A statue tests America’s fading demand for assimilation



In Sugar Land, Texas, a giant statue depicting the monkey-faced Hindu deity Hanuman was erected in August 2024. Officially titled “Statue of Union,” many Texans and Americans elsewhere have found this monument to be an aberration. For some, it is the aesthetic unsightliness. For others, it is a religious aversion to having a pagan idol being raised to such heights. And for others, it is a demonstration of just how many foreigners now live in Texas.

I see each of these points as pins on a board that, when connected, reveal a fault line in American civic life: We are divided culturally — and the divide is widening.

If citizenship is only a piece of paper that protects you from deportation and allows you access to our material goods and services, then we have devalued it to the point of being worthless.

America is not an abstract, universal idea that anyone can adopt, as a former Obama-appointed global citizen opined recently in his chiding of Vice President JD Vance’s speech at the Claremont Institute’s Statesmanship Award dinner this summer. America requires Americans. No, we don’t all need to look and sound identical, but we do need to be specific about what makes an American an American.

American culture, with its Christian civil religion, is required to maintain this union of states and their self-governing peoples. You cannot take people from any other civic, commercial, or cultural context, drop them within American borders, and expect that you will get the same results as from those who are fully assimilated to our country’s historic way of life.

Indians are from an old civilization that is distinct from the one built in Europe, globalized by Britain and Spain, that America currently is an inheritor and torchbearer of. While many Indians have successfully adopted the Western way of life, many more carry an apprehension toward American culture.

Many of the Hindu Indians I live around in the suburbs north of Dallas will freely admit that they moved here merely for higher-paying jobs and the availability of nice things they were unable to obtain in India. “We had a farm. I was happy. But my son wanted a better job,” one sweet matron told my wife with a resigned sadness. “My family is here, so I must be here.” Another has remarked how she loves to sit at her window and watch my six children playing outside, as she only has one grandchild who has been raised in America — and her children want no more, as it would interfere with their work.

I feel a certain sympathy with these immigrants who are struggling with culture shock. They may have nicer homes in America — but they are not at home. This is a strange land to them, just as India would be to me if I lived there. And the American is a stranger to them. They do not consider themselves Americans, and they are worried that their children and descendants will become like the strangers they live among.

The Sugar Land statue, or “murti,” along with other religious displays such as celebrations of Diwali, are not simple public practices of faith; they are cultural statements meant to pacify fears among Hindus that their native culture and its religion will be lost to America’s material excesses and its Christian religion. Large numbers of Hindu Indians living in proximity to each other enable them to speak their native language, eat their traditional foods, and practice their religion.

In essence, Indian culture is kept intact, and Indians remain insulated from and unassimilated to American culture. Many do not become American — they remain Indians who just happen to live in America.

RELATED: How woke broke the country

Photo by Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

I regret that I must use Indian immigrants as my example of unassimilated America. They are merely responding to what has become commonplace in America, England, Canada, and the West more broadly — and therefore what they believe to be the norm.

English is unwritten and unspoken in increasing numbers of our cities and towns, with residents unable to speak our nation’s language and being offered the choice to vote for a foreign-born Marxist in New York City. Dueling demonstrations carrying Palestinian and Israeli flags have become almost commonplace in our streets, just as residents of California wave Mexican flags in protest of their forthcoming deportations.

Somalis in Minnesota celebrate their native country’s independence day en masse together with local officials — then vote them out in favor of alternatives they consider their own. When I asked one recently naturalized immigrant from Colombia if she considered herself an American now that she is a citizen, she said bluntly, “No. I am Colombian.”

What would have been thought of as egregious foreign incursions a hundred years ago is the message America now sends: Becoming an American is not akin to living in America or being a citizen of America. It is completely optional. If citizenship is only a piece of paper that protects you from deportation and allows you access to our material goods and services, then we have devalued it to the point of being worthless.

No hyphenated Americans

When thinking of small ethno-religious minorities in America like Hassidic Jews (180,000) or the Amish (395,000) who have historically kept mostly to themselves, this point may seem trite. But it is consequential when the sheer number of Hindus — and the potential for many, many more — is truly understood.

The last U.S. census posits that over 450,000 Hindus reside in Texas alone, doubled from a decade ago. In 2022, Indians composed the largest share of international homebuyers in Central Texas, according to an Austin Board of Realtors report. Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) has gone to India twice on diplomatic missions, touting mutually beneficial financial arrangements and “common values of family, faith, compassion, and hard work.”

Economics aside, these are supposed cultural values that the governor is identifying. While all the words Governor Abbott used are perhaps debatable, the biggest equivocation is “faith.” Quite obviously in contradiction to the governor, the historic faith of Texans, Christianity, is not held in common with the vast majority of Indians, who are Hindu.

Though I have no flat objection to the arrival of specific individuals from elsewhere in the world who wish to become unhyphenated Americans in order to better themselves and the United States, the construction of a foreign idol by a rapidly expanding minority population of newcomers underscores the loss of what used to be a requirement to live in America: assimilation into its culture, of which its civil religion — Christianity — is a cornerstone.

In a post for the Institute of Religion and Democracy’s blog “Juicy Ecumenism,” Mark Tooley rebuked me and others for expressing the desire for a shared American culture and dismay at literal pagan idols being raised in our homeland. Tooley asks what “Christian nationalists” (a label I’ve rejected as an inaccurate pejorative used by militant anti-Christians) think the government should do in this matter?

We can debate specific proposals, but my wish is for those in government and our nation’s institutions to be conscious of the part a homogenous culture plays in a stable, civilized society. The thought that “government might do something!” to curate or protect the dominant and preferred culture of its historic people is apparently beyond the comprehension of some. So to help fire the imagination, let us look at another people who came to America — and to Texas: the German people.

German assimilation

In his book, “Turning Germans into Texans: World War I and the Assimilation and Survival of German Culture in Texas, 1900-1930,” Matthew D. Tippens offers an instructive case study in assimilation and the formation of civic identity. He traces the journey of German immigrants who arrived in Texas in the mid-19th century, with their own language, customs, religion, and ethos.

Lutheran, Catholic, or freethinking, these settlers had formed a broad but still insular group, slow to integrate into the already established fabric of American and regional Texan life. Tippens’ narrative is sympathetic (as am I) to the losses of ethnic distinctiveness, but it provides a compelling portrait of how cultural assimilation, often aided by state policy, forged a cohesive national character.

A nation’s people and their governing bodies have both the right and the duty to demand that newcomers conform to the nation's cultural and religious norms.

Germans in Texas preserved their linguistic and institutional separateness into the 20th century. They published German-language newspapers, conducted German-speaking services in German churches, maintained German schools that taught in the German tongue, and established community halls and festivals that reinforced their communal boundaries. Tippens documents this with care, noting how these practices kept the “German-Texan” identity distinct from the “Anglo-Texan” majority. But the arrival of World War I marked a decisive rupture.

