Founders, keepers

Amongst our generation, chronic feelings of insecurity are growing increasingly prevalent, spurred by the apparent death of the “American Dream.” Commonly manifesting in the idea that zoomers are the first generation that will not be better off than their parents—sometimes amended to the concept of baby boomers having been the last to pull it off—anxieties of impotence have left young people aimless and perturbed. Beyond the complex origins of such widespread feelings, the growth of this sentiment has been accompanied by an increased discomfort with or even hostility towards the idea of “being an American” across Gen Z. 

Thus The Chicago Thinker, a campus publication which professes itself as an outlet for conservative and libertarian thought, held its second annual American Identity Summit this past Friday and Saturday. Former Thinker editor in chief Christopher Phillips stated in his opening remarks that grassroots organizations provide an important nexus for a young intellectual elite to move towards positive change and away from crumbling neoliberal institutions—thereby revitalizing Gen Z’s connection to America’s past and hope for its future. As such, one would expect that the conversation that followed would concern the ethical and cultural baggage and opportunities American youths have before them as they move through the university and into the real world. But this was not quite so. 

The Summit’s core dialogue took place across four panels of experts and professionals interrogating the status of these United States as they reach their 250th year of official independence. The first panel, titled “America and the World: The Donroe Doctrine,” dealt with the US’ global position, most saliently the Trump administration’s war against Iran; the second panel, “Building America’s Future: The US in the Age of AI,” discussed the prospect of US economic transformation in the face of artificial intelligence; the third, “America 250: Origins, Evolution, and Future of the Republic,” examined  how the ideals of the Revolution are to persist today, if they even still exist; the fourth and final, “Free Markets Economics in the 21st Century,” covered government interventions since 2008, particularly in the banking and finance sectors.

The fourteen panelists present across the event cleaved more to the libertarian aspect of The Thinker’s mandate than the conservatism; while opinions on the Trump administration, when remarked on at all, were lukewarm to very negative (particularly the first panel), all of them expressed a belief to some degree in limiting government activity, and in the ability of private citizens and the free market to guide themselves away from our present woes.

Although I do not consider myself conservative, I do not have much to argue about with the panelists in this correspondence; not because I was struck dumb by their overwhelming correctness, but because there is nothing for me to argue about with many of their comments. These people are academically-inclined policymakers and think-tank intellectuals, and indeed it behoves them to have strong feelings on these geopolitical and macroeconomic issues. But as a private citizen still trying to find which way is up in this world, there is nothing for me to do about China’s shipbuilding capacity or the Federal Reserve’s employment mandate; therefore, what service does my arguing about them do for the reading public? And, more importantly, how does it address the event’s self-proclaimed subject of the American identity? These issues, while fun to talk about, are not a substitute for really grappling with the “American identity.” 

I do not doubt the time will come when myself and the rest of us here at the university, the cradle of the American elite, will start pushing and shoving on the global stage. But before considerations such as those the panels discussed have any real, tangible meaning for us youths, we need some sort of foundation or, dare I say, first principles. This is the actual purview of philosophy, as opposed to dogmatic pseudo-sociology or pseudo-mathematics: how to conduct ourselves in relation to the unexpected, chaotic contingencies of life while holding to the constancy and principles that make us human.

In fact, there was a recurring sentiment to something of this effect among the panelists, though thoroughly masked by market and diplomatic considerations: David Axelrod on the third panel called the true “genius” of the American founding the ability of the new nation to continually reshape itself and adapt, even in the face of the catastrophic flaws of the young republic; the fourth panel’s hawkish attitude towards what they believed to be heavy-handed government intervention was often justified as allowing adaptation and growth in an otherwise faltering economy; and in response to the bizarre question of how his experience in the Marine Corps influences his investments in AI, investor Jordan Blashek of the second panel credited not merely the Corps’ task of rapid response when the Executive called for it, but also its need for flexibility, keen eyes, and adaptability.

Invocations of “adaptation” often sounded like private-equity buzzwords and economics textbook jargon, and in many cases the term was deployed as such, but beneath lays something I might not call “truth” but perhaps “value”—that being American is about flexing in the wind, breaking new ground and planting new seeds, and never resting on one’s laurels—in other words, knowing when to hold ‘em and when to fold ‘em.

What struck me as most profound was the Acton Institute John Pinheiro’s comment during the third panel that, despite the bluster and rage that radiate from American social media profiles like so many gamma rays, Americans in person tend to be extremely affable and trustful towards their neighbors, though your mileage may vary neighbor to neighbor across this vast country. Because, to return to David Axelrod’s comment, the principles of the Constitution were ultimately informed by the recognition that people were “flawed”—perhaps an understatement given the mass slavery and racial abuse occurring at the time—and as such would have to be allowed to move forwards, and be forbidden from clinging to anything too tight, be it established religion or governmental power. The humble and forgiving nature of the average American, wherever between actual fact and article of faith that may fall, is not a coincidence of history, but rather the individual manifestation of the hope the founders had for their sinful, blood-stained people to inaugurate, again and again, a new birth of freedom and compassion.

This is the flip-side of the coin of Christian guilt I discussed in my essay this past winter in the Review. Original Sin may be a concept prompting flagellation, discipline, and punishment, but it also opens the way towards forward progress, renewal, that the future need not be a repetition of the past. Yet that very future is by definition uncertain, and thus it falls to us to prove ourselves, to bring our identity, whatever they may be, to the next America… if we can keep it.