Can a society of multiple ethnicities and religions exist peacefully as Americans? The answer is yes, provided that all subscribe to uniquely American values that do not replace but transcend national origin, race, religion, geography, etc. In this chapter, we argue that if we cannot agree and conform to these American values, our country‟s long-term survival will be in serious doubt. We do not mean for all to surrender to a meaningless, mindless, and vague “diversity is our strength” slogan. Rather, we are identifying and articulating clear values that all Americans must share if we are to be united as a country. Americans need not be predominately liberal, independent or conservative in their political thinking, but they should adhere to certain cultural values. It is acknowledged that when conservatives speak of values, they are often maligned and stereotyped as harkening back to a whiter, more Christian America while railing against immigrants and other outsiders. But for the true principled conservative, nothing could be further from the truth.
America is based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. America is a land of immigrants, but not just any immigrants. We want the best from around the world and only ask that they assimilate to American values—although they probably are already more than halfway there given that they wanted to come to America in the first place. Many of these values are reflected in the association of western democracies membership criteria discussed in Chapter 1, but let us apply these to individual beliefs.
First and foremost is the belief in freedom. All those in America, from recent (legal) arrivals to those whose families have been here since the 18th century, should embrace their freedom to retain the fruits of their labors; to choose the occupation and job they desire; to choose the education desired; to travel where desired; to spend their leisure time as wished; and of course to worship any religion or worship no religion at all. All Americans should be skeptical of proposals that, for whatever purported benefit, would restrict these freedoms. Yes there are always exceptions, but they must be the exception, not the rule. The only freedoms always restricted to Americans are very singular and distinct: we don‟t allow for those advocating the violent overthrow of government and society. This admittedly excludes the committed radical Islamic Jihadist from American citizenship, but to paraphrase the late Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, cultural liberalism is not a suicide pact. By definition, it should be open-minded and inclusive, but not to the point of embracing unthinking
“anything goes” nonsense. And by embracing this critically important caveat, we once again see how traditional liberalism of the 20th century is now pretty close to principled conservatism of the 21st century. This book does not attempt to chronicle liberalism‟s race to the far left; it merely argues that the principled conservative actually does embrace an open, free, and tolerant society. Note that the above restriction only minimally impacts free speech if pursued in the democratic context. If someone wants to argue for amending the U.S.
Constitution to institute Sharia law for Muslims living in the U.S., fat chance with that: but we would not restrict such speech. We would only restrict those engaged in planning or advocating violent terrorist criminal acts to achieve such a goal. (As for how such idiots got in the country in the first place, see the discussion below on immigration policy.)
The principled conservative understands that although Judeo-Christian values were critical to America‟s founding and guide much of its law, our democratic republic is not based on any specific ethnic or religious group. Indeed, when saying the word “American” the listener should not think of any particular ethnic or physical characteristic, as compared to more homogeneous societies. Conversely, when one says “Japanese” or
“Swede,” the personal physical characteristic that comes to mind will indeed be a pretty accurate reflection of most people in those countries. Perhaps America could have decided to be the English Colony II and limit immigration to those Brits who wanted better weather, no official religion or king, and real football. But that was not the path chosen nor would it have led to a vibrant America.
But America did adopt the best of British and Western civilization, starting with the rule of law. This is a concept to which all Americans must be devoted. The rule of law means that disputes are settled peaceably through the legal system, not through force or violence. There is protection of individual safety, property, and contractual agreements under the law. A fair society must have a fair arbitrator and equal protection under the law.
All Americans must be devoted to work, and hard work at that. No one should expect a cushy existence. Of course there are exceptions for the mentally impaired or extreme physically disabled. They will require both government and private support, but for the able-bodied person there should not be an expectation of permanent dependence. It is certainly not a moral fault to receive welfare payments or unemployment insurance; it is a moral fault to expect this to be permanent versus temporary assistance.