Amid rising national insecurity over split loyalties among the public, the government of the state of Texas, and in some cases the federal government in Washington, moved swiftly to eliminate internal doubts. The German language was prohibited in public schools. Pastors were pressured to preach in English. Local officials even began treating private speech in German as potentially seditious. In short, the state, backed by public sentiment, enforced a program of assimilation with remarkable efficiency. Tippens, while critical of its harshness, acknowledges its efficacy: Within a generation, German cultural institutions in Texas collapsed.

But the German people did not. They endured — not as a separate ethnos, but as Americans. They married across ethnic lines, adapted to prevailing civic norms, and ceased to think of themselves as Germans first. In place of a hyphenated identity, they adopted a national one.

RELATED: ‘Paperwork Americans’ are not your countrymen

Blaze Media Illustration

This transformation of Germans into Americans may have been jarring while it was taking place, but it stands as a triumph of political formation and moral cohesion. It demonstrated that assimilation is not merely possible, but necessary, and that cultural inheritance need not be lost in the midst of it — it can be transformed and incorporated into a higher unity.

Tippens and some Americans of German descent still feel a sense of sadness over the loss of their distinct traditions and language inherited from the old country — but not a single one would prefer to go back to Europe or transform America into Germany. They are Americans. Not German-Americans. Just Americans. America is their home. And they love it. Though they may hold aspects of their peculiar subculture near and dear in food, songs, and stories, they have submitted that culture to this land’s particular culture, the American culture.

Is the history of this forced assimilation a tragedy? Perhaps, to a degree. But it was politically and morally justified. And those who care for national unity should view it as a welcome precedent.

A nation’s people and their governing bodies have both the right and the duty to demand that newcomers conform to the nation's cultural and religious norms. Without a shared group identity, no nation can survive. The American nation, particularly in moments of strain, has always exercised this prerogative. It was this principled assertiveness that transformed a continent of European colonists and later immigrants into a single people.

In our present moment, we have reversed that logic. To insist that immigrants adopt our language, mores, and civic ideals is now seen not as patriotic, but as prejudicial. Not only do we not hold recent immigrants to this standard, but we’ve reversed course on historical minorities who were on their way to full assimilation by decrying “whiteness” (another word for American cultural norms) as something that should be scorned, rejected, and outright rebelled against — the invisible hand of bigotry and oppression we all must condemn without reservation. You could say, “It is not enough to not be an American; you must be anti-American.”

Without a unifying identity — what makes the “pluribus” an “unum” — pluralism will rapidly dissolve into tribalism. Americans less than a hundred years ago understood this. Why should we play dumb now?

Refusing to worship the ideal of another

The present-day case of Sugar Land, Texas, where a towering Hindu idol has been erected, should be unacceptable to Americans (especially Christians), and doubly so to those of Indian heritage who see this land as their own and this people as their people.

Unlike a German store or Lutheran school of the 19th century, which could be and were quickly subordinated to American norms, a monument to a god from a distinctly foreign civilization proclaims a parallel order that makes no pretense of assimilation. It is not a gesture of integration, but of presence — and an intention of permanence. This goes for any statue, temple, campus, mural, or other declarations of occupation.

What you elevate in the public eye is what you encourage the people to idealize in their hearts. Do we want immigrants to be looking backward at what they left? Or looking forward to what they now are privileged to inherit?

Tooley says this is simply the cost of pluralism. But pluralism is not an end in itself. It is the fruit of a Christian order that’s confident enough to tolerate minority views, because it assumes its own cultural hegemony. If that majority is disregarded and that confidence eroded, pluralism becomes its opposite: a Babel of conflicting gods and moralities, doomed to be abandoned and fall.

Without a shared group identity, no nation can survive.

No one is advocating deliberate government persecution of American citizens who observe certain religious tenets or have recent ancestors from foreign nations. The First Amendment guarantees religious liberty. But let’s be honest about our founders’ intentions: The purpose of that liberty was to protect dissenting Christian sects within a Christian moral framework — not to permit the importation of rival civilizational orders.

The crux of the issue is not that there exists private practice of Hinduism in some form, or even simply that an offensive statue to one of the Hindu deities stands against the Texas sky. The statue itself is a public manifestation of an under-examined reality: that unassimilated cultures exist in America.

Beyond that, it is a declaration of intent to remain unassimilated. For the idol to be excused and dismissed shows a resignation to this reality and a toleration for this intention — and it is this nihilism that is unprecedented in our history and fundamentally un-American, not my protestations or the protestations of anyone who would refuse to bow to it.

RELATED: New immigrants struggle to assimilate — and we all pay for it

Photo by Irfan Khan/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

As Kevin D. Williamson recently noted, America is a Christian nation not by legal fiat but by cultural fact — just as it is an English-speaking nation without a statute requiring it. Christianity shaped our institutions, our conception of law and liberty, our ethos of charity, and our traditions of self-rule. The civic peace that Tooley praises is not sustained by diversity for the sake of itself, but by the cultural cohesion that Christian norms and people who valued that culture once ensured.

The deeper question, then, is not whether non-Christian Americans have a right to worship, or if immigrants can hold to elements of their historic culture, but whether Americans retain the right to shape their own nation’s future. Are we permitted to determine whether the foundation we build upon remains a distinctly Western, Christian civilization that assimilates outsiders into its mold? Or is becoming a polyglot holding pen for mutually exclusive, competing cultures the only acceptable answer?

This land is our land

Germans were made into Americans not because they were coerced by mobs. The government prevented such unrest by heeding the concerns of the citizenry. By understanding the requirements of cohesion and acting decisively to incentivize the transformation, America avoided the dangers of sectarian strife when international affairs came to the forefront.

Through intentional public policy and community expression of displeasure, clear expectations were conveyed that immigrants were required to become Americans. And the Germans, to their credit, responded. They quite rapidly entered the civic mainstream after years of delay.

If the United States of America is to endure, we must raise our expectations for citizenship, which is a precious thing.

What we face now is more intractable. The newest arrivals — not only Indians but many others as well — are coming in greater numbers than any prior groups and do not believe they need to change for America. To the contrary, America must change for them.

They establish communities that replicate the political and cultural norms of their homelands. They vote as blocs. They see the issues of their native countries as taking pre-eminence over their present states. And they raise monuments to foreign gods — not in private devotion, but in public affirmation of the lands, lives, and loyalties they were supposed to have left behind.

This is not assimilation. It is colonization. And it is too often encouraged by Americans who have lost the sense of what this country is and ought to be. In an insipid diatribe railing against Vance and the pro-American tone of the government, a blogger for the Los Angeles Timeswrote, “I learned in high school that people come here not because of how Americans live, but because they have the freedom to live however they want.” He speaks truthfully, as this lie is taught in our education system and preached by formerly elite institutions. The message is loud and clear: Come to America, live in America — but do not become an American.

If a distinctly American identity undergirded by a Christian civilization is no longer asserted, what shall replace it? A thousand shrines? A hundred languages? No common law, no common culture, no shared moral grammar?

Is this what you want for America? Perhaps you do, or you do not care. But for those of us who love it, we want an America that holds to its roots and maintains our constitutional order and our civilization. To do so, we must not shy away from reasserting a distinctly American identity and setting the conditions for acceptance into its culture, not just our borders.

