I truly have a hard time squaring the “liberals hope/assume that immigrants are antagonistic to American culture” take with my own lifelong experience. I have found that immigrants’ love of America to be one of the best things about this country, and something celebrated by liberals and non-liberals for decades. EVERYONE tears up at citizenship ceremonies. To think that there is this mass of liberals openly hoping that immigrants will turn anti-America is ridiculous, and probably founded, as most tropes are, on the actions of a tiny handful of “progressives” who in no way speak for the great majority of liberals and/or Democrats.
I feel like I've seen the phenomenon Zaid is talking about quite a bit. Particularly among certain the 'well meaning white liberal' group who may not actually have any/many friends who are immigrants or first generation... so they simply ASSUME this group has the worst possible view of America, based on the constant news cycle of injustice/unfairness etc. (Could this be generational? Most of the ppl I am thinking of are under 35)
I agree with you that I wouldn't use the word 'hope' when it comes to the way most liberals feel about immigrants & anti-americanism...it seems unlikely that they are actively wishing people be resentful of the US, more that they - sometimes - falsely *overestimate* the negative feelings of immigrants.
Liz, thanks for your perspective. My comment below may come from not actually knowing anyone from my large group of left-of-center friends, with a few on the far left side, who espouse any of the views depicted in the article. Not to mention that as an immigrant myself the whole argument makes little sense.
But I have seen some insanely irrational views on the margins, in the online world, and I may not have many "uber-woke" millennials in my circle (the millennials I do count as friends are so sensible and reasonable as to almost making me drop completely a meaningful concept of "generation").
I still think there's some wild extrapolation in the piece. I agree with your conclusion that *some* liberals may be, for lack of actual contact or relationships with immigrants, coupled with a failure of imagination and really shoddy logic, be overestimating their negative feelings. My question is: what's really relevant about that?
And my other question would be: what are we talking about when we talk about 'patriotism'? Feelings of belonging have a lot to do with one's personal and emotional journey. That has as much to do with what one has left behind (positive or negative), as it has to do with aspects of one's new reality (positive or negative).
While I do admire many of the institutions, values, laws and political culture of the U.S., having been born and having lived long enough (41 years) in Europe, I have a much milder appreciation of their exceptionality. Not in the 17 or 1800s, but in the last few decades.
I do harbor stronger feelings vis-a-vis the really unique issues like gun control, the healthcare hellscape, "race"-related fault lines, segregation in residential areas, inequality, etc.
But I care about those issues because I want my new country to be better, and I know it could be better, not because I hate it.
I agree with some of the points. But I think Zaid's criticism is about a section of the American Left (the radical Left?) who have an entirely negative view of American history, looking at it primarily through a negative prism. (for example, it is all about slavery and Jim Crow and not about any of the good things). Zaid is pointing out that immigrants are less likely than native born Americans to have such a negative view of America as a country and what it stands for. It is interesting that so many foreign born people living in America signed the Harper's letter.
Zaid may be overstating the prevalence or intensity of such dynamics on the left. If the Cato survey is roughly correct however, then citizen immigrants have a modestly more favorable view of the country than natives, on average. Natives are not split by left / right in the survey, but I think we can assume the gap would be even larger between immigrants and left-leaning natives. Assuming left-leaning folks believe their views to be correct and want others to hold them, then we would have a situation where the *median* Democrat would want to convince the *median* citizen immigrant to be more negative on America. I'm not sure the term "antagonistic" applies... I imagine left-leaners wouldn't consider themselves openly "antagonistic" to American culture. But no doubt there is higher anti-American sentiment on the left. Jon Haidt in his book The Righteous Mind showed that "patriotism" was a key "moral foundation" for the American right but held little sway on the left. Complicating things further, to the extent that patriotism gets associated with the right, we may be contaminating surveys/experiments regarding it. Scott Alexander (Slate Star Codex) touched on this in his popular essay "I Can Tolerate Anyone but the Outgroup". If you're asking people "what do you think of America" but a large enough group of lefties unconsciously responds to "what do you think of Republicans", then the situation is much more complicated.
