In an op-ed in the New York Times Robert P. Jones laments the collapse of American identity:
But recent survey data provides troubling evidence that a shared sense of national identity is unraveling, with two mutually exclusive narratives emerging along party lines. At the heart of this divide are opposing reactions to changing demographics and culture. The shock waves from these transformations — harnessed effectively by Donald Trump’s campaign — are reorienting the political parties from the more familiar liberal-versus-conservative alignment to new poles of cultural pluralism and monism.
An Associated Press-NORC poll found nearly mirror-opposite partisan reactions to the question of what kind of culture is important for American identity. Sixty-six percent of Democrats, compared with only 35 percent of Republicans, said the mixing of cultures and values from around the world was extremely or very important to American identity. Similarly, 64 percent of Republicans, compared with 32 percent of Democrats, saw a culture grounded in Christian religious beliefs as extremely or very important.
These divergent orientations can also be seen in a recent poll by P.R.R.I. that explored partisan perceptions of which groups are facing discrimination in the country. Like Americans overall, large majorities of Democrats believe minority groups such as African-Americans, immigrants, Muslims and gay and transgender people face a lot of discrimination in the country. Only about one in five Democrats say that majority groups such as Christians or whites face a lot of discrimination.
and he cites G. K. Chesterton from “What I Saw in America”, an essay I encourage you to read. In that same essay Chesterton characterizes the United States as a country founded on a creed, unlike other countries that were founded on ties of blood or shared history.
What he doesn’t point out is that Chesterton visited the United States the last time the percentage of immigrants in the country reached 15% and that time we responded very differently. We founded the public school system with the explicit purpose of teaching and promoting the American creed.
Now not only do our schools not promote the American creed, many of them reject it outright or even view it as disturbing. That is not a formula for developing a new shared creed but, as Mr. Jones observes, for fraction.
I don’t know what will happen. The one thing I caution those who long for a new American creed, “weaving a new national narrative in which all Americans can see themselves” as Mr. Jones puts it, that the latest wave of immigrants are much more socially conservative than previous waves and much less embracing of liberal democracy. If we don’t teach it, what do we think will happen?
As I’ve pointed out here before at length, every wave of immigrants has left its mark on our politics and society. New immigrants may not arrive with much in the way of material possessions but they do bring their political, social, and religious beliefs with them when they arrive here. Add that when immigrants come here today they don’t cut ties with the old country the way immigrants use to. I know lots of recent immigrants who still call Mama every night.
I don’t think that’s a durable foundation for a new American creed. Maybe I’m wrong.
We founded the public school system with the explicit purpose of teaching and promoting the American creed
You’ve mentioned this before and while I don’t dispute it, I don’t remember ever hearing this from other sources. Can you shed some light on how this goal was conceived and implemented? Also, what is different in the schools today- is it strictly related to language (greater tolerance of students who don’t learn English) or something else?
Another thing that strikes me about the difficulty of assimilating immigrants who come from ultra conservative, orthodox religious backgrounds, is that today we in the US have become much more socially liberal. I think it was an easier fit for conservative Catholics to assimilate in a society that valued heterosexual monogamy, for instance.
Read just about anything by John Dewey, starting with My Pedagogic Creed right through to Democracy and Education. It’s hard to overestimate the authority he bore in the early 20th century system of public education.
Conversely, it’s why the parochial school systems were developed here in the States—to preserve Catholicism by removing Catholic kids from the public schools.
Will check him out, thanks.
Not entirely facetiously, I submit the following video to the discussion:
https://www.facebook.com/TheOnion/videos/10155397968279497/
Quite apart from immigrants, we’re having trouble assimilating our own divergent persons. Currently, some parents object to reading assignments and such in schools that normalize LGBTQI behaviors. Reports are that tomorrow a new executive order regarding religious freedom is due which will be controversial.
If the Jewish religion can require circumcision of males, why can’t a Muslim sect require genital cutting of females? And here we go.
Let’s rephrase that: If it’s legal for the Jewish religion to require …
Janet’s point dovetails with mine. It seems to me we have internal problems with cultural cohesion and the introduction of immigrants just adds to the problem.
Sorry, Janis
Doesn’t bother me. Happens all the time.
I think that immigrants from different places experience differing degrees of difficulty in assimilating to life in the United States. 150 years ago an English working class man or woman would have had little difficulty when they moved to the U. S. An Irish working class man or woman only slightly more. German, Dutch, or Swedish slightly more than that.
Italians would have had a harder time as would Greeks. Christian Lebanese not as hard a time as Muslim Lebanese. And so on.
Aside from Mexicans, who are essentially just migrant workers whose work schedule is disrupted by our bizarre system, the immigrants most likely to move here today are from very different cultures than ours indeed and may speak no Indo-European language fluently. The cost to them and us of their immigrating will be higher than the cost of the Southern and Eastern European immigrants who moved here a century ago.
The case study for this is Somalis. Many of the Somali refugees who came here 25 years ago remain unemployed, are on some form of public aid, and are likely to remain so.
But it’s not the schools that find the creed disturbing. It’s Americans who are rejecting America.
Dewey was a pragmatist and he surely would have grasped that the social material available that is American has increased. You can’t teach the Creed without teaching Du Bois and James Baldwin, and you can’t have a social democracy without having gay and trans people being normal. What’s offending Americans and making them feel persecuted is American pragmatism applied in all directions.
He preferred “instrumentalist”.
While I hesitate to link to the Washington Times, this article seems to cover problems associated with Somali immigration:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/24/islamist-terror-groups-target-minnesota-somali-ref/
Here’s one from the National Review:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/393835/terror-twin-cities-ian-tuttle
Do you have something that focuses more on cultural conflicts, Mr. Schuler?
If the American Creed is as described by Forrest Church, I don’t see why we need a new one.
The executive order on religious freedom didn’t turn out to be much:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/5/15536838/executive-order-religious-liberty-johnson-amendment-trump
Democracy and Education is free at Project Gutenberg:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/852?msg=welcome_stranger