Regaining the ‘Leitkultur’

Pluralism rests on the center trunk of a dominant culture, a Leitkultur, not the absence of one. Subcultures can be preserved when there is a monoculture that all can live in accordance with.

We must find again the will to expect — not merely invite — assimilation from any and all who wish to call this land their home. And we must recognize that the choice before us is not a specter of the “Christian nationalism” of secularist smear campaigns versus perfect tolerance, but a distinctly American nation built on a Christian civilization versus fractious, tribal chaos.

If the United States of America is to endure as one indivisible nation under God, we must take these signs seriously and raise our expectations for citizenship, which is a precious thing. It should not be portrayed as just a piece of paper awarded for correctly answering multiple-choice questions on a test and meeting some material preconditions. It must resolve the question of loyalty. It must involve a pledge of allegiance to the republic. For it is a sacred oath that symbolizes the bond with your fellow citizens.

It is as a baptism, where the old man and his old loyalties to his old nation and its old laws, his old people, and their old gods die with him. But a new, better man rises. One who gives loyalty to a better nation, with better laws, a better people, and a better God.

Editor’s note: This article was published originally at the American Mind.

Vance identifies the perfect mascot for the Democrats — then outlines what America actually needs



The Claremont Institute kicked off its "Golden Age Agenda" in San Diego on Saturday by honoring Vice President JD Vance with its 2025 Statesmanship Award.

The conservative think tank appears to regard Vance, who is far and away the front-runner in the 2028 Republican nomination contest, according to a recent Emerson College Polling survey, as best positioned and dispositioned to carry on President Donald Trump's project of "American renewal and greatness."

Vance provided additional insights into what his leg of the race might look like should he be handed the baton, as well as into the nature of the left.

RELATED: Exclusive: Vance on Mamdani: ‘Who the hell does he think that he is?’

Ahead of the vice president's remarks, however, Ryan Williams, the institute's president, reflected on President Donald Trump's selection of Vance to be his running mate — a decision that was made nearly a year ago and just days after the attempted assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania.

Williams emphasized that Trump's "gutsy pick" broke the mold of conventional Republican vice presidential selections, as the decision appeared to be motivated not by improving the president's chances of winning Ohio nor by reassuring the establishment.

If anything, Vance actually terrified the establishment, as evidenced by various deep-pocketed Republican donors' open denigration of the Appalachian populist and Rupert Murdoch's reported lobbying campaign to dissuade Trump from picking Vance.

RELATED: Rubio, Vance outline the 'work of a generation,' next steps for the American renewal: 'This is a 20-year project'

Photo by Jeff Swensen/Getty Images

Williams suggested that Vance was instead chosen because of who he is and what he stands for.

Vance is a "premier advocate" "for a transformative course correction after years of middle American economic stagnation, a bipartisan blindness on the importance of secure borders and sovereignty, and a return to prudence and strategic clarity in foreign policy," said Williams.

What's more, "Vance's story is an American story — a kid rising from tough family circumstances in middle America; serving his country honorably in the Marines and then making his way in law and business; becoming a senator from his home state and then ascending to the vice presidency. This kind of success and political ascent is really only possible in America."

After expressing gratitude for the award as well as to both the institute and his wife, Vice President Vance — fresh off casting the tiebreaking vote in the Senate last week to pass the president's "big, beautiful bill" — provided a survey of the political landscape.

Vance noted that rather than learn their lesson after their trouncing at the polls in the 2024 election, the Democrats have embraced the politics that alienated so much of the electorate, as evidenced by Democrats' support for "33-year-old communist" Zohran Mamdani in the New York Democratic primary.

'They hate the people in this room.'

Whereas Trump's victory in 2024 was "rooted in a broad, working- and middle-class coalition, Mamdani's coalition is almost the inverse of that," said Vance.

"If you look at his electoral performance, precinct by precinct, what you see is a left that has completely left behind the broad middle of the United States of America. This is a guy who won high-income and college-educated New Yorkers, and especially ... young, highly educated New Yorkers, but he was weakest among black voters and weakest among those without a college degree. That's an interesting coalition," said the vice president.

RELATED: Vance: Trump’s growth plan ditches cheap labor for real jobs that will fuel American greatness

Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

After pointing out the various contradictions manifest on the left, Vance underscored that the elites-championed coalition of "Islamists, gender studies majors, socially liberal white urbanites, and Big Pharma lobbyists" is not bound together by shared affinities — not even the ideas of Thomas Jefferson or Karl Marx — but by hatred.

"They hate the people in this room. They hate the president of the United States. And most of all, they hate the people who voted for that president of the United States in the last election in November," continued Vance. "This is the animating principle of the American far left."

While careful not to conflate everyday Democrat voters with the American far left, Vance said the label accurately applies to the party's leadership, who are "arsonists" willing to "make common cause with anyone willing to light the match."

'There is something about Western liberalism that seems almost suicidal or at least socially parasitic.'

The vice president further suggested Mamdani is a perfect mascot for the Democratic Party, as he "captures so many of the movement's apparent contradictions in a single human being" and is "not trying to build prosperity. He's trying to tear something down."

After faulting the left for lacking a positive vision for the future, Vance discussed ways of maximizing American prosperity and continuing to usher in the "golden age" promised by Trump on Jan. 20.

The vice president noted that by employing the "stick" that is tariffs and the "carrots" that are lower taxes and fewer regulations, the administration hopes to make it easier to save, invest, build businesses, work dignified jobs, and support a family in the United States.

Vance made abundantly clear that this work under way to bring about American renewal is not another liberal project that treats the U.S. as an economic zone and an "idea" with an infinitely replaceable population.

RELATED: 'Woke right' smear weaponized by liberal interlopers against MAGA conservatives, populists — and Arby's?

Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

"We are not just producers and consumers," said Vance. "We are human beings made in the image of God, and we love our home, not just because we earn a living here but because we discover our purpose and our meaning here."

"Every Western society, as I stand here today, has significant demographic and cultural problems. There is something about Western liberalism that seems almost suicidal or at least socially parasitic. It tends to feed off of the healthy host until there's nothing left," continued the vice president.

"They've gotten awfully good at tearing things down, but they haven't gotten good at building back."

'This country is not a contradiction.'

After hammering themes of disorientation, disenchantment, and disaffiliation and emphasizing the importance of social cohesion and satisfying the "obligations that we have to our fellow countrymen," he then identified a number of remedies, many of which the Trump administration is presently pursuing, including defending American sovereignty by securing the border and protecting citizens from "unfair foreign taxes" and "preserving the basic legal privileges of citizenship" like voting or access to state-run benefits programs. He indicated that the government must also avoid entangling Americans "in prolonged, distant wars."

Vance noted further that citizenship in the 21st century not only means respecting American heritage but necessarily building upon it "together as one American family" — to advance "groundbreaking innovations and to leave homes, and libraries, and factories that our descendants will look at someday and feel a sense of awe."