I think in many ways, liberals should be "anti-American" if that means (for example) being critical of American foreign entanglements that cost lives like the Iraq War. But there is a particular kind of anti-Americanism that is concerning - seeing American history entirely in negative terms. That means people don't appreciate the key role played by American thinkers, politicians and statesmen in translating the complex (and sometimes contradictory) ideals of the European Enlightenment into a system of government with a specific institutional structure and rules. Learning to appreciate something like the American Constitution and the problems the founders were trying to solve is part of forming a deeper understanding of liberal democracy itself. But for many on the Left, there is no need to seriously engage with the ideas of "dead white men" - especially if a few of them owned slaves. The idea of raising someone's race or ethnicity casually as a way of dismissing their ideas, however sophisticated and important those ideas were is becoming something of a habit with the American Left and it is hard to say that such a mindset is not encouraged by American universities.
I wrote a comment that was very much along those lines, but decided to delete it because I wasn't sure I was being fair to the author.
I think you are absolutely right. One of the main premises of the piece is a strawman argument, Beto or no Beto.
I became a citizen seven years ago, on purpose. Giving credence to potential fringe-of-a-fringe arguments defending that both a) immigrants may be anti-America (whatever that could mean in this context) and b) that it's a good thing, and then extrapolating that to a significant number of "left-wing" people is a strange way to frame the issue of "patriotism" among immigrants.
Personally: I did not want to move to the US. I resisted it for a long time. I ended up doing by choice (a choice to be with my wife, who is an American), not by necessity or a desire to live here.
Three years later I decided to apply for the green card. A couple of years later I was able to apply for citizenship. I didn't have to, but I chose to. Because I do appreciate all of the positive aspects of the American experience and because I wanted to fully participate, modestly as that may be, in the solution of its many current and deep-rooted problems. That comes of course from a place of love, and from a place of gratitude and appreciation for all of those who became my friends here and with whom I now share a country.
Be as it may, either by choice, aspiration or necessity, those who come here from foreign lands overwhelmingly decide to stay because they see something here that is valuable and/or needs some work. They want to be a part of that work.
To speculate that a meaningful number of liberals, or the left, believes the opposite and want it to be so, is, as you put it, ridiculous. I am going to assign it to the author wanting to make an original point and lacking imagination.
It is not so ridiculous maybe when the American Left (these days) continuously assert that all American institutions and organizations are systematically racist.
As a child of immigrant parents, I deeply resonated with this article. I hold a reverence, perhaps almost naively, of American institutions and values. I believe that this is why America is a great country, one that allows people to be free and prosperous, and yet doesn’t descend into chaos because of a strong shared belief in those values.
For me, this was what hurt the most about 2016 election. That day, we elected a man that I felt was the antithesis of these values, indeed a man that I thought was the opposite of a decent human being, to lead this great country. I didn’t realize how much the *idea* of America meant to me until that day
I am very relieved to read the comments to this article! As embarrassing as it is to admit, I’ve waited weeks to read this article because seeing the “left hopes” in the subtitle made my blood boil. Zaid’s commentary too often strays into outright strawmaning of left-of-center opinion. As a center-left Democrat, I deeply love this country but would love to see so many things improved. Wanting your country to be a better place and loving it for what it is are not mutually exclusive viewpoints. As some others have pondered in the previous comments, I too am curious as to Zaid’s definition of patriotism. He doesn’t really define it in the piece but the strawmaning on display hews closely to some of the pre-Iraq War rhetoric employed by some of the more unsavory corners of the Bush administration. Beto is not indicative of the entirety of the Democratic Party, much less the wider American left. I joined Persuasion to read good faith commentary on world events and to, you know, be persuaded to examine and challenge some of my views and assumptions. To that end, Zaid’s first Persuasion piece focusing on at will employment was superbly argued and highly persuasive. This piece falls far short of that high standard.