All Americans should be devoted to upward mobility and support policies that give everyone a fair chance. Yet by aspiring to such, Americans should not be envious, jealous, or disdainful of wealthy, successful people; nor should they assume these individuals “owe” anything back to society. Conversely, we should not assume that just because someone is famous and/or has made a lot of money, that they are wiser than the rest of us in matters of public policy or personal behavior. We can acknowledge that some are just damn fools whose advice should be ignored. At the same time, the principled conservative does not advocate an equalization or leveling-down. After all, people vary in talents and abilities, and in America no one is stuck or destined to remain forever in a certain economic group.18 For those Leftists who insist that there is not fair and equal opportunity because of race, gender, or socio-economic status, the principled conservative must insist that such folks are not really true Americans but frustrated Marxists living in a capitalist society. While some may argue that “America love it or leave it” should not be resurrected as a political slogan, we simply say the following to any radical Leftists living in America: if you really think our society is so terrible and don‟t profess to any of these American values, isn‟t it hypocritical of you to continue living in the country and reaping all of it benefits?
Could these possibly be the same folks driving SUVs to environmental rallies?
Americans should recognize that government cannot solve all social problems and that charitable agencies can accomplish a great deal of good far beyond the capability and purview of government to handle. While supporting the accumulation of wealth via individual initiative, Americans should support private charity and give as much as they can afford. For those who believe that government should provide all and there is no need for private charity—frankly, they are living in the wrong country as suggested above.
Americans should value family and recognize that any child not raised with moral and ethical guidance from parents is not going to be remedied later in life by taking an ethics course in school.
All Americans should evaluate each other as individuals based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin—nor indeed any other immutable characteristic. Thus, stereotypes or expectations based on group status are to be avoided. This does work both ways (see discussion below of affirmative action), as group burdens as well as group benefits should be regarded as anti-American.
Pursuit of happiness begins with a peaceful and safe existence.
All Americans should value and have the opportunity to live in peaceful and safe neighborhoods. The fact that many do not is a concern for all of society and its citizens. Indeed this is a fundamental role for government.
The principled conservative accepts that there will be neighborhoods of varying socio-economic groups. Some will have bigger homes and greener lawns than others. Such is life, and it is something to strive for since Americans value upward mobility. Some neighborhoods may feature modest-sized homes with smaller yards.
Some may feature townhouses or rental apartments. Others may find themselves living in a shotgun shack (or trailer home). We simply value one thing—however Americans live, they should all be safe. No American should feel comfortable with the current reality of “bad neighborhoods” (meaning unsafe due to various criminal activities). If there is one thing that government should protect, it is the safety of people and their possessions. Of course these problems would be less prevalent with stronger families and communities, but this is not something that can change overnight. Similar to the earlier discussion of the need for a world police, the local police are there because people are not angels. Unfortunately, some are criminals and predators. The principled conservative believes that a fair society must be a safe society. Children caught in crossfire of gang warfare is never acceptable! While there is undoubtedly unanimity of opinion on this point, the proposed policies and remedies will likely diverge widely. The principled conservative understands that police should be supported and given the resources for neighborhood safety. But we also have high expectations for individuals and families. The police can protect a neighborhood, but the residents and parents have responsibility for supervision of children. Hence, while the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit is important, it is not an unlimited right. If the parent (s) is not up to the task to make sure their child does not commit crimes, join a gang, deal drugs, or pursue other criminal activity, it is fair for society to pursue alternatives such as foster parents, adoption, and reform school. And unfortunately, there are some malevolent individuals who will have to be incarcerated their entire lives in order to protect society.
A cultural American must also be devoted to preserving this republic. No country has survived for centuries as both free and powerful, but that is the goal for the 21st century and beyond. This is something worth preserving.
There may be great differences of opinion on how best to achieve this, but the fundamental goal must bind all Americans. We are all in this great experiment together. And we must repeat—if anyone living here at present thinks America is horrible and has not made the world a better place, there is a cave in Afghanistan where the Taliban will be happy to welcome you.
Immigration policies must be cleaned up.
Few would not acknowledge that serious mistakes have been made in our immigration policies since 1965. LBJ
thought that flooding America with Mexican immigrants would make both countries stronger. Like many of his policies, they turned out to be utterly and completely wrong. American must fashion immigration policies to recruit the best and brightest from around the world, with a preference either for countries that share our values (the association of western democracies) or for those fleeing persecution in totalitarian terror states. The expectation should not be that individuals legally immigrate to gain access to government benefits. Naturally the principled conservative is disgusted that America has let the illegal immigration problem get so out of hand; it is a slap in the face to the rule of law and to those who immigrate legally (and often very patiently). Some argue that American values should not result in deportations. The principled conservative respectfully says…that is a load of crap. We also support amending the Constitution to clarify that simply being born on U.S. soil as a child of illegal immigrants does not make the child a U.S. citizen. This would go a long way to removing illegal immigration incentives. Secondly, we would dangle before the Mexican government the opportunity for membership in the association of western democracies, in order to encourage societal reforms that would make that country‟s citizens less interesting in fleeing.