"This country is not a contradiction," he concluded. "It's a nation of countless extraordinary people across many generations. It's a land of profound ingenuity and tradition and beauty, but more importantly, it's our home."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump’s tariffs are working — now comes the ‘marshmallow test’



The Congressional Budget Office released a report Wednesday detailing the budgetary and economic impact of President Trump’s tariffs. The top-line result: Even the Democrat-controlled CBO concedes that tariffs will reduce the deficit over the next decade.

Trump has every reason to celebrate. Tariffs shrink the deficit in one of two ways. They either raise revenue directly — as tariffs are a form of tax — or they do so indirectly, by reshoring industry and expanding GDP.

History suggests both outcomes are likely. But if Trump stays the course and keeps tariffs high and stable, the United States could seize the opportunity of a generation: reindustrialize the economy, grow GDP, and restore prosperity for our grandkids.

The marshmallow test goes national

In the 1960s, Stanford psychologist Walter Mischel ran an experiment on self-control. Children were given a choice: Eat one marshmallow now or wait and receive two later. Those who delayed gratification generally fared better in life. Intelligence and future success correlated with restraint.

The implications extended beyond childhood. Researchers found similar behavior in animals, with more intelligent species — like crows — choosing delayed rewards.

Delayed gratification builds successful investors, entrepreneurs, and nations.

No one pretends tariffs deliver instant gratification. They don’t. They aren’t supposed to.

Tariffs function much the same way. They impose short-term pain in exchange for long-term gain. Like the marshmallow test, this moment asks whether Americans will accept some present discomfort to secure a far more prosperous future.

Fortunately, patience pays. Economic logic and historical evidence both show that tariffs expand the gross domestic product and create jobs over time.

What the trade deficit reveals

In 2024, America posted a net trade deficit of $918 billion. That figure represents more than a statistic. It reflects real, physical production now taking place elsewhere — mostly in China.

The math is simple: If Americans didn’t buy those goods from abroad, they would need to produce them at home.

Reshoring that production would raise GDP accordingly. When demand remains steady and supply shifts from overseas to domestic producers, GDP rises.

Demand drives supply. That’s basic economics.

This principle played out throughout American history. For over a century, high tariffs protected domestic industry. America’s economy grew faster than the global average. Consumption increased. Industrial output soared. Not until the 1970s, when the country embraced so-called “free trade” and abandoned the gold standard, did growth begin to stagnate.

Industrial production also benefits from increasing returns to scale. The more you produce, the cheaper each unit becomes. Part of the reason Chinese goods seem inexpensive lies in our own underproduction. As American firms ramp up supply, the cost gap narrows.

Financing habits support this trend. Americans fund trade deficits by selling assets or issuing debt. Those mechanisms would remain available in a closed trade system. True, consumers might get less “bang for their buck” in the short term, but the willingness to spend wouldn’t change.

Most Americans will continue to consume, no matter where production occurs. That behavior ensures demand will remain steady — providing the economic incentive for supply to shift back home.

Unused capacity, untapped opportunity

America’s industrial potential remains far from exhausted. Millions of citizens remain unemployed or underemployed. Hundreds of billions of dollars in productive capital sit idle.

The infrastructure exists. The labor pool exists. The only thing missing has been the incentive to build again. Or more accurately, the disincentive to rely on foreign labor.

The United States thrived for generations as a self-sufficient manufacturing power. It can do so again.

RELATED: Without tariffs, the US is defenseless in an economic war

Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images

Production follows consumption. That truism holds in both individual and national economies. No one works because they love harvesting wheat or running a forge. People work because they want to eat, live, and flourish.

In a globalized economy, countries can consume without producing. But once that system breaks — or gets reshaped by political will — production must rise to meet domestic demand. It cannot work the other way around.

This logic exposes a hard truth: America’s trade deficit reflects lost potential. We haven’t stopped consuming. We’ve just stopped building.

Trump’s tariffs aim to reverse that trend. By shrinking the trade deficit, the policy raises GDP. With production comes employment. With employment comes prosperity.

The patience to win

No one pretends tariffs deliver instant gratification. They don’t. They aren’t supposed to.

Tariffs offer a national test of will. Do Americans want long-term sovereignty, security, and wealth badly enough to endure a temporary adjustment? Or will they flinch the moment cheap consumer goods rise in price?

This question lies at the heart of the national debate. And the outcome will shape whether America reclaims its manufacturing base — or continues hemorrhaging power to rival nations.

The evidence favors success. But only if we stay the course.

Conservatives and nationalists should recognize what’s at stake. Tariffs don’t just serve economic goals. They advance a moral imperative — to rebuild the country we inherited and preserve it for those who follow.

The marshmallow test may sound childish. But its lessons hold: The future belongs to those who can delay gratification today to build something greater tomorrow.

America stands at that threshold now. As I show in “Reshore: How Tariffs Will Bring Our Jobs Home and Revive the American Dream,” reindustrialization isn’t a fantasy. It’s within reach. But it requires courage, consistency, and sacrifice.

Trump’s tariffs have set the stage. The numbers now support the policy. The question remains: Will the American people pass the test?

Let’s hope so. Because this country doesn’t belong only to us. It belongs to our children, our grandchildren, and every generation still to come.

Meet the schmucks trying to kneecap the anti-woke alliance



Until recently, “woke” was a term that anti-Marxist liberals, nationalists, and conservatives had in common. It was a term we could use to communicate with one another and understand one another in our post-2015 battle against a virulent and ascendant strain of neo-Marxist revolution. In other words, the term “woke” played an important role in building a broad coalition that looked like it could be strong enough to defeat this enemy.

It was a pretty big achievement for such a small word.

But now a handful of anti-woke liberals have decided to turn this formerly unifying, coalition-building term into a weapon to use against the right.

True, some of the most malicious liberals have been intentionally using “woke right” to cover just about the entire nationalist right, whereas other, more naive liberals, having taken the bait, are trying to apply the term “woke right” only to what used to be called the “alt-right” or “white nationalists.”

I get it. I really do. I understand that some of the liberals who’ve been pumping up the term “woke right” are deceitful scoundrels and that others are just honestly, nerdishly trying to work out a way of answering real questions in political theory that bother them.

But for present purposes, it doesn’t matter if you’re a deceitful scoundrel or an earnest nerd. Every liberal using the term “woke right” is being a schmuck.

What they are all doing is taking a flag and a symbol that for 10 years was highly effective at rallying opposition to the neo-Marxist revolution — and worked well to cement a coalition that could defeat it — and throwing that flag to the ground and trampling on it so it can’t be used any more.

Yes, you schmucks, “woke” always meant exactly one thing: It referred to that part of the neo-Marxist left that liberals, conservatives, nationalists, Christians, and Jews had to join forces to defeat. And by repurposing that term as a weapon against this coalition, you’ve turned it into gall in our mouths. You’ve taken a shared term of discourse, gutted its common and universally accepted meaning, and mangled it so we can’t use it to talk to one another any more.

Targeting the anti-woke coalition

This is why so many on the nationalist right are so amazed by the treachery of certain anti-Marxist liberals who have been promoting the theory of the “woke right” — and by the wretched folly of so many other liberals who have walked right into the trap.

