I agree and sort of disagree.
I think a country thrives with a sense of national identity and shared values and beliefs with a common love of “country” or its people.
Recently (since the 90s) our values, goals, and identity have shifted. Why? Easy comparison for me.
As early as the 90s we were 80% white, 90% identified as Christian.
Today we are 56% white, maybe but not even 50% identity as Christian.
I’m not thumping my chest promoting Christian nationalism but what this county was even as early as the 90s isn’t what it is now.
So when you say Multiculturalism has not failed and say it’s because we are the world superpower, my response would be that we are a superpower not because of multiculturalism but we are a superpower currently despite a move to multiculturalism. Sure we had immigration before this but not at this level.
We have become tribalistic. And we have becomes tribalistic against the dominant culture… which happens to be and always has been? Yup, you guessed it.
This tribalism is what is eroding this country. People act like Christians or even wypepo are the issue and pulling the country down like we just got here. It’s a culture battle. I honestly think this country is on borrowed time.
I would argue the attitudes of a complacent culture and self segregated upper class, along with the acceleration of wealth to the upper class, has led to the erosion of values, goals, and identity moreso than a decline in a shared identity. I think we’re in an era of comfort level stagnation where we accept good enough.
This shows itself with lower risk-taking and a preference for stability over ambition. Easy access to information has contributed by which quick, surface-level answers (MEMES!) replace sustained learning and critical thinking.
So, how does the widening economic gap between the haves and have nots play into declining dynamism?
Modern daily life has become more insular, shifting away from active, community based participation toward sedentary, inward focused routines. This is not totally unique to the uber wealthy, who insulate out of comfort, while the lower class is likely to insulate out of a lack of resources to go out and participate. Even so, lower class is far more likely to live in multi-generational setting and rely on community for assistance and relationships.
Complacency affects different groups in different ways but shares common roots in comfort and convenience. Those with economic security may become more easily complacent because their needs are met, reducing urgency to strive for more. Then, there’s delayed independence, limited mobility, and avoidance of risk. Across society, people are moving less, switching jobs less frequently, and starting fewer businesses, reinforcing a cycle in which stability is chosen not because it is optimal, but because it is familiar and low-risk.
Meanwhile, complacency affects lower income people through hopelessness. As it become more and more difficult to strap those boots up and reach a higher economic plane (owning a home, starting a family), more and more people feel hopeless and don’t even bother to try.
May be easy to blame people for not trying, but fact of the matter is owning a home is more expensive than ever, going to college is more expensive than ever, and having kids is more expensive than ever by percentages of economic shares. Even those who do buy a house, start a family, perhaps are or reach middle class, have to fight for retention rather than strive for growth.
Just a quick anecdote. I went to a nieces JR High STEM competition this weekend that the Argonne National Laboratory put on in the suburbs of Chicago. Ten schools, 7 or 8 kids competing per school, and I could count on two hands the white kids. Latino, Middle Eastern, and South/Southeast Asian kids dominated. What’s, more, the girls easily outnumbered boys.
I laid out a very brief understanding of Tyler Cowen’s analysis of generations and classes. An antidote to complacency and stagnant growth IS immigration.
