Posted by: theoptimisticconservative | July 2, 2010

Faith-Based Citizenship

President Obama could hardly have struck more wrong notes in his immigration speech yesterday if he had attacked a piano with a buzzsaw.  For me, the most egregious dissonance emerged with the sentence: “Being an American is not a matter of blood or birth, it’s a matter of faith.”

Ed Morrissey generously suggests the following:

We know what Obama meant in this passage — a similarity to those who have expressed the notion that they were Americans before ever setting foot in the US, thanks to their love of liberty.

But I am decreasingly sure that Obama means these commonly-understood things when he uses such weird formulations.  Obama has real trouble expressing American ideas in the terms the average American would actually use.  Most Americans are, I think, comfortable with both the concept of Americanness and the significance of faith.  What Obama did in his speech was blend the two in a hortatory speech – not, in other words, an academic seminar-type venue – in a way no American I’ve ever known or seen would have.

There is still, for one thing, a very strong sense among Americans that, when discussing the big issues of human life, “faith” is something you have in God, or at least in a higher power or some immanent reservoir of goodness.  Even those who don’t have such faith nevertheless use the word “faith” to signify it.

Of course we also use “faith” to talk about ordinary, non-transcendent reliance, on things like gravity, or the banks we keep our money in, or the capacities of the people we love to overcome their problems.  But clearly, in the context of his immigration speech, Obama was referring to an ideal; a large abstraction.  In that context, when Americans speak of faith, we are speaking of the religious, transcendent, or metaphysical.

In pairing “faith” and Americanness, Obama made a vague, impressionistic association that tells us much about him; and one of the chief things is that he simply doesn’t think like an American.  Naturally, there are American nationals who posit the kind of association he implies here, but when they do so they are not expressing the quintessentially American idea.  They are speaking theoretically and proposing analyses for further consideration.

This is common in academia, where the link Obama suggests – of Americanness with the concept of “faith” – is implied through an analytical progression:  Americans are religious; they believe strongly in their religions; they believe strongly in their national identity; therefore, their national identification is essentially a sort of religious belief.  It has been a long time since an academic could wander through this syllogistic sequence without implying that it represents irrationality on the part of Americans – and once that premise is sneaked in, the syllogist is off the hook for making his own case rationally.  The whole discussion becomes a sticky goo of impressions and vague associations, so that you can wind up saying “Being American is a matter of faith,” and your auditors can all go off and interpret that however they want.

But Americans don’t think being American is a matter of faith.  We distinguish between faith and national identity for a very good reason:  because we’ve been indoctrinated to do so from birth.  And neither faith nor Americanness is such a vague concept for us that we accept a careless melding of the two in our minds.  Faith is faith, and Americanness is Americanness, and defining them involves two separate propositions.

Americanness, as Ed says, is largely about honoring the rule of law.  And that means that being American has a very specific, rationally- and materially-defined meaning.  We might think of a foreigner as being “an American at heart” because of his political and cultural orientation, but we wouldn’t call him an “American.”  Because he’s not one.  This kind of literalism irritates people of a certain personality type (many of whom are on the left, politically), but it’s the same mindset that makes us passionate about having the law observed to the letter, which in turn is directly connected to keeping our civil liberties safe.

Being American is not an aspirational state of mind that transcends temporal political boundaries.  That particular concept is most familiar to international socialists.  It is emphatically not a concept used by average Americans to describe their national identity or character.  America is a geographic entity, the 50 United States; the concept of America is firmly bounded in American minds by the parameters of the nation-state; we don’t aspire to somehow induce Americanness to ooze across borders – and we certainly have no intrinsic national aspiration to do away with borders entirely.  We are classic nation-state nationalists in that sense.  Our exceptionalism comes not from any redefinition of nationhood, but from what we propose to do as a nation:  most specifically, the liberties we propose to guarantee.

We may advise others to adopt consensual forms of government and cultural liberality, because we have a universalist perspective on their desirability.  But it’s an academic’s or demagogue’s tendentious conclusion – not a reflection of what Americans ourselves intend – to say that in doing so we want to turn them into “Americans.”

The straightforward literalism of the average American’s take on this is much better reflective of what Americanness means.  We prize liberty, and we’ll tell you about it, but if you embrace it that doesn’t make you “American” in any meaningful way.  It makes you a liberty-loving person of your own nationality.  If you want to literally be American – great!  We love you, man.  Fill out these forms, learn the language, take a test, take an oath.

Finally, there is something a bit creepy about saying “being American is a matter of faith” – something that evokes the national-religious aspects of Italian Fascism, German National Socialism, Soviet Stalinism, and Maoism.  It is extremely informative about Obama, and presumably his speechwriting staff, that their ears didn’t catch this off-kilter resonance.  I think Obama thought these words would resonate with traditional Americans.  In the end, that merely reinforces the perception that he knows such Americans only through the rarefied prism of academic interpretations by third parties.

Cross-posted at Hot Air.


Responses

  1. Besides, how appalled would Obama be at the proposition that someone had to adopt a certain set of beliefs or a certain culture (that’s what it amounts to) in order truly to be American?

  2. You’ve obviously spent more time and effort dissecting the Obama speech than he or his writers did constructing it.

  3. I’d say it was another example of deconstructing a new liberal shibboleth!

    Obama’s post-american, international perspective is exactly what most appeals to many of his supporters who deem nationalism and nationalistic sentiments to be atavistic.

    It’s a common post-modern European perspective arising out of the revulsion and erroneous conclusions many Europeans reached; that both world wars I & II were primarily and even solely the result of nationalism.

    The realization that national boundaries act as the primary bulwark against the seizure of world power by a dictator or totalitarian cabal, something that would be facilitated in a one world government… appears to have never occurred to them.

  4. This new and radical definition of what qualifies someone to be an American citizen ought to concern us. At first I was outraged that President Obama would consider an illegal alien equal to or even more American than my children who were born here. Then I thought it a bit ironic that even Obama might not qualify because of his new definition. Then I realized the ramifications for us all since he is the one doing the defining. Obama and the Democrats could deem anyone who does not support their radical agenda faithless and therefore un-American. I hope that is just being a little paranoid but I do not trust their agenda one bit.

  5. Thanks for the excellent post! I knew something bothered me about that line in the speech but did not take the time to explore why. Too many other outrages from this man sometimes makes it hard to focus.

  6. When we say we hold certain truths to be self-evident, when we pledge allegiance, when we keep faith with the Constitution, when we speak of an American Creed, normal Americans understand that these involve faith. They’re examples of what the word means.

    You may find it all creepy. You may associate it with totalitarianism (incl., evidently, ethnic-nationalist dictatorship). But as you know, the alternative view, that America isn’t a creedal or propositional nation, also has its own unfortunate associations. These have expressed themselves especially in our historical struggles over immigration.

  7. Blue Collar Todd — a belated welcome, and my apologies for the delay in your comment appearing. I don’t quite know what happened, but it only cropped up today in my spam queue. It appears to have been legitimately made back on the 3rd, however. Please don’t give up but stick around and don’t be shy — great to have you commenting here. All your comments should post automatically from now on.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: