Culture vs Ideas

Michael Gerson is a neocon who was an advisor to the George W. Bush administration. He's a champion of American exceptionalism, which fuels his opposition to President Trump. He dislikes that Trump sees the United States as, in Gerson's phrase, a "normal" nation. Listening to the President's July 4 address, Gerson laments that "Trump presented America as a strong country, but not a country with a special historical role that grows out of certain moral commitments....He seems to love America because it is his country and a powerful country, but not because it is a country with a calling." Is a country without a calling not worth loving? Gerson probably wouldn't go that far, but such a country is only a "normal" country and limited by that normalcy. A true American patriot, Gerson implies, believes that "America somehow embodies the best and highest of human aspirations -- separate from culture and ethnicity." He traces the familiar line separating "blood and soil" nationalism from patriotism based on ideas, but also draws a sharper distinction, perhaps more crucial at this moment, between "culture" and "ideas" "Normal" nations are defined by culture in a way that makes them closed systems. As Gerson writes, a "normal nation" sees itself as "united by a common culture [that is] diluted by outsiders and weakened by diversity." But a nation defined by ideas offers "hope of mutual progress" for natives and newcomers alike.

This distinction begs a question: what's the difference between "ideas" and "culture?"  Do the principles or values we identify as American fall into one category or the other? I suspect not. The "blood and soil" and "idealist" camps almost certainly share many values and principles, but they may disagree over where these come from. Leaving out those racists who may think that certain people are incapable of comprehending, let alone embracing American values, the real disagreement may be over how those values are inculcated. Yet when Gerson favorably quotes George W. Bush's assertions that "Every child must be taught these principles" and "Every immigrant, by embracing these ideals, makes our country more, not less, American," he doesn't seem to be saying anything the "blood and soil" school might dispute -- unless, again, some of that school are racists. Yet Gerson cites Bush's sayings as implicitly opposite to Trumpian "cultural" conservatism. He does so, I think, because he assumes that the "culture" camp believes that values are transmitted to newcomers or new generations by means other than education in schools -- through families, churches, or even social media -- or acquired by means other than reason. He may assume this because he's familiar with right-wing distrust of the public school system, but the other side most likely believes that, if public schools have any role, it's to inculcate American values. From their perspective, the problem today is that immigrants are not embracing the crucial ideals, that children aren't learning them -- or, worse, teachers aren't teaching them. This is the familiar complaint against a perceived refusal to assimilate, compounded by suspicions of treachery within a decadent educational system. The complaint has a factual basis in opposition to some ideals, once considered uncontroversial but now seen as essentially "white," "male," "straight" and, above all, self-serving.

To an extent, the "cultural" backlash we see today is a response to the postmodern idea that "American" values actually aren't universal, as neocons like Gerson insist, but culturally specific to an oppressive degree. What's actually going on, arguably, is a vetting of American culture to preserve whatever is seen as good while eliminating the bad. Disagreement over what should go is inevitable, especially when one side assumes that the other rejects such simple yet fundamental ideas as "the world doesn't owe you a living." Is that an idea based in reason that can be taught, or is it a cultural meme one accepts on faith or as a matter of custom? In the complexity of this historical moment, it actually may be in transition from one state to the other. As a Republican, Gerson probably sees it as an eminently reasonable idea, but when some people seemingly refuse to listen to reason, it's unsurprising for others to begin to see it as something some will never get, no matter how educated they think they are. The distinction between "ideas" and "culture" may not be as stark as Gerson assumes, and it's likely to grow murkier, not clearer, in the immediate future.