I truly have a hard time squaring the “liberals hope/assume that immigrants are antagonistic to American culture” take with my own lifelong experience. I have found that immigrants’ love of America to be one of the best things about this country, and something celebrated by liberals and non-liberals for decades. EVERYONE tears up at citizenship ceremonies. To think that there is this mass of liberals openly hoping that immigrants will turn anti-America is ridiculous, and probably founded, as most tropes are, on the actions of a tiny handful of “progressives” who in no way speak for the great majority of liberals and/or Democrats.
I feel like I've seen the phenomenon Zaid is talking about quite a bit. Particularly among certain the 'well meaning white liberal' group who may not actually have any/many friends who are immigrants or first generation... so they simply ASSUME this group has the worst possible view of America, based on the constant news cycle of injustice/unfairness etc. (Could this be generational? Most of the ppl I am thinking of are under 35)
I agree with you that I wouldn't use the word 'hope' when it comes to the way most liberals feel about immigrants & anti-americanism...it seems unlikely that they are actively wishing people be resentful of the US, more that they - sometimes - falsely *overestimate* the negative feelings of immigrants.
Liz, thanks for your perspective. My comment below may come from not actually knowing anyone from my large group of left-of-center friends, with a few on the far left side, who espouse any of the views depicted in the article. Not to mention that as an immigrant myself the whole argument makes little sense.
But I have seen some insanely irrational views on the margins, in the online world, and I may not have many "uber-woke" millennials in my circle (the millennials I do count as friends are so sensible and reasonable as to almost making me drop completely a meaningful concept of "generation").
I still think there's some wild extrapolation in the piece. I agree with your conclusion that *some* liberals may be, for lack of actual contact or relationships with immigrants, coupled with a failure of imagination and really shoddy logic, be overestimating their negative feelings. My question is: what's really relevant about that?
And my other question would be: what are we talking about when we talk about 'patriotism'? Feelings of belonging have a lot to do with one's personal and emotional journey. That has as much to do with what one has left behind (positive or negative), as it has to do with aspects of one's new reality (positive or negative).
While I do admire many of the institutions, values, laws and political culture of the U.S., having been born and having lived long enough (41 years) in Europe, I have a much milder appreciation of their exceptionality. Not in the 17 or 1800s, but in the last few decades.
I do harbor stronger feelings vis-a-vis the really unique issues like gun control, the healthcare hellscape, "race"-related fault lines, segregation in residential areas, inequality, etc.
But I care about those issues because I want my new country to be better, and I know it could be better, not because I hate it.
I agree with some of the points. But I think Zaid's criticism is about a section of the American Left (the radical Left?) who have an entirely negative view of American history, looking at it primarily through a negative prism. (for example, it is all about slavery and Jim Crow and not about any of the good things). Zaid is pointing out that immigrants are less likely than native born Americans to have such a negative view of America as a country and what it stands for. It is interesting that so many foreign born people living in America signed the Harper's letter.
Zaid may be overstating the prevalence or intensity of such dynamics on the left. If the Cato survey is roughly correct however, then citizen immigrants have a modestly more favorable view of the country than natives, on average. Natives are not split by left / right in the survey, but I think we can assume the gap would be even larger between immigrants and left-leaning natives. Assuming left-leaning folks believe their views to be correct and want others to hold them, then we would have a situation where the *median* Democrat would want to convince the *median* citizen immigrant to be more negative on America. I'm not sure the term "antagonistic" applies... I imagine left-leaners wouldn't consider themselves openly "antagonistic" to American culture. But no doubt there is higher anti-American sentiment on the left. Jon Haidt in his book The Righteous Mind showed that "patriotism" was a key "moral foundation" for the American right but held little sway on the left. Complicating things further, to the extent that patriotism gets associated with the right, we may be contaminating surveys/experiments regarding it. Scott Alexander (Slate Star Codex) touched on this in his popular essay "I Can Tolerate Anyone but the Outgroup". If you're asking people "what do you think of America" but a large enough group of lefties unconsciously responds to "what do you think of Republicans", then the situation is much more complicated.
