By Jonah Goldberg
Friday, December 19, 2025
For reasons that have to do with an elaborate system of
pneumatic tubes under the surface of Indiana, I have to keep this “news”letter
short and light. So let’s jump right in.
I am not the sort of person to compliment Vivek
Ramaswamy, but I think he had a very
good piece in the New York Times this week. He was addressing the
growing popularity on the Very Online right of the concept of Heritage
Americans. The basic idea: The farther back you can trace your ancestry here in
America, the more American you are. The Very Online right-wingers even have charts grading
your Americanness.
Now, I’ve written a bunch
about this
before,
and I am sure I will again at greater length. But I just want to make a couple
of points.
First, if you keep it out of the realm of politics, and
don’t put that sounds-better-in-original-German stink on it, I have no problem
with the idea of being proud of your American lineage. What’s to object to?
But that’s not what most of the Heritage American chest
thumpers are doing. They want to insinuate that having a family tree in America
that goes back to the Mayflower or the founding makes you more of an American.
My problem with this is that the real point of this crap is to suggest that
other people—immigrants, Jooz, Asian Americans, etc.—are less American.
I don’t love Charles de Gaulle’s explanation
of the difference between nationalism and patriotism. But in this context, I
think it applies somewhat. “Patriotism,” he said, “is when love of your own
people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes
first.”
The best defense of this Heritage American stuff tends to
be made by people who don’t really traffic in this stuff themselves (to their
credit), but they want to make room for the argument that America, and
nationality generally, is more than just an “idea.” I asked Michael Brendan
Dougherty what the political salience of this talk is, and he replied in
part, the “acknowledgement that nationality is a multigenerational project, and
that our creeds are embodied in folkways, intuitions, and ways of life to which
we are habituated, might inform your immigration policy.”
I am sympathetic to that argument. Indeed, I made a
related argument in Suicide of the West. America is a liberal democratic
country in part because of our legal and constitutional framework, but also
because liberal democracy is inherently part of our culture and is embedded in
our institutions and customs at a very deep level. I think the wisdom of
importing large numbers of immigrants hostile to that culture is a legitimate
subject for debate. As a matter of law, we ask would-be legal immigrants if
they are Communists. It is not outlandish to me to inquire about other
commitments that are at odds with the American creed and Constitution.
But this cuts two ways. A lot of the groypers and fellow
travelers who push this Heritage American junk love to peddle ideas that are
just as contrary to the American creed and Constitution. Nick Fuentes has said
he wants America to be run by a Catholic
Taliban or some such. (By the way, how many Fuenteses were on the
Mayflower?) Moreover, many of the people most committed to the American Way are
themselves immigrants or the children of immigrants—that’s why they moved here.
When I think of my friends, among the people most passionately and eruditely
committed to the idea of America, they are top-heavy with such people. Charles
Cooke might be the biggest American superfan I know. Yuval Levin (born in
Israel) is a close second. Ramesh Ponnuru—who is from Kansas, but his parents
are from India— knows more about America and what it stands for than all of the
groypers combined.
A lot of the Heritage American-pushers—J.D. Vance, Sen.
Eric Schmitt, et al—will argue that their core point is to push back on the
idea that America is “just an idea.” They almost always use this as a strawman
argument rather than deal with the real point of that phrase. But they are
right insofar as America is not just an idea. But it is—and was—in significant
respects the product of an idea, or bundle of ideas. But America is also a
people with a culture. And a central part of that culture is, well, the idea
that you can become an American by embracing those ideas.
What bothers me about the argument that America is not an
idea is that those people think America is an idea, too. It’s just that their
idea of America is that Americanness is a function of your heritage alone. They
claim to be rejecting abstract concepts and categories, but that argument is
built on abstract concepts and categories, too. And those abstract concepts and
categories are actually hard to defend. But that’s not their aim. Their aim is
to borrow the logic of left-wing identity politics and simply assert that their
opinions and agendas are more legitimate solely because of an accident of
birth.
The continuing embarrassment.
Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, had a
big announcement yesterday. From her X account:
I have just been
informed that the highly respected Board of the Kennedy Center, some of the
most successful people from all parts of the world, have just voted unanimously
to rename the Kennedy Center to the Trump-Kennedy Center, because of the
unbelievable work President Trump has done over the last year in saving the
building. Not only from the standpoint of its reconstruction, but also
financially, and its reputation. Congratulations to President Donald J. Trump,
and likewise, congratulations to President Kennedy, because this will be a
truly great team long into the future! The building will no doubt attain new
levels of success and grandeur.
Two things really stand out for me. First is the claim
that the current board is “highly respected.” I mean, in fairness, some people
on the board are respected, even highly respected. Lee Greenwood’s legit. But
most of the board is a collection of MAGA toadies, Trump remoras, and
apparatchiks (Sergio Gor, Susie Wiles and her stepmother Cheri Summerall, Laura
Ingraham, Richard Grenell, Maria Bartiromo, et al.) or the wives of his donors.
In other words, they’re sort of like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s new vaccine
advisory panel, but for the arts.
Speaking of Kennedys, the second thing that really stands
out is Leavitt’s generous “congratulations to President Kennedy.” I won’t weigh
in on the question of where President Kennedy is now—theological and moral
opinions vary—but the suggestion that JFK and DJT are now a team raises all
sorts of questions. And the idea that Kennedy will be (or would be) excited to
be dropped to second billing strikes me as contestable.
Sometimes I like to run a little thought experiment. When
Donald Trump does something controversial, preposterous, weird, stupid,
selfish, or embarrassing, I like to imagine I predicted it a year ago. Then I
like to think about the people who would accuse me of being ridiculous,
hysterical, paranoid, and, of course, exhibiting Trump Derangement Syndrome by
even suggesting he might do something so absurd.
If I had said Trump would do this a year ago, I am sure I
would have received that kind of flak. Then again, if I predicted that he would
pardon a huge narco-trafficker because he sent Trump a flattering letter or if
I had prophesied that he would out-neocon all (alleged) neocons by pushing a
policy of lawless regime change in Venezuela, or drench the White House in
gold, or announce human combat spectacles on the White House lawn to celebrate
the 250th anniversary of the founding … or, well, you get the point.
No comments:
Post a Comment