Turning the term “woke” on the nationalist right isn’t just redefining any old term. It’s a betrayal. A betrayal that, if it goes through, will mean the end of the anti-woke coalition that looked, for a few short months, like it could actually win.

Sure, there were always different streams on the right. There was always an “alt-right” (as Richard Spencer called it) or a “white nationalist” right that set itself up in opposition to mainstream nationalist conservatives. There was also the “dissident right,” which had a somewhat broader reach. Then there were mainstream nationalist conservatives (or “NatCons”). These were all well known and reasonably accurate terms for talking about the various movements on the political right. And of course, if you didn’t feel like using reasonably accurate terms, you could always use the corporate left-wing media’s go-to favorites like “illiberal right” and “Christian nationalist right” — typically employed when the idea was to deplore everyone who wasn’t a liberal.

In other words, there were plenty of terms available for those anti-Marxist liberals who just wanted to criticize various factions of the right. Those terms existed, and everyone knew what they were referring to.

Why they’re using this term

So why weren’t all these existing terms good enough? Why did some of the super-geniuses who spend their time competing for the title of grand poobah in the anti-Marxist liberal camp feel like they had to manufacture this entirely new term — “woke right” — and work day and night to get it to take off?

Obviously, it was because, in the eyes of a few anti-Marxist liberals, “woke right” had advantages that more accurate terms like “alt-right” or “white nationalist right” didn’t have. Let’s count the advantages these aspiring poobahs thought they could milk out of using “woke right” instead:

1. “Woke right” is intentionally designed to be humiliating. The whole point of the term “woke right” is to target people who have devoted their best efforts for years — often with serious personal and professional consequences — to mounting a viable opposition to the “woke” left. The whole point is to tell them: Sorry, pal, but you’re not a whit better than the Maoist revolutionaries you were out there fighting. And coming out of the mouths of anti-Marxist liberals who were at least sometimes out there on the barricades with us, that is in fact a pretty demeaning thing to hear.

2. “Woke right” is perfect for virtue-signaling. Because the term “woke right” signals a rupture and a betrayal of the coalition that some anti-Marxist liberals forged with the right, it serves as proof of ideological purity. It says: As for me, I’m still untainted. I will keep delegitimizing and canceling nationalists and conservatives forever.

3. “Woke right” succeeds as a provocation where previous terms of contempt like “illiberal right” and “Christian nationalism” failed. The fact is, the term “woke right” really has outraged many nationalist conservatives. And for a small number of especially thuggish liberal trolls, causing that upset and confusion in the ranks of nationalist conservatives is a good in itself.

4. “Woke right” is a term that neutralizes the power of the term “woke” to forge a broad coalition between anti-Marxist liberals and nationalist conservatives. The term “woke right” destroys the flag and symbol of that broad, anti-Marxist coalition and makes it impossible to rally around it any longer.

5. “Woke right” is a term that actively works to destroy the possibility of mutual respect, political alliance, and friendship between anti-Marxist liberals and the nationalist right. Because of its strong connotations of intentional humiliation and provocation, betrayal, and the destruction of shared symbols, getting this term into wide circulation is the best weapon anyone has come up with yet to ensure that anti-Marxist liberals and nationalist conservatives will truly despise one another and do everything possible to avoid working together going forward.

So that’s a lot of reasons why an anti-Marxist liberal might want to use the term “woke right” instead of more accurate, established terms. But notice that he would only use this new term if his goal was to drive a wedge between liberals and the nationalist right, increase mutual distrust and mutual resentment, and cripple the ability of the two camps to pursue common aims.

That’s why I say that every one of you anti-Marxist liberals using this term is being a schmuck. Because either you are purposely trying to destroy the anti-woke coalition, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, or you are completely clueless about the damage you’re doing to the anti-woke coalition and don’t have the political sense to know when you’re being played like a fiddle and who’s playing you.

Either way, there’s an old political term for what you’re doing. You’re being a schmuck.

A common effort endangered

There are lots of things I find aggravating and distasteful about having to work with liberals to achieve common aims. But probably the worst is the way that certain big-shot liberals continue to find ever-new ways of expressing their disgust and loathing for their nationalist and conservative allies — no matter how much their nationalist and conservative colleagues may have contributed to a common political effort and no matter how recent the memory of it.

Some readers may be too young to remember the end of the Cold War. So for them, let me just add a relevant historical comment. If you want to know what happened in 1989 to transform the victorious anti-communist alliance between liberals and conservatives into a dystopian reality in which liberals worldwide ended up trying to grind their former nationalist and conservative allies into the ground — well, it looked exactly like what we’re seeing with this “woke right” campaign.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, a small group of fanatical liberal commissars decided that the victory over communism was the perfect moment to try for a world without nationalists and without real conservatives in any positions of influence anywhere. When they spoke of a “unipolar” world, they didn’t mean that America was going to be the single great power on earth. What they meant was that their liberalism was going to be the single great power on earth, so that no one with any power or influence would ever be anything other than a liberal again. Francis Fukuyama’s grotesque fantasy about banishing anyone driven by “thymos” to jungles at the edges of the political world was only the best known example of this ideal.

It seems like we’re going through an attempted replay of this same liberal fantasy now, although still on a much smaller scale. A small number of fanatical liberal commissars are giddy with the feeling that the Berlin Wall has fallen again. They think (mistakenly) that the war against “woke” is basically over and that our side has already won. They think (mistakenly) that they can safely turn their attention to trying to remove nationalists and genuine conservatives from whatever positions of influence they’ve succeeded in gaining in the last 10 years.

I admit that for now, this effort still looks pathetic. The anti-Marxist liberals who really believe these things are still just a fanatical few. But when you see how quickly they’ve hoodwinked so many in their camp into embarking on an immediate war against their nationalist and conservative coalition partners, it just makes your head spin.

Donald Trump and JD Vance were right to bring anti-Marxist liberals into their coalition and into their administration. They could not have won without broadening their appeal. And that broad coalition will be needed for many years to come if any part of the nationalist and conservative agenda is going to be implemented in reality.

But there won’t be much hope of holding this coalition together if certain fanatical, anti-Marxist liberal commissars continue inflating the lie that nationalist conservatives are an imminent threat to all things good and beautiful — “just like the left.”

Editor’s note: The second edition of Yoram Hazony’s award-winning book, “The Virtue of Nationalism,” will be published in June and is available for pre-order now.

The next American revolution is happening — will you be part of it?



These are remarks adapted from the closing keynote at the Heritage Foundation’s Annual Leadership Conference, which took place earlier in April in Naples, Florida.

Conservatives have been given a generational opportunity — a once-in-a-lifetime chance to shift our country’s trajectory back toward people and values that Washington has for too long left behind. The five values that Ronald Reagan espoused when he won the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1980 are “family, work, neighborhood, peace, and freedom.” More than any time since Reagan, those values are making a comeback. “Rejoice in hope,” St. Paul tells us in his letter to the Romans. How could we not?

This is our moment to truly shape America’s future.

But this should be our rallying cry, not a victory lap.

Because the left’s counter-fight is coming, and our response will determine whether last November was the high-water mark of the new conservative movement or simply the first triumph in America’s greatest comeback — whether we squander this moment in history, or whether we seize it.