Some have suggested that we allow unlimited immigration but simply deny any eligibility for government benefits for a period of time. This is to be rejected as contrary to a fair society. One should not be penalized because of the timing of their legal arrival in the U.S. As argued in this chapter, our public policy should support the “we are all in this together” concept versus separating Americans by any type of status. Further, open, unlimited immigration would be an economic, environmental, and cultural disaster.
It is recognized that America cannot “drain” all the best and the brightest from every country around the world.
Otherwise poorer countries would have no incentive to perform economically, become developed, implement the rule of law and all those other good things that would help such countries to eventually become prosperous members of the association of western democracies. Some may have family and other ties to their home countries, or may not like the fast pace of life in America (or our easy access to the NFL or MLB on cable TV).
Admittedly, it is not for everyone. But we do not apologize for American values or for the assertion that it would be better for the world if more countries were like America. This really should not be a political divide.
To acknowledge that America has made mistakes and that we haven‟t solved every problem is not contrary to stating without hesitation or apology that America has made the world a better place. If a liberal/progressive is hesitant to say this, then they should not be surprised if we question their patriotism. If every country was devoted to American principles, we would likely have a much better chance at that elusive concept of world peace.
We can all get along—in a merit-based equal opportunity society.
The principled conservative should not equivocate but be 100% crystal clear that affirmative action as currently practiced is reverse discrimination in favor of under-represented minorities, or women, or whatever other oppressed group is identified. The practice is un-American and should be ended, not mended. We even have a simple guiding statement from Chief Justice Roberts:
“[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”43
The principled conservative must not fear being called a racist, just because those with small minds and leftist agendas will not hesitate to do so. The principled conservative must say it is wrong to make decisions on anything—jobs, government contracts, school admissions, etc. based on anything other than merit. Yes, some laws have been on the books for years (e.g. government contracting preferences) but that doesn‟t make them any more acceptable in principle or even consistent with the Constitution if correctly interpreted. Divisive affirmative action policies treat people under a “victimized group” identity versus treating them as individuals.
Essentially, if you are in the correct group, you receive special consideration that you did not individually earn.
As discussed above, this is not consistent with what it means culturally to be an American.
The affirmative action/diversity cheering section is not content just to desperately cling to preferential admission practices for colleges, even though several states have passed referenda to ban such practices. They are now heavily into the “shake down” strategy of pressuring private businesses to contract with “diverse”
vendors. That‟s right, it‟s time to start getting out the ethnic profile of all your vendor‟s employees, plus their sexual preferences and disability status. Nothing could be more divisive or corrosive to the social fabric than the diversity industry‟s initiatives such as this. The principled conservative must reject and fight such policies at every opportunity, and sadly there are plenty of opportunities to fight. As just one small example, hidden in the Dodd/Frank/Obama financial reform law is that each new regulatory agency must have an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion “that shall be responsible for all matters of the agency relating to diversity in management, employment, and business activities.” In other words, it matters less whether new regulatory agencies are actually effective—but it is decreed that they MUST have the correct number of women and minorities.
Please keep in mind, however, that the above arguments by no means deny past wrongs. But it is hard to think of a more classic case to illustrate why two wrongs do not make a right. Worse, such policies diminish the real achievements of the individual. Sadly, it is a pervasive cancer throughout many institutions, both in the private and public sectors. Can a woman say she really made the grade as a city firefighter or Air Force fighter pilot if the standards, including physical capacity, have been lessened for women? But this is exactly what happens in the name of feminism and diversity. Can a Hispanic woman say she really deserved that Harvard law school education when her GPA and LSAT scores were significantly lower than many others who were rejected? Of course not.44 It bears repeating that this is diametrically opposed to the concept of a cultural America which seeks to bind us together as ONE republic, not as a bunch of competing ethnic groups looking for a “fair share”
for our people. Those who persist as such should be put on notice that they are in fact destroying America and will not like where we wind up if these policies are pursued to their logical conclusion. This has no bearing on pride or celebration of one‟s ethnic heritage and religious beliefs. But affirmative action as practiced is contrary to the basic principles of fair, equal opportunity as well as a social and economically mobile society. Further, let the principled conservative point out that in promoting the real education reforms discussed in Chapter 7, we are committed to improving the prospects of the less fortunate so that equal opportunity is real, not merely symbolic.