I think in many ways, liberals should be "anti-American" if that means (for example) being critical of American foreign entanglements that cost lives like the Iraq War. But there is a particular kind of anti-Americanism that is concerning - seeing American history entirely in negative terms. That means people don't appreciate the key role played by American thinkers, politicians and statesmen in translating the complex (and sometimes contradictory) ideals of the European Enlightenment into a system of government with a specific institutional structure and rules. Learning to appreciate something like the American Constitution and the problems the founders were trying to solve is part of forming a deeper understanding of liberal democracy itself. But for many on the Left, there is no need to seriously engage with the ideas of "dead white men" - especially if a few of them owned slaves. The idea of raising someone's race or ethnicity casually as a way of dismissing their ideas, however sophisticated and important those ideas were is becoming something of a habit with the American Left and it is hard to say that such a mindset is not encouraged by American universities.
I wrote a comment that was very much along those lines, but decided to delete it because I wasn't sure I was being fair to the author.
I think you are absolutely right. One of the main premises of the piece is a strawman argument, Beto or no Beto.
I became a citizen seven years ago, on purpose. Giving credence to potential fringe-of-a-fringe arguments defending that both a) immigrants may be anti-America (whatever that could mean in this context) and b) that it's a good thing, and then extrapolating that to a significant number of "left-wing" people is a strange way to frame the issue of "patriotism" among immigrants.
Personally: I did not want to move to the US. I resisted it for a long time. I ended up doing by choice (a choice to be with my wife, who is an American), not by necessity or a desire to live here.
Three years later I decided to apply for the green card. A couple of years later I was able to apply for citizenship. I didn't have to, but I chose to. Because I do appreciate all of the positive aspects of the American experience and because I wanted to fully participate, modestly as that may be, in the solution of its many current and deep-rooted problems. That comes of course from a place of love, and from a place of gratitude and appreciation for all of those who became my friends here and with whom I now share a country.
Be as it may, either by choice, aspiration or necessity, those who come here from foreign lands overwhelmingly decide to stay because they see something here that is valuable and/or needs some work. They want to be a part of that work.
To speculate that a meaningful number of liberals, or the left, believes the opposite and want it to be so, is, as you put it, ridiculous. I am going to assign it to the author wanting to make an original point and lacking imagination.
It is not so ridiculous maybe when the American Left (these days) continuously assert that all American institutions and organizations are systematically racist.
But this "handful of progressives" do indeed speak for the great majority of liberals at the moment. That's the raison d'etre of this website.
As a child of immigrant parents, I deeply resonated with this article. I hold a reverence, perhaps almost naively, of American institutions and values. I believe that this is why America is a great country, one that allows people to be free and prosperous, and yet doesn’t descend into chaos because of a strong shared belief in those values.
For me, this was what hurt the most about 2016 election. That day, we elected a man that I felt was the antithesis of these values, indeed a man that I thought was the opposite of a decent human being, to lead this great country. I didn’t realize how much the *idea* of America meant to me until that day
I am very relieved to read the comments to this article! As embarrassing as it is to admit, I’ve waited weeks to read this article because seeing the “left hopes” in the subtitle made my blood boil. Zaid’s commentary too often strays into outright strawmaning of left-of-center opinion. As a center-left Democrat, I deeply love this country but would love to see so many things improved. Wanting your country to be a better place and loving it for what it is are not mutually exclusive viewpoints. As some others have pondered in the previous comments, I too am curious as to Zaid’s definition of patriotism. He doesn’t really define it in the piece but the strawmaning on display hews closely to some of the pre-Iraq War rhetoric employed by some of the more unsavory corners of the Bush administration. Beto is not indicative of the entirety of the Democratic Party, much less the wider American left. I joined Persuasion to read good faith commentary on world events and to, you know, be persuaded to examine and challenge some of my views and assumptions. To that end, Zaid’s first Persuasion piece focusing on at will employment was superbly argued and highly persuasive. This piece falls far short of that high standard.