? I don’t know! A lot of the hopes I had for an Obama presidency (e.g. greater racial healing, greater peace in the Middle East) didn’t happen. I suspect that many fears of a Trump presidency are likewise misguided.

Ultimately God is sovereign. I am not sure if this election is a part of God’s judgment; it might be. It also could turn out to be a blessing—Trump doesn’t care what other people think, which gives him the potential to be a truly great and effective leader. We can’t judge that now.

Let me end with a story to illustrate what I mean.  

There was once a poor old man with only one horse. Now this horse was beautiful and strong and highly prized. A nobleman offered the old man great riches for his horse, but the old man declined. Within a couple of days the horse went missing. When the townspeople heard about this they mocked the old man. “You old fool, don’t you realize what you’ve done! Your horse has been stolen. You could have had great riches, now you will die poor. What a great misfortune!” The old man replied, “That this has happened is all that I know. Whether it is good or bad I do not know, only time will tell.”

A few weeks later the horse returned and brought with it a whole herd of horses. The old man rounded them up and put them in his pen. When the townspeople heard about this they lavished their praise upon the old man. “How fortunate you are! You are wealthy beyond measure! This is surely a gift from heaven!” The old man replied, “That this has happened is all that I know. Whether it is good or bad I do not know, only time will tell.”

Later that month as his son began to break the horses he fell and broke his leg. When the townspeople heard of this they returned to the old man’s house and once again mocked him. “Unfortunate man, cursed by the gods! Surely this is a sign of their disfavor. Your son will never walk again and you and he will die in poverty.” The old man replied, “That this has happened is all that I know. Whether it is good or bad I do not know, only time will tell.”

Early the next month war broke out with a neighboring kingdom. The local baron rounded up every man of fighting age and ability. On his way to the front lines his army was ambushed and routed—not a man returned home. The old man’s son, with his hurt leg, was spared conscription and thereby was the only young man to survive the massacre. When the townspeople heard about this they came to the old man and once again praised him. “Old man, you are truly blessed! You alone of all of us have your son to keep you company in your old age. How we envy your great luck!” The old man replied, “That this has happened is all that I know. Whether it is good or bad I do not know, only time will tell.”

-God is active in our affairs, but it is impossible to judge what He is doing and why He is doing it—His plans are far too complex for any of us to completely grasp. Why is Trump President? What will come out of this? That this has happened is all that I know. Whether it is good or bad I do not know, only time will tell.

Every unexpected event is an opportunity to deepen our trust in God. Don’t miss this opportunity.