Some presumed conservatives, and many self-proclaimed liberals, have shunned this debate for the very real fear noted above of being called a racist or insensitive or both. But the principled conservative cannot simply sidestep this issue because it is so crucial to our basic values. We cannot throw in the towel on this one and sleep with a good conscience. If the above arguments don‟t convince, perhaps we can also point out the cost savings that would result from no longer tracking ethnicity or race on census or other governmental or private organizational forms. Dare we not track this data? Yes, because it would be consistent with a basic principle: America as a nation should not care one iota how many women, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, etc. are in a certain profession, job, etc. For the good of a fair and just society, we simply don‟t care. After all, we are all just Americans.
This is not merely a pedantic exercise, but it has real implications for America‟s future. As Samuel P.
Huntington described in his classic The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, the culture of America as discussed in this chapter is under a very real threat:
“Historically American identity has been defined culturally by the heritage of Western civilization and politically by the principles of the American Creed on which Americans overwhelmingly agree: liberty, democracy, individualism, equality before the law, constitutionalism, private property. In the late twentieth century both components of American identity have come under concentrated and sustained onslaught from a small but influential number of intellectuals and publicists…they wish to create a country not belonging to any civilization and lacking a cultural core. History shows that no country so constituted can long endure as a coherent society.” (emphasis added) 45
The premise of this chapter bears repeating again and again: anyone—regardless of national origin, race, religion, etc.—can be a cultural American and live and prosper in American society. But if one rejects such values, even those whose families may have been in America for two centuries, essentially that person can no longer truly claim to be an American. And yes, this means there is absolutely no place for the radical Islamic adherent in America (sadly there are plenty of suicidal countries in Western Europe ready to welcome such individuals).
Changes in the Voting Rights Act and the Congressional redistricting process would help foster such common values.
As argued above, racial grievances should have no place in 21st century America, and race-based identity politics is a path to societal collapse. To identify oneself as a hypen-American, versus just an American, is a problem. The principled conservative not only wishes to remove such questions from the census, we want the nation to reject the color-obsessed bean counters. Celebrating one‟s heritage, culture and family history is nice, but it should simply not be the basis of political representation or public policy.
Hence, one of the biggest political principles should be that voting districts logically and reasonably follow geography, not populations. To fix the current problems of Congressional districts requires fundamental changes in the law, specifically modifications to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. We do not seek to turn the clock back, but to turn the clock forward. Creating safe seats for Black and Hispanic candidates by gerrymandering/jerry-rigging Congressional districts has so many bad side effects; it is no more justifiable than creating safe seats for incumbents. The racial spoils system we currently have in place assumes that only a person of a certain race can effectively represent those of the same ethnicity. This must be news to the 60+ % of the population characterized as “Caucasian” who appear to be existing peaceably under the presidency of half-black, half-white Barack Obama, while the country‟s largest ethnic minority (Hispanic or Latino) seems not to have committed mass suicide despite not yet having a president of any distinct Hispanic heritage. Simply take a look at the map of U.S. Congressional districts, which is a result of the unholy alliance of the Voting Rights Act and political gerrymandering. There are radically different shapes and combinations of disparate communities all to achieve the results of putting more Blacks and Hispanics into Congress or protecting incumbents. If a Congressperson were to represent a contiguous geographic area, then that duly elected representative will have to take account of all views in the area. It is amusing that those who decry the lack of bipartisanship in Congress fail to recognize that our Congressional districting process practically ensures there will be a Congress of very far left and very far right members. And then we are shocked that they don‟t reach much common ground! To the contrary, these policies have:
“ … contributed to the racial polarization of the parties, keeping Republican House members from representing many black or Hispanic voters and keeping such voters from being able to vote for many viable Republican candidates for House seats. It has also made it harder for minority candidates to develop the multi-racial followings necessary to win statewide office.”46
So rather than preserve the current system, the principled conservative is in favor of starting over with Congressional districts and focusing on logical and reasonable geographic electoral districts. Sure, there will always be politics, but Congress can approve certain parameters for states in drawing up districts. While little credence can be placed in expert political philosopher-kings to make such decisions, in this area we would be willing to embrace technology and let a dispassionate, objective computer program spit out the results.