Conservatives have the opportunity, the mandate, and the plans to rise to the occasion. The only question is whether, in these turbulent days, we have the vision to put those plans into action and the grit to see them through despite doubts and adversity.

Mandates from the past

When I think about how the conservative movement should respond to this moment, I look for lessons from our past. And lately, I’ve found myself thinking a lot about one of my heroes from the founding era: Patrick Henry.

Two hundred and fifty years ago last month, Henry stood up at St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia, and delivered one of the great speeches in American history. Everyone remembers its most famous line: “Give me liberty or give me death.” That one always hits home.

But another sequence in that speech resonates even more specifically with us now. Henry’s speech was not just a call to revolution. In his mind, the colonies had already passed that point. “The war is actually begun,” he said, whether Americans realized it or not. He was calling for the courage to see it through — to push past fear in the face of a powerful adversary.

“They tell us, sir, that we are weak,” Henry said, “unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger?”

The question still resonates: When shall we be stronger?

Six months from now, when the left throws everything it has in Virginia and New Jersey, or 18 months from now, when we head into the midterms, shall we gather strength while sitting on our hands? Will we stand by as our president weathers a hurricane of criticism? Shall we watch quietly as our majorities in Congress sidestep the most critical issues facing our country? Will we pass by the working families who wait for Washington to deliver them from a woke culture, a weaponized government, and a rigged economy?

Of course not. We have worked too long and too hard to squander this opportunity. Now is the moment conservatives can enact permanent policy change, not just half-a-loaf compromises: rebuild our economy, our military, and our local communities to answer the challenges of the coming generation.

This is our moment — not just to win elections or temporary 51-49 majorities — but to truly shape the future. This is our generation’s shot to secure a new birth of freedom. To write a new chapter in the American story — one that begins with courage and ends with victory.

The left is regrouping

But as extraordinary as this moment is, it will be just as fleeting. If we do not seize it now, it will slip through our fingers and won’t come back for a long time. And what comes next would be worse than anything we have yet endured.

The left hasn’t changed. Leftists may rewrite their talking points, but the writing on their hearts is the same. They’re still elitists who disdain the Constitution, globalists who scorn national sovereignty, and woke theocrats who reject religious liberty, parental rights, moral truth, and scientific fact.

They are already regrouping, re-funding, and reasserting their power. Their victory in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race was not a fluke. They still control the media and elite institutions, and they are going to weaponize both for as long as they can.

That is why conservatives cannot sit back. We must stay in the fight — and open new fronts in it.

Will we rise up?

Two hundred and fifty years later, Americans still face Patrick Henry’s question: When shall we be stronger?

At the Heritage Foundation, we have an answer.

We’ll be stronger every time we stand on principle — and for America and Americans. When we act with the urgency and courage this moment demands, when we realize the future is ours to win or to squander, when we understand that neither the left, China, media, nor any other adversary can defeat us, our only downfall is our own timidity and complacency.

Just consider: What do we think the other side wants us to be doing right now? What do Planned Parenthood, the teachers’ unions, George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, and MSNBC want us to do right now?

Nothing. They want us complacent, fat, and happy — just like good establishment Republicans. They want us to think the last six months are all we need and all we can hope for. They want us basking in the success of 2024, eating popcorn, and watching Fox News while they storm the field.

Well, I’m sorry to disappoint them.

The Heritage Foundation is not sitting this one out. Donald Trump and JD Vance are not sitting this fight out. And I know you won’t either.

We can’t. The moment is too important. The stakes are too high. Last November’s historic victory was only the beginning. The next chapter in America’s history is ours to write. Whether we fight or not will be our generation’s story — what our children and grandchildren learn about us.

A time to act

I can’t help but think that if Patrick Henry were alive today, he would look at President Trump and his entire administration and be convinced that the American dream is still possible to revitalize. And that dream isn’t just about an idea, as noble as that idea is. It’s about a real place — where you were born and are likely to be buried. It’s a place our children and grandchildren and generations after us — God willing — will be born and buried.

This providential moment we’ve been given to save this republic and revitalize America gives honor to all those who came before us — wherever they were from — who, in their last moments, were as grateful as you and I are to call ourselves Americans.

‘Incredible uniformity’: The West’s ‘Kardashian-esque’ identity crisis



From woke ideology to digital disincarnation, Western civilization has been collapsing into total chaos as purpose, tradition, and identity are melting away.

Jonathan Pageau, Symbolic World Press founder and master icon carver, and James Poulos of “Zero Hour” are well-aware — and they understand that the loss of traditional values is directly tied into why Americans are facing such an identity crisis.

“Maybe some of our identity problems that everyone seems to be suffering through has to do with the fact that we can’t understand who we are in a world that is constantly filled with words,” Poulos theorizes.

“I agree,” Pageau answers. “We tend to forget that identity is participation, it’s not actually totally who you think you are, or how you think about yourself, it’s where you are and how you participate in that world.”


“And so, identity is something that you engage in,” Pageau continues. “Participating in the world that you’re in, being a father, being a husband, being a part of your community. When you do that, in practice, a lot of the identity problems just go away.”

On a macro level, something like the national anthem is a great example of where identity is formed — and where it’s been broken.

“The attack on the national anthem that happened a few years ago in all these sports events, that is a sign of identity fragmentation. You know, because identity and being something and participating in something never means that you agree with everything that ever happened in the history of the thing you’re in,” Pageau explains.

“I am Pageau, and I come from a line of people and family, and I’m happy for that, but it doesn’t mean that everything that everybody’s ever done in my family lineage is worthy of praise,” he continues.

However, as we’ve catapulted everything and everyone under the sun into the social media spotlight, identity fragmentation like this has become harder to avoid.

“You create the internet, and you say, ‘This is amazing, it’s going to be like the ultimate library,’ and then as time goes on, the number of books in that library seems somehow to start shrinking, or every book that you pull off the shelf starts to look strangely increasingly similar to every other book,” Poulos says.

“And you look at Instagram and the beauty standards on Instagram. You know they’re trying so hard to say, ‘No, you can be as big of a mutant, you can disfigure yourself as much as possible, and that’s beautiful, too,’ but what’s really happening in the vast majority is just sort of coalescing around this kind of alien-esque, Kardashian-esque,” he continues.

“It’s like when they would do those composites of, you know, ‘We took every race in the world and sort of turned it into one face,’ and it’s kind of becoming that one face. Incredible uniformity,” he adds.

Want more from James Poulos?

To enjoy more of James's visionary commentary on politics, tech, ideas, and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The Economist Blames Trump For Europe’s Weakness, But Europe Should Blame Itself

The Economist says President Donald Trump poses a "threat" to Europe. But instead of blaming Trump, Europe should look in the mirror.

Trump’s success inspires conservatives around the world



Donald Trump’s victory confirms that the post-Cold War liberal consensus in America is over and the revolution of common sense is here to stay. Now, with the rise of populist parties and leaders once dismissed by Europe’s elite, that revolution appears to have crossed the Atlantic.

