Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy recently penned an op-ed in The New York Times in which he attempts to settle the longstanding debate over the defining features of American identity.
The bifurcation, he posits — not that it’s a novel argument — is between America as a “creedal” nation (one defined by abstract ideas) and America as a physical place, populated by people called Americans.
Via The New York Times (emphasis added):
There are two competing visions now emerging on the American right, and they are incompatible. One vision of American identity is based on lineage, blood and soil: Inherited attributes matter most. The purest form of an American is a so-called heritage American — one whose ancestry traces back to the founding of the United States or earlier…
The alternative (and, in my view, correct) vision of American identity is based on ideals.
Americanness isn’t a scalar quality that varies based on your ancestry. It’s binary: Either you’re an American or you’re not. You are an American if you believe in the rule of law, in freedom of conscience and freedom of expression, in colorblind meritocracy, in the U.S. Constitution, in the American dream, and if you are a citizen who swears exclusive allegiance to our nation.
Related: Vivek Ramaswamy Wins Lawsuit Against World Economic Forum
There’s a genuine and interesting argument as to whether America is a “creedal” nation or a literal nation of people.
(“Nation” was always and everywhere historically understood to be the latter, and a racially homogenous people at that. However, America certainly isn’t racially homogenous anymore, to the extent that it was at its founding. So perhaps America can never and never did actually fit the conventional definition of a nation.)
What “American” can’t mean, for certain, is literally anybody in the world who wants to migrate to the West for economic reasons and has no real affinity for America and very little interest in learning about its traditions. (See: Little Mogadishu, formerly known as Minneapolis.)
But whatever; that’s ongoing litigation that isn’t going to be solved here.
Related: MSNBC News Actor, Race Scholar ‘Confront the First Amendment’s Dark History’
What I’d like to draw attention to is the bit of Ramaswamy’s article that attempts to psychoanalyze, distastefully, in my view, the identitarian element within the GOP coalition.
Ramaswamy is certainly not the first to engage in pop-psychanalysis of the identitarian right.
“Why are they so angry?” is essentially the rhetorical question, the answer to which, according to Ramaswamy, requires a proverbial Freudian couch session to diagnose the pathology of a huge swathe of what could and should be an integral, if not primary, pillar in the GOP base.
Continuing:
Young people are often a leading indicator of where political winds are blowing, and the generational nature of the problem is remarkable. Many voters under 30 believe they will never be able to afford a home. They’re often saddled with college debt, and absent dramatic policy interventions, Social Security will most likely be curtailed before they ever receive benefits. They are understandably bitter about it.
Their rising sense of economic insecurity conspires with pent-up psychosocial angst. Depression and anxiety are more prevalent among members of Gen Z than in prior American generations. In the absence of a shared national identity, they’re turning to tribalism and victimhood instead.
Objecting to your country being objectively stolen from underneath your feet as whatever is left of the social contract is violated by a governing class that objectively hates you, as a native-born American, is not a pathology.
Related: Denver Councilwoman Floats Whites-Only Business Tax
Attempts to pathologize that which is healthy and normal is not a winning political formula — and certainly not in Ohio, of all places, which Ramaswamy hopes to govern.
Even if you believe Ramaswamy’s right on the merits of the case — that America is not defined by people but ideas — it’s going to go over like a lead balloon with the people this rhetoric is ostensibly meant to persuade.
Not a great look.
