Vivek Ramaswamy Is Wrong About American Identity And Wrong About America

The Federalist ^ | 12/18/2025 | John Daniel Davidson

[SeekAndFind]

A disembodied notion of American identity means that America is really nothing at all, and no one is really an American.

You might have noticed there is a heated debate underway on the American right over the question of American identity. What makes someone an American? Is it based on lineage or is it propositional? Is America a nation and a people, or is it an idea based on universal principles?

After World War Two, these questions were largely swept under the rug. The dominant narrative, pushed by nearly every mainstream institution and both political parties, was that America was a credal, propositional country. Anyone, from any part of the world, professing any religion or worldview, could become an American. To suggest otherwise was racist and xenophobic, and frankly un-American. By the 1980s, the notion that America is a “nation of immigrants” had taken root in public discourse. America, we were told, was not a particular people but an ideal to which every human being on earth could aspire. It was for everyone.

In an op-ed for The New York Times this week, Vivek Ramaswamy defends this view, arguing that being an American really means nothing more than assenting to a set of intellectual propositions and swearing allegiance to the United States. Agree to a few key principles about good governance and human rights, sign some documents, and voila! you become an American.

“Americanness isn’t a scalar quality that varies based on your ancestry,” writes Ramaswamy. “It’s binary: Either you’re an American or you’re not. You are an American if you believe in the rule of law, in freedom of conscience and freedom of expression, in colorblind meritocracy, in the U.S. Constitution, in the American dream, and if you are a citizen who swears exclusive allegiance to our nation.”

In Ramaswamy’s telling, Americanness is based on a set of beliefs. He posits this over and against what he describes as a blood-and-soil version of American identity that’s supposedly growing on the right, one based on lineage and “the creation of a white-centric identity.” Those who push this view are self-described “heritage Americans,” whose ancestors might have crossed the Atlantic in the 17th century or fought in the Civil War, but are no more American than a first-generation Somali migrant who successfully navigates the immigration bureaucracy and gets his papers.

There are two related things to note about Ramaswamy’s argument. First, he is misrepresenting (intentionally or not) the position of those of us on the right who insist that America is a nation and a people, not merely a creed or a set of principles. Ramaswamy presents a false binary: either you agree with American propositionalism or you are a racist.

But actually it’s possible, and in fact necessary, to insist on a synthesis of America as an idea, a proposition, and America as a people and a nation with a particular history and culture. That culture, because it is at its core English and Christian, requires an affirmation of a very specific set of intellectual propositions that are unique to England and the Christian faith that shaped the English.

The propositions themselves, however, are not enough. They are necessary but not sufficient, because they rely for their coherence on a set of cultural folkways and attitudes that are particular to a people and a place, and which emerged from a specific historical context—distinctly Christian and English. The source of our liberty, for example, is not our Founding documents (great as they are) but our folkways. The former emerged from the latter, not the other way around.

Hence, the ideas articulated in those documents are not as universal as we have been led to believe. “You are an American if you believe in the rule of law,” says Ramaswamy. But many cultures and nations believe in the rule of law. What matters of course is how the law is made, how it is enforced, and whether it meets the demands of justice. You are an American if you believe in “meritocracy,” he says. But many Asian countries embrace meritocracy more fully than the United States does. Singapore has the rule of law and meritocracy. And yet Singapore is not America — or American in any meaningful sense.

The point here is that the universal ideals Ramaswamy claims are at the heart of American identity only make sense in light of English common law, constitutionalism, and Christianity — all of which belong to a particular people from a particular place. Without that context, they become meaningless. Generations of certain people, descendants mostly of the English, brought forth a nation that reflected and codified their particular religious beliefs, morality, language, customs, and folkways. They were not making a proposition for a universalist political project. Indeed, the Founders told us who America is for: ourselves and our posterity. John Jay famously described America as “one united people; a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.”

Secondly, Ramaswamy is offering instead what amounts to a form of intellectual Gnosticism about American identity that can never really take concrete form. If Americanness is based merely on a set of professed beliefs about government and individual rights, and not on the solidity of cultural customs and practices, then American identity becomes something insubstantial and impossible to define. Even a person whose own cultural practices are totally alien to American life and society — cousin marriage, women in burkas, animal sacrifice — could be considered just as American as anyone else. American identity is thus reduced to basically nothing, a contentless void.

As Nate Hochman memorably put it on X, obviously commenting on Ramaswamy’s piece, “America is great because it does not exist. That’s what makes us exceptional: We are the absence of form. Without essence, beyond comprehension. A black hole, a void outside space and time. Nobody knows who we are or how we got here. Anyways, that’s why I love this country.”