Thirty years after the United States and Europe tore down the Iron Curtain, the countries of the continent are dismantling another barrier: the cordon sanitaire. And for that, they have Trump to thank.

While conservatives remain focused on solving domestic issues and prioritizing America first, they should also support their European allies.

For decades, the European Union and its member states have maintained an anticompetitive political system. Parties on the left and right have refused to form coalitions or even to vote alongside so-called far-right parties, no matter how many millions of votes those parties receive. This system has crushed the representation of common sense in the EU, silencing voters concerned about unchecked migration, the EU’s overreach, and the continent’s ongoing economic struggles.

As recently as 2019, nearly every EU party erected a firewall against representatives of the Identity and Democracy group — the predecessor of today’s Patriots for Europe. This bloc, which includes France’s National Rally and Italy’s Lega, was excluded from key committee posts, blocking them from influencing policy.

Over the past five years, the political tide has shifted in the opposite direction. After rebelling against the literal cordon sanitaire imposed by public health elites in 2020, common-sense Europeans are now fighting the metaphorical one. Parties like the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, Spain’s Vox, and Hungary’s Fidesz are gaining electoral support and toppling failed governments.

The rise of Patriots for Europe represents the strongest symbol of this reinvigorated populist movement — one fueled in part by Donald Trump’s political revolution. While European patriots deserve credit for their movement, it likely would not have gained momentum without Trump leading the global charge over the past decade. His success exposed the incompetence of the globalist elite and provided leaders worldwide with a playbook for securing their borders and challenging the cultural dominance of the woke left.

At the Patriots for Europe party summit in Madrid earlier this month — and again at the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference in London — conservative leaders gathered and praised Trump as their brother in arms.

Santiago Abascal, leader of Spain’s Vox Party, praised Trump for dismantling USAID, which he believes funded media outlets that “demonized” his movement. Contrary to media claims that Europeans fear Trump’s tariffs, Abascal argues that “the Green Deal and the confiscatory taxes of Brussels and socialist governments” pose a far greater threat to his country’s prosperity.

Beyond admiration for Trump, the prevailing sentiment in Europe is hope. His victory is fueling a wave of momentum for populist conservative leaders determined to challenge the European Union, dismantle wokeness, and curb mass migration into their countries — and they know it.

Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s National Rally party, calls Trump’s victory a “global tipping point” and says that “everybody understands that something has changed.”

Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban sums it up simply by saying: "Yesterday we were the heretics. Today we are the majority.”

By advancing common-sense policies that serve the public good, Trump has made clear the deep divide between liberal elites and everyday Americans. European leaders see the same divide in their own countries and believe the time has come to go on offense — finally breaking through the cordon sanitaire imposed by the elites.

Right now, Patriots for Europe is the third-largest group in the European Parliament. With elections approaching, the momentum from Trump’s success could be a decisive factor in expanding their influence, both in their home countries and in Brussels.

This is good news for the United States. While conservatives remain focused on solving domestic issues and prioritizing America first, they should also support their European allies as they dismantle the stagnant oligopoly that has controlled Europe for too long.

Leaders such as Orban, Abascal, and Geert Wilders are not only more pro-America than Europe’s current socialist ruling class, but they also want to make their countries stronger, which means relying less on America’s resources for their security and defense. It is vital that our NATO allies in Europe bear greater responsibility themselves for the defense of Europe.

That’s just common sense. And that’s the spirit animating both sides of the Atlantic. As President Trump wields a sledgehammer against decaying institutions in the United States to make America great again, he has a new host of allies across the ocean picking up their own tools to make Europe great again. As they break down the doors of the halls of power in Brussels, Americans are cheering them every step of the way.

The ‘propositional nation’ myth crumbles under real-world tests



Americans elected Donald Trump because they were tired of being despised by their own leaders. The real estate billionaire has his flaws, but at a time when politicians left and right were calling the country sexist, racist, lazy, and entitled, Trump called on Americans to Make America Great Again.

Now, as Trump’s second term begins with an impressive start, most of his supporters feel relieved to have a president who loves the country back in office. However, his early success raises larger questions. Greatness is tied to what Aristotle called telos — the ultimate purpose or end. To make America great, we must first answer the defining question of our time: Who are we?

If conservatives retreat from this debate out of cowardice, they will find themselves living in a world shaped by their ideological opponents.

Trump’s election marked a clear rejection of several ideas about national identity. Americans do not want to be “global citizens.” They want a distinct and sovereign nation. They do not want to live in a multicultural patchwork of segmented communities speaking different languages and celebrating different identities.

Americans reject the idea of acting as the world’s police force, sacrificing their sons and national resources to impose a global order that places their own country last. They do not want the United States to function as an office park or an economic zone. Instead of maximizing arbitrary economic measures like gross domestic product, they want a government that prioritizes the well-being of its people.

The American people are tired of leaders who belittle them for wanting a real nation — one that values its citizens above abstract economic statistics or globalist ideals. While Americans have clearly rejected progressive visions of identity, the question remains: Is there a unifying identity they can embrace?

An unrecognizable world

Rejecting multiculturalism, globalism, and economic essentialism is not enough. To make America great, conservatives and right-wing leaders must present an alternative identity — one that unites the nation and gives it a clear purpose.

This realization unsettles many conservatives, who have been conditioned to avoid discussions of identity for fear of being labeled extremists. That fear is understandable. Identity is powerful; it can inspire both great and terrible actions. It should not be taken lightly. However, conservatives cannot afford to abandon this conversation to Democrats and the political left. The question Who are we? will be answered — either by those willing to engage or by those who wish to redefine America entirely.

If conservatives retreat from this debate out of cowardice, they will find themselves living in a world shaped by their ideological opponents.

Is America merely a dream — an unattainable goal toward which the nation is always striving? Is it a set of ideas that anyone from anywhere can adopt and embrace? For decades, conservatives have promoted the idea of a “propositional nation” — one built on adherence to a set of principles rather than shared culture or heritage. With the failure of the multicultural globalist vision, many on the right now seek to return to this framework.

The problem is that this definition does not hold up to scrutiny.

The Liberia test

If America is merely an idea — a collection of abstract principles that anyone can adopt — then any society should be able to replicate those ideas and achieve the same results. There would be no need for immigrants to physically come to the United States or integrate with its people, because the location and the population would be irrelevant — only the principles would matter.

Yet history suggests otherwise. Liberia, for example, was founded as an African republic for freed slaves and freeborn black Americans. Its constitution mirrored the United States’ system, incorporating separation of powers, checks and balances, and a Bill of Rights. On paper, Liberia should have thrived under the same principles.

But reality tells a different story. Despite adopting America’s founding framework, Liberia has experienced persistent corruption and instability, ranking among the most corrupt nations in the world. Its struggles challenge the core assumptions of the propositional nation and raise a critical question: If America is just an idea, why can’t it be easily replicated?

The idea of a propositional nation falls apart when applied to domestic politics in the United States. The argument suggests that anyone who believes in America’s founding principles should be welcomed as a citizen. This assertion is rarely followed to its logical conclusion, however.

