Identity Politics and “Dual-Loyalty”
Identity usually demands loyalty; if you are “this,” then you must support “that.”
Some of you may recall the 1960s slogan, “America. Love it or Leave it.” People who opposed the anti-war movement of the era commonly invoked this phrase. Similarly, “My country, right or wrong,” was often heard, and in the UK during World War I citizens were asked to die for “King and country.” These were all de facto loyalty oaths.
More formally, new citizens to the United States must promise to uphold the Constitution and declare a willingness to bear arms in defense of the country, as required by law. Germany, too, requires a strong commitment from its naturalized citizens, including “sufficient knowledge” of the German language. The American and German positions are de jure loyalty oaths.
It’s my view that the debate over “identity politics” today is as much about loyalty as it is about politics. For example, Republicans say identity politics are “dividing” the country, while People of Color often say they want to see more people “who look like us” in various roles in American society. These are not the most provocative arguments each side can make, but one side does seem to be demanding loyalty to a single national identity, while the other is saying there is more than one identity to be considered.
Such alleged dual loyalties have long been discussed in the context of hyphenated Americans. While different ethnic and national groups proudly reference their heritage, whether as Mexican Americans or Arab Americans and so on, it was the historian Samuel P. Huntington who wrote years ago that you might as well drop the word “American” after the hyphen (whether the hyphen was explicit or implied) because it is always the first part of the construction that really matters. That view is hotly contested, and plenty of Mexican Americans and other peoples of Hispanic descent, for example, have served in the American military, which usually is the strongest real world test of loyalty to any nation.
The impact of “dual loyalty” allegations gets ugly fast. Both Russia and China, as examples, have strong laws against citizens whom they criminalize as foreign agents; the real motivation always seems to be suppressing dissent, that is, disloyalty to the current regime. Calling people foreign agents or the equivalent has a lot of purchase among nationalists, nativists and right-wing populists in any country. Even in America, it’s no secret that upwards of 120,000 Japanese Americans were interned during World War II, and immigrants from so-called Third World countries are often criticized on the Right for allegedly hewing too closely to their ancient cultures and religion, i.e., for not assimilating. The underlying charge is dual loyalty.
One of the ugliest examples of the “dual loyalty” charge historically involves Jews. Is their identity that of citizens in the state in which they live, or primarily that of their religion? It was Napoleon Bonaparte, who otherwise supported emancipation of the Jews in territories under his control who nonetheless included the following in his famous “12 questions” that were put to the Jews of France in 1806:
“Do Jews who were born in France, and who have the legal status of French citizens, regard France as their fatherland? Is it their duty to defend it, to obey its laws, and to accommodate themselves to all the provisions of the Civil Code?”
The situation was never as bad in America as it was in Europe or during certain historical episodes in Arab lands, but university admissions often had quotas and some neighborhoods were effectively barred to Jews in America well into the 20th century.
Black Conservatives? Can they do that?
Consider this: I follow the African American scholar and New York Times columnist John McWhorter V, who has criticized certain elements of the anti-racism movement as well as “wokeness,” and the African American economist Glenn Loury who, among other things, has dared to say that violence in the Black community is related in part to culture, not exclusively to poverty or systemic racism. I believe criticism levelled against each man, which has been significant, is based on a belief that they are not “loyal” to their identity as Black Americans. It’s not just politics.
The same could be said for Andrew Sullivan, an “out” homosexual and a political Conservative on many issues. It’s not just that people object to his politics qua politics, but hostility to him seems linked to a presumption that Gay men must be Progressive or Leftist, not Conservative. Otherwise they’re seen as traitors, i.e., it is loyalty, not merely politics, that is at issue.
But here’s an example of dual loyalty that we should all like. While Abraham Lincoln is celebrated in most of the United States for “preserving the Union” during our Civil War (1861-1865) I tend to admire former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev for not going to war in order to preserve the USSR when the Baltic states sought their independence in the late 1980s. Well, I may admire the man for this, but the Russian people expressed a different attitude when they gave him less than one percent (!) of the vote after he later ran for president of Russia (not the Soviet Union) in 1996.
What was his crime? Many will say lack of loyalty to his country’s national interests, even “loss of empire.” I can’t really argue with this, but consider the charge of dual loyalty as underpinning all of it – Gorbachev was loyal but not only to his country. He considered a broader base of humanity, both people inside the Baltic republics who simply wanted their freedom, and the rest of the world that needed a man like him to help end the Cold War (even if only temporarily, as it turns out), thereby pulling the Soviet Union and America back from the brink of a very hot, nuclear war that would have left no corner of the Earth unscathed.