According to Ramaswamy’s theory of American identity, then, we could import millions of people from the Ganges Delta or the African littoral, and as long as they say they agree with the Constitution, they are Americans.

And in fact, that is what Ramaswamy, along with a certain swath of Romney-era Republicans, actually think. They have no problem, for example, with large corporations that don’t promote American values or interests, or that will gladly ship American jobs overseas. They share the basic worldview of corporate elites, who see the American people as nothing more than labor inputs, replaceable cogs that can be swapped out for cheaper ones in Asia or Africa, as need arises.

This is actually the logical endpoint of Ramaswamy’s credal view of Americanness. If anyone can be an American, then no one really is an American, and nothing in particular is owed to the American people by their leaders. If millions of workers in India or Pakistan want to come here to make more money, and they will do the job for a lower wage than native-born Americans, on what grounds should we deny them entry?

Ramaswamy has no answer to that question. His anemic view of American identity prevents him from acknowledging that some peoples, from some cultures, will never become Americans — no matter how much they might embrace the abstract propositions Ramaswamy mistakenly thinks are at the heart of our nation.

---

John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. He is the author of Pagan America: the Decline of Christianity and the Dark Age to Come. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

[TheThirdRuffian]

Western civilization requires westerners.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Western civilization requires westerners.

That’s not quite what I got out of the article. How many westerners HATE western civilization?

[PGR88]

its a fantasy. We live in a multi-generational debt bubble, which has allowed all kinds of neo-marxist social-engineering, and political/cultural problems to be papered over with money.

When that eventually bursts, we will find out who is really “American.”

[Responsibility2nd]

More “Ramasany is a furriner” malarkey.

[MinorityRepublican]

Western civilization requires westerners.

Not that many from the "Old Stock" left.

Look at Florida and Texas.

Hispanics in those states tend to be Conservative.

While you have Leftists who are living in New England, Minnesota and Portland who tend to be from the "Old Stock".

[Yossarian]

One aspect of being American is one’s loyalty to America’s citizens.

Ramaswampy has repeatedly offered public fealty to Indians professional immigrants (H-1Bs, green cards, other visas, etc.), wiping out American white collar workers, under the excuse that Americans are lazy.

Ramaswampy needs to be booted out of the country, along with anyone else espousing this view.

[real saxophonist]

Vivek was there with Charlie Kirk when the stupid girl pulled out her boob to try to get Charlie’s YouTube taken down.

[packagingguy]

Vivek majored in biology at Harvard. He should be familiar with the well established theory of kin selection and kin altruism. It goes back at least two billion years in evolutionary history.

That flock of geese you see flying? Those aren’t random geese, that’s an extended family.

The foxes in the field, that’s a matriarchal family, not a random assortment of foxes.

Those trees in the forest? Related trees entangle their roots making them less likely to be blown over.

That plankton in the lake? Some undergo apoptosis to release nutrients to their kin in low nutrient conditions.

Americans are mainly Whites, Blacks and Hispanics who can cooperate for survival, but often maintain separate communities as would be predicted from kin altruism theory.

He should have learned this in biology; I’m coming to doubt swanky prep schools and universities are really all they’re cracked up to be.

[escapefromboston]

Hopefully it’s not too late for the Republicans to run someone else besides Vivek because he is going to lose Ohio

[TheThirdRuffian]

“How many westerners HATE western civilization?”

Then they are no longer westerners.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Yes America is a nation of immigrants. White European immigrants. Not a bunch of third world rag heads, Africans, Indians and the dregs of the barrios of Mexico and Central America.

These people have no understanding of the cultural fabric of traditional Americans. They bring a foreign culture and/or religion with them and develop separate enclaves to preserve that culture here in America. We don’t have a melting pot here anymore where people with similar more’s assimilate into a general language and co-existence in one generation.

That is why Vivek Ramswanney doesn’t understand what America really is.

[TheThirdRuffian]

“Not that many from the “Old Stock” left.”

Westerners tend to be more often found in what you call “old stock.”

But they can be from any race, provided what is called the Protestant Work Ethic is embraced. (And I say that as a Catholic.)

Religion? At least the embrace of Judeo-Christian ethics is needed, preferably at a spiritual level, but not necessarily to be a good citizen.

“Westerners” is a culture.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

By this guy's logic you're not a "Real American" unless your ancestors were white Europeans. Which means that anyone of latino, asian, or African descent can never be a real American.

I think that is very wrong, and flat-out repulsive.

[one guy in new jersey]

English?

Not, for example, in what became “New Jersey” (Nova