Consider Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), a Somali immigrant serving in Congress who frequently criticizes the United States. Omar has repeatedly described the country that granted her asylum as racist and oppressive. She often addresses her supporters in Somali and has pledged to prioritize the interests of Somali immigrants — and, depending on the translation, Somalia itself.

Media reports have suggested that Omar’s second husband was actually her brother, allegedly part of an immigration fraud scheme. Despite this, there has been no serious effort to remove her from office or to revoke her citizenship.

Who will enforce the idea?

If America’s identity is based solely on adherence to its founding principles, Omar’s open disdain for those principles should disqualify her from political leadership. Yet even suggesting denaturalization for her alleged immigration fraud — let alone her rejection of American values — would prompt accusations of racism or fascism, even from many conservatives.

No one who promotes the idea of a propositional nation seriously intends to enforce it. Doing so would require a totalitarian state where citizenship depends on ideological conformity. Such a system would resemble actual fascism far more than the bogeyman that progressives like to conjure.

So if America is not a proposition, what is it? What defines it as a nation? The same factors that have shaped nations throughout human history: shared language, history, heritage, traditions, religion, and culture.

In “Who Are We?” Harvard professor Samuel Huntington — far from a right-wing radical — argued that America’s core identity is rooted in the Anglo-Protestant tradition. While Huntington, as a man of the left, did not advocate restricting American identity to Protestant Christianity or English ancestry, he recognized the necessity of a core culture. He believed that new members of the nation must assimilate into this cultural foundation for America to remain cohesive.

Without a clearly defined cultural heritage for new arrivals to embrace, a country risks devolving into a fragmented, multicultural patchwork. Principles and ideas matter, but they are not abstract concepts detached from the people who uphold them.

The American proposition emerged from a specific people — the American nation — and cannot simply be transplanted elsewhere with the expectation of identical results.

If America is to regain its greatness, it must do so within the context of its Anglo-Protestant heritage, ensuring that those fortunate enough to join this nation seek to assimilate into that tradition.

The question Who are we? will be answered, whether conservatives engage with it or not. It is essential that they put forward a shared national identity — one that honors America’s past while embracing the remarkable achievements its people can accomplish together in the future.

Trump, Milei, and Orbán lead a conservative resurgence worldwide



Over the past several years, global political ideologies have shifted dramatically from left to right. Across Europe, the Americas, Asia, and Africa, nations that once embraced progressive policies have experienced a surge in right-leaning populism and conservative movements.

Liberal politicians aligned with the Davos-driven global agenda are being replaced by nationalists putting their countries first. Leaders like Javier Milei in Argentina, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, and Donald Trump in the United States have transformed the political landscape, leaving traditional elites scrambling.

The current shift to the right has ushered in Donald Trump and the MAGA movement. A successful Trump presidency could sustain this momentum for decades to come.

This trend continues. Governments in Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom face mounting pressure from right-leaning factions. In the United States, even liberal figures like New York Mayor Eric Adams are echoing Donald Trump’s rhetoric, while progressive prosecutors, such as San Francisco’s Chesa Boudin, backed by George Soros, have been voted out of office.

This shift reflects more than political realignment. It signals a broader societal transformation driven by economic instability, cultural upheaval, unchecked immigration, and the political fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. The failed Biden administration serves as a clear example of the transformation underway.

Economic instability

The fiscal and monetary policies of the Biden administration led to the highest inflation rate in decades, going from 1.4% when Joe Biden took office in January 2021 to a peak of 9.1% in June 2022. On average, prices were up approximately 20% during the Biden presidency. People could not afford to put gas in their cars, fill their grocery carts, or make their mortgage payments. Americans’ credit card debt reached record levels, topping $1.1 billion in February 2024.

The Biden administration’s answer was to tell the American people that inflation was transitory and that Americans had it better than the rest of the world. Not much help to a single mother trying to afford to feed her children and pay the rent.

Trump understood this and promised to return America to the economic success it realized during his first term as president. Vowing to Make America Great Again ... again.

Social and cultural upheaval

During the Biden administration, the United States experienced a cultural transformation as private companies and government agencies put diversity, equity, and inclusion over profits and efficiency.

Controversial decisions, such as using a transgender influencer as a spokesperson for Bud Light and Target’s introduction of “tuck-friendly” swimsuits for transgender teens, led to consumer backlash, boycotts, and significant revenue losses.

The White House hosted Pride Month celebrations, where some transgender attendees paraded topless. The administration also flew the transgender flag at the White House and U.S. embassies around the globe and supported policies allowing biological men to compete against biological women in sports.

Working Americans perceived these moves as a threat to traditional values and their children’s well-being. With a struggling economy, many found it difficult to support a president who, in their view, prioritized cultural debates, like access to bathrooms, over addressing pressing financial issues.

Trump capitalized on this discontent, opposing policies that allowed men to compete against women in sports, keeping boys out of girls’ bathrooms, and emphasizing unity by celebrating all Americans rather than dividing them into groups. As the newly elected president, Trump has gone further, declaring it U.S. policy to recognize only two sexes. He also mandated that only the American flag be flown at government buildings, embassies, military bases, and on government websites.

Illegal immigration

Trump made immigration and building the wall a central focus of his first presidential run. Then, Biden made a joke out of the nation’s borders by allowing unchecked illegal immigration and forbidding organizations such as ICE from deporting those illegal aliens who committed violent crimes.

An estimated 10 million people — at minimum — entered the country illegally since January 2021. Violent crimes committed by illegal aliens became a central part of the 2024 election, partly due to the brutal murder of nursing student Laken Riley at the hands of a Venezuelan national in the country unlawfully.

Trump promised the most massive deportation effort in American history of those in the country illegally. It resonated, especially with legal immigrants, with Trump winning a record number of Hispanic votes.

The COVID response

The response to COVID-19 underscored the stark divide between left-leaning and conservative leadership. Democratic governors in states like New York, Michigan, Illinois, and California imposed strict lockdowns, confining residents to their homes and forcing businesses to close. Meanwhile, Republican governors in states like Texas and Florida kept their economies open, allowing their states to thrive.

President Biden mandated that military personnel receive the experimental COVID-19 vaccine and attempted to use OSHA to enforce a nationwide vaccine requirement for workers. The Supreme Court ultimately struck down the mandate. In contrast, Donald Trump opposed such mandates, a stance that resonated with many Americans who rejected forced vaccinations. Trump leveraged his opposition to COVID mandates to bolster his support for smaller, less intrusive government, continuing his “drain the swamp” message from 2016.

Sometimes called the “people’s billionaire,” Trump demonstrated a keen understanding of Americans’ frustrations during his successful 2024 presidential campaign. By addressing hot-button cultural issues such as men in women’s sports and illegal immigration, Trump appealed to voters alarmed by perceived negative changes to America’s values and culture. His promises to restore the economy, dismantle DEI initiatives, and reduce government interference in daily life resonated with middle-class voters seeking to provide for their families, keep more of their paychecks, and simply be left alone.

Political influence tends to swing between left and right over time. The current shift to the right has ushered in Donald Trump and the MAGA movement. A successful Trump presidency could sustain this momentum for decades to come.