Down with consensus. Long live messy pluralism. Are America's ideological differences a problem we should try to solve? A chasm we should try to be bridge? has been reading Chantal Mouffe... and maybe Kuyper.
"But what if who we are is precisely this: a country and a people divided?" Expert examines American culture and identity in 's American Mind
I wrote a lot about pluralism in the Obama years because this argument, advanced recently by , seemed plausible -- that a common-culture America is never coming back, that managing a "messy and deep pluralism" is the political task now.
My new piece for on "resolving" the crisis of American national identity by accepting that it won't—and can't—be resolved It's too late, but that might be okay
In response to Charles Kesler's "The Crisis of American National Identity," argues why messy pluralism may now be the most Americans can attain.
Absolutely wrecked by this piece by , which has ramifications that I will be seriously reflecting on. This is a must-read for anyone working in spaces promoting bridge-building, civility, or the common good.
The central issue here is that Americans still do agree that Americanness is important—but they no longer agree, if they ever did, on what American culture or the American idea entail We cannot be a "who we are" nation if we don't agree on who we are:
If you missed it, my latest for : 'Crisis of the Creed Divided'
After Trump won, liberals and Democrats took to saying things like “this isn’t who we are.” Well, what if who we are is precisely this: a country and a people divided?
My new piece for is out today: 'Crisis of the Creed Divided'
. is right: A burden of creedal nations is that, over time, citizens contest the early narrative, claiming differing ideologies--different "creeds." When Americans increasingly define our identity in divergent ways, what can we best hope for?
I discussed my recent essay on whether we can—or even should—have an American creed