Dear friends, let's talk Latino immigration ...

Progressive Nationalism and the Latino Presence

Some of you may have read my article entitled “Racial Contestation and the Emergence of Populist Nationalism in the United States,” which was attached to my last blog post.  I argued that after decades of political polarization, America has become two nations, not one. And I offered a typology with the features of the two identities. Here I want to take up two of the elements in the typology: “character of nationalism” and “racial ideology.” And I want to relate them to the question of Latino, and especially Mexican presence in our midst.

 I said that populism on the right, or American traditionalism, embodies a parochial, narrow-minded view of who constitutes the nation. The racial ideology for that nationalism is white assimilationism: the notion that people of other races or nationalities who come here must assimilate to the values and beliefs of white settlers who founded this country. Conversely, the populism of the left, American progressivism, advances rooted cosmopolitanism: the acceptance of peoples and cultures from all over the world, but within a “firm sense of American identity and allegiance.” I wrote that progressive racial ideology is multiculturalism (or perhaps, multiracialism). This is the belief that non-white races have had different historical experiences than the white majority; and that a new value system embodying all of those narratives should be advanced. One might say that traditional nationalism is exclusive in two ways. It requires that those who come to the country after the founding era assimilate to the Anglo-Saxon culture they find upon arrival. But also, those who are concerned that what is good about America cannot be sustained if whites become a minority can be found in the traditionalist camp. I’m talking here about people like Charles Murray (Coming Apart) and Patrick Buchanan (Suicide of a Superpower).

Progressivism is inclusive. It upholds the idea that America is a nation of immigrants, and that injections of successive waves of immigrants has brought vitality and innovation to the America experience. Progressives are not concerned that since the 1960s the vast majority of immigrants have come from the brown parts of the world, and are fueling the browning of America that we are witnessing. Whether it’s software geeks in Silicon Valley, or those working in sweat shops, or the fields, immigrant drive and creativity are quintessentially American and should be welcomed.

These broader dimensions to the discussion of immigration must wait (hopefully) for another post, but here let me focus on immigration from south of the border. Progressive multiculturalism, most eloquently proffered  by Ronald Takaki in A Different Mirror, spins a narrative anchored in five racial groups: Native, European, African, Mexican and East Asian Americans. He weaves a powerful narrative unpacking the original contradiction between what was already a multiracial socioeconomic system and a white supremacist political order. He shows how European immigrants and people of color embraced the American creed, and through struggle, compelled the nation to incorporate them.

Those five racial/cultural elements of American society, however, have two powerful poles: the white people who founded the country and have dominated it historically, and the Latino, but primarily Mexican population who’s “homeland” is next door. If you read the chapter in Takaki about the decades in the Southwest after the Mexican War, you find that Mexican labor was absolutely essential to the building of a viable economy in the region. Mexicans worked in the mines, the fields and on the railroads. They even taught white boys how to be cowboys! Another good read is Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz’s An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States. She chronicles the way in which the American West was politically, economically and culturally integrated to those lands south of the so-called border before the Spanish conquest. Throw in the other non-Spanish speaking indigenous people around the region, and the Chinese and Japanese on the West coast, and you begin to see that the West has also, always been multicultural.

Another enduring, though not particularly sexy American value is pragmatism. That is, simply doing what is effective and works! The pragmatic position on immigration is what progressives are advancing. It’s cosmopolitan, humanistic, and it also is what has always worked. A 2015 Pew Charitable Trust poll found that “(72%) of Americans – including 80% of Democrats, 76% of independents and 56% of Republicans – say undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. should be allowed to stay in the country legally if they meet certain requirements.” But 45% believe increasing deportations would be a good thing, and an equal share believe it would be bad.

So there’s pragmatism in public opinion. If people have been here working and not breaking the law, most Americans think they should at least be able to gain legal residency. But there is also ambivalence at the aggregate level around the extent of deportation. But the acerbic tone of the Trump presidency has stoked fears, and with both houses of Congress in Republican hands, the immediate future hangs in the balance. Another interesting read in this respect is George Friedman’s The Next 100 Years. It’s mostly about global affairs and great power competition. But in the final chapter Friedman spins out a scenario in which the southwest quadrant of the country is dominated by Mexicans culturally and demographically. He outlines a chain of events in which the US Army is patrolling the border, Mexican-American governors are refusing to call up the National Guard to support the army, protests are rampant in the streets, and a Mexican-American bloc in Congress is vociferously opposing such policies. Friedman predicts that will happen in the last quarter of this century. And he leaves the door open as to how that crisis might be resolved.

But with Herr Trump in the White House, events may speed up dramatically. So especially, to my white American comrades, are you ready to defend the multicultural/ multiracial nation, if necessary with heart, soul (and blood!)? Are you ready to make the arguments around rooted cosmopolitanism and good old American pragmatism to your white family members and friends? People of color can be of assistance here, but what we are witnessing is a battle for the soul of white America … Which way are yall gonna roll?

Two Nations, Not One

Dear friends,

Happy new year, if that is possible in the era of Herr Trump. I’m finally starting to blog as of right now. I have been writing about race and identity politics in The United States and South Africa for many years now. The topics that I will be addressing in upcoming posts will revolve around two themes: Populism and American national identity, and thinking globally, while acting locally. Let us begin today on the issue of American populism.

Two Nations, Not One

The year that Obama ascended to the presidency, I wrote an article entitled “Racial Identity and the Emergence of Populist Nationalism in the United States” (see attachment). In it I argued that the since the emergence of identity politics in the 1960s, political polarization in the United States increased to the point that by the 21^st century we had become two nations with widely diverging views about what it means to be American. Secondly, I argued that our differences over how we viewed race where a central feature of that polarization. Populism is a useful way to talk about the poles of opinion over the meaning of American national identity. 19^th century American populism was basically, the anger of common everyday people overt the collusion of big business and big government against small businesses and the working class.

In the 20^th century American populism broke off into two streams: a left-wing populism seeing big business as the enemy, and a right-wing populism seeing big government as its problem. Populism requires a mass movement and charismatic leadership. Left populism began with the labor movement in the 20^th century and was responsible for bringing Franklin Roosevelt to the presidency in 1932. People of color gained position in the labor movement and used those organizing experiences to launch the civil rights movement after World War Two. Activists wanted government to expand its reach to include African Americans and other people of color into first class citizenship in this country. By the end of the 1960s women’s, environmental and LGBTQ rights movements had emerged, all asking government to do more to support the goals of their movements. Part of what government would need to do was to make corporate capital and the other institutions of civil society treat marginalized people equally, and protect the natural environment.

That specter of such government “overreach” was alarming to the more conservative sectors of society. The right populist backlash began with the white supremacist mobilization against the civil rights movement. Race was central to its genesis. But as the movement against the Vietnam War grew, and the feminist, gay rights and environmental movements exploded, by the end of the 1960s, right populism was centered around the defense of the status quo pre-1960 … That is to say, patriarchal white supremacy, heterosexism, American imperialism and as little regulation as possible of environmental degradation. Thus, right populism uncritically defended capital.

Most of you know the rest of this story. By the 1990s James Davison Hunter was dubbing these political divides as “the culture wars.” I have chosen to define them as the two poles of populist nationalism. In the 2016 presidential campaign Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump represented the left and right poles of American populism, and also, opposing versions of the American national idea. Unfortunately, for the left, our populist lost, while the right populist landed in the White House.

This is a warm-up. In the posts that follow I’ll be sharing my thoughts on what populist on the left can do to stop Trump’s right-wing and fascist populism from steamrolling over us.

Link to my article on race and populist nationalism:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504630903205290