It is our nation’s unofficial motto and appears on the back of the $1 bill, and on many US coins. The translation from Latin is: Out of many, one. Originally, it referred to the unification of 13 former colonies into a single nation, but Its meaning has evolved. The phrase also captures the aspiration to welcome diverse persons into a single nation that is not based on tribe of origin, but on dedication to a set of unifying ideals. Common ideals such as freedom and individual responsibility, as represented in our constitution and laws, inspire a reverence (in principle) that unites disparate groups into one nation with common purpose.
How the political parties promote disunity
This aspiration for unity over tribalism is presently undermined on all sides of the political spectrum. The dominant Trumpist wing of the Republican party splits us into a few simple tribes, all but one of which has a denigrating label: Real Americans (Republicans), RINOs (Republicans in name only), Marxist/socialists (Democrats), and illegals (undocumented persons). The party delights in this divisiveness and uses it cynically for electoral success.
The Democratic party divides America in subtler but no less damaging ways. A dominant wing of that party has long embraced “identify politics”, which is based on the belief that a person’s political interests can be predicted by their race, ethnicity, gender, or social class. A justification for categorizing voters along racial and ethnic lines lies in the historical disadvantages experienced by specific groups, for which redress might be indicated in the modern era. But identity politics has harmful elements. It reduces complex human beings into simple categorical variables over which they have no control. Further, it tends to ignore those who are not historically disadvantaged but may nevertheless be struggling. (And guess who welcomed those “unspecial” persons into a different tribe?) Young people are turning away from identity politics, sensing condescension, unfairness and divisiveness.
Colorblind
I grew up in a household which, for its time in history, held fairly progressive values. My parents taught that race didn’t matter, and indeed to call attention to it at all constituted poor manners. Instead, as advised by my parents’ generational contemporary Martin Luther King Jr., we were to judge persons by the “content of their character.” This approach to race is often referred to as “colorblindness”. It does not mean a literal obliviousness to a person’s race (we are unable to avoid perceiving it), but the conscious goal of not using race in any sort of decisionmaking about a person. I understand that this framework is incomplete. It denies the experience of some racial minorities who don’t always have the luxury of adopting colorblindness, for example the experience of a young black man, when stopped by a policeman in certain areas. The best solution to this is to reform those police departments that treat persons differently on the basis of race.
Anti-racist?
Race consciousness seems to be increasing. The modern philosophy of “Antiracism” is now in vogue at my university and many others. Its’ principles are developed in a 2019 book by Ibram Kendi, and refers to the practice of actively identifying and opposing racism. It posits that contemporary society is structurally racist, thus it is insufficient for individuals to simply reject racism in their own lives and practices. In his writings, the philosophy of colorblindness with which I grew up, is itself labelled as racist. Antiracism as described by Mr. Kendi is now advocated at many campus training sessions and in many academic publications on how to run an antiracist laboratory, department, or clinic. Along with many persons reacting to the 2020 murder of George Floyd, I was initially sympathetic to the anti-racist approach. I am less so now, after thinking more deeply about the peculiar attractiveness of Trumpism to many Americans.
Or another brand of divisiveness?
Is the teaching of “antiracism” helping us to forge a less divided nation?In his recent book “The End of Race Politics“, author Coleman Hughes offers a serious and thoughtful critique of antiracism that should be read in academia. It argues that Kendi’s version of anti-racism is actually a form of “neo-racism” that shares a number of beliefs with classical white supremacy, including the primacy of race as a defining characteristic. He recommends a return to the civil-rights era aspiration of colorblindness as a basis for a just society. I increasingly agree with Hughes that the Kendi version of anti-racism is divisive, simplistic, intolerant, and performative (extracting speech and actions from persons that dont reflect their true beliefs). Its most disturbing element is that it allows no opposition to its tenets: if you reject the notion that our world is structurally racist, then you risk being shamed as a racist by your community or workplace. Its most dangerous consequence is that, when practiced in a zealous and intolerant form, it invites a backlash that is equally divisive in an opposite direction. That backlash landed in the USA with a thud on “The Day After“, November 6, 2024.
Surely the aspiration to form one nation out of many peoples, connected by ideas and reverence for its laws, is one of America’s biggest strengths. It is time to abandon identity politics, stop assuming persons can be easily labelled by race or ethnicity, and pay more attention to the freedoms and responsibilites uniting us all. This will show greater respect for humans as individuals, and offer voters a clearer and more attractive alternative to Trumpian tribalism. Many of us would love to live, more united, in a colorblind society.
.
Leave a Reply