Thomas Frank: Decoding Stephen Miller’s Nationalist Mind

This is actually how I see the world too:

“What Miller left unsaid, but implied, was also the contrast between home and doctrine. For the past two decades, prevailing opinion has embraced the idea of the United States as an “experiment,” a “propositional nation” or “creedal nation,” as Irving Kristol described it in 1995. In contrast to older nations, America is bound together by people “dedicated to the proposition” of constitutional democracy as laid out by Lincoln. It’s an appealing idea for a great number of reasons. It helps bridge our ethnic divisions, and it gives newcomers a fast track to assimilation. That citizenship is an act of will, a buy-in rather than something more organic, helps remove nationhood from the realm of “blood and soil,” a conception of nationhood that predated the Nazis but won’t soon recover from their embrace.

Still, while stressing the creedal nature of the United States is effective up to a point, it resonates more among intellectuals than among ordinary people. Ideas can help create a community, but they cannot alone sustain it. Ask most people why they join armies, and they’re likely to speak of home and country more than propositions. Similarly, while ideas can strengthen bonds in a family—shared Catholic faith, for instance—most families aren’t based on ideas. They’re formed instead by proximity, affection, habit, and, more often than not, blood ties. Adherents of Trumpism therefore see in creeds only a limited panacea for our societal rifts, and in high levels of migration or workplace turnover an increase in existing pressures.

Americans have never achieved the social cohesion of, say, 1940s England, where an unconscious patriotism and a sense of family offered what George Orwell called a “substitute for a world-view.” But we know that the sense of community in the United States used to be stronger. Many Americans have felt a way of life slipping quickly away—the “rug pulled out from under your feet,” as Gessen and Navratilova put it—often at the hands of trade and immigration. And not all are conservatives. A few years back, liberal humorist Joel Stein wrote a funny but edgy article about seeing his hometown of Edison, New Jersey, transformed by Indian immigration and trying “to figure out why it bothered me so much.” All of us feel the influences of ancestry and sense of place. …”

I had a long conversation about this with Professor Thomas Main.

As I told Professor Main, liberalism is a destructive ideology. For a liberal, the solution to every social problem is either more freedom or more equality. A culture, however, can’t exist in a permanent state of social revolution. The long term effect of pushing liberty and equality to greater and greater extremes at the expense of solidarity is the unraveling of the social fabric. It is a loss of social cohesion that results in extreme atomization and social strife. As Plato once said, democracy ends when the people yearn for a tyrant to deliver them from the descent of liberty into anarchy.

In the 1960s, we had a black/white racial division. The liberal solution to the black/white racial division was to cavalierly decouple whiteness from Americanism and emphasize the “American Creed.” The result of that was race ceased to be a point of solidarity. Culture ceased to be a point of solidarity. Ethnicity ceased to be a point of solidarity. Religion ceased to be a point of solidarity.

Guess what happened? 50 years after the Civil Rights Movement, blacks are no more integrated than they were when the Voting Rights Act was passed. In fact, you could argue that black radicals are even angrier and more alienated today in 2017. Instead of having a black/white racial division, we now have multipronged racial divisions, religious divisions, cultural divisions, ethnic divisions, class divisions, regional divisions and we have sexual and gender divisions. We don’t even agree on ideology anymore. Instead, we glorify “diversity” which magnifies and compounds all of our existing divisions!

Why not import a few millions Muslims from some of the most dysfunctional countries on earth? That’s exactly what is needed, right? It has been such a success in Europe, no?

Note: Liberalism is an ideology and can’t see the foolishness in this. It is a matter of “principle.” The fundamental difference is that we believe public policy should be guided by tradition and experience, not by absurd conclusions deduced from abstract principles. In the words of Rhett, liberals are enthusiasts, fanatics, speculators, utopian political dreamers, etc.

6 Comments

  1. ‘Blood and Soil’ is the only way to sustain a nation, the NSDAP was correct. What does assimilation mean? Is outward appearance enough? Do Whites vote in block, no (at least not historically). Do jews, Blacks, Asians, Mestizos, yes. We still have Chinatowns, but no little Italys. At some point we must be honest with ourselves.

  2. Very good little article Mr. Wallace. I especially liked the following part: “A culture, however, can’t exist in a permanent state of social revolution. The long term effect of pushing liberty and equality to greater and greater extremes at the expense of solidarity is the unraveling of the social fabric. It is a loss of social cohesion that results in extreme atomization and social strife. As Plato once said, democracy ends when the people yearn for a tyrant to deliver them from the descent of liberty into anarchy.”
    That statement of yours is so true. Four years ago, before i woke up to the race issue, i was a libertarian leaning Constitutional patriot. I tried to grudgingly accept all people as long as they cam here legally and spoke English. I had not yet seen the terrible end of the unrestrained liberty and equality argument.
    I do think that white Americans need to rally around our common identity. I think the Amerikaner concept has great merit. https://putnamlibertynotes.wordpress.com/2016/11/27/i-am-an-amerikaner/

  3. Liberal’s solution to pre-1965 racial conflict….import more diversity=THE PASSAGE OF THE 1965 NONWHITE LEGAL IMMIGRANT INCREASE ACT=VIOLENT RACE WAR ON US SOIL 2017…

    To all you JFK worshippers…JFK=FORCED BUSING…AT THE BARREL OF AN M-15 ASSUALT RIFLE…150 years after the Civil War…

  4. “The good life in California has in many places never been better,…”

    This is only true for wealthy elites living in places like Hollywood,Silicon Valley, and a few other isolated pockets scattered throughout this state.Their wealth affords them the capability of living far away from the ethnic and racial diversity that they claim is so damned wonderful.

    “…but many old-timers feel an acute sense of loss.In no place is social atomization more severe.”

    This is an apt description of those of us who do live amidst this ungovernable diversity,which, alas,is NOT so damned wonderful after all!

    Nevertheless,as a native Californian,I am naturally pleased with the clout given to Messrs. Miller and Bannon.Having two advisors to President Trump with an intimate understanding of the MANY problems created by mass immigration in this state can only help us all in the long run.

2 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Red Pill on Inequality – Occidental Dissent
  2. Jewish Conservatives Debate American Nationalism – Occidental Dissent

Comments are closed.