“Three possible American futures beckoned, (Samuel) Huntington said: cosmopolitan, imperial and national. In the first, the world remakes America, and globalization and multiculturalism trump national identity. In the second, America remakes the world: Unchallenged by a rival superpower, America would attempt to reshape the world according to its values, taking to other shores its democratic norms and aspirations. In the third, America remains America: It resists the blandishments — and falseness — of cosmopolitanism, and reins in the imperial impulse.”
Culled From A Wall Street Journal Article By Foud Ajami
The synopsis of Ajami is taken from Huntington’s last work, “Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity.” Huntington was a Harvard academic whose name became big in 1993 when he wrote, “Clash of Civilizations.”
Huntington’s observations, as summarized by Ajami, is exactly what I’ve been trying to get at for years on the political scene. In Huntington’s plausibility structure it is the Democrats who are seeking to push the Cosmopolitan America. Democrats wish to remake America into the World’s socialism image. On the other hand it is the Republicans who are seeking to push Huntington’s Imperial model where we export our socialism image on the whole world. The twist though is that Democrats want to use Imperial efforts domestically in order to force us to be Cosmopolitan while the Republicans desire Cosmopolitanize the world with their definition of multiculturalism. The end though is that both parties are working towards the same end. The only difference is that they are working towards that same end from different directions. In both scenarios the World, will in the end, look very much the same. Whether Huntington’s Cosmopolitan vision triumphs or whether Huntington’s Imperial vision triumphs, the result will be the same egalitarian, socialistic, tyrannical bland sameness. For the Cosmopolitans American becomes the World. For the Imperialists the World becomes America. But in the end it all becomes the same. If you mix Coke and Orange Juice or if you mix Orange Juice and Coke, in the end its all the same. Just so with the Cosmopolitan and Imperial visions.
Huntington’s third way recommends itself the most. However, in order for their to be a third way we have to return to the Christian version of what America was intended to be. If America will be America that automatically means that we discontinue with the Wilsonian nonsense of making the world in our image by means of the forceful extension of “freedom and democracy” — whatever the hell those words mean anymore. Huntington’s vision requires us to return to an “America First” mindset. It means that we have to quit with the notion that America is a “proposition nation” (could their be any more of a Cosmopolitan notion?) and return to the idea that America is a distinct place that is defined by its traditions, customs, land, people, and faith. It means a return to an America that is defined by distinctly Christian (and yes Protestant) ethos. It means that we drive a nationalistic spear through the heart of Cosmopolitan political correctness and multiculturalism and through the lungs of Imperial over-reach.
Personally, though I like Huntington’s call for America to remain America I wonder if it is to late for us to be able to do that.Are there enough Americans who know what America means? Are there enough elites who desire for America to remain America? (See Christopher Lasch’s “Revolt Of The Elites”) I know there aren’t enough Churches who would be willing to articulate a Christian Protestant vision of America. The Church has embraced the Cosmopolitan vision and is to busy trying to destroy itself by embracing all cultures.
(Remember culture is created by faith. In order to embrace all cultures it means that at the same time we must embrace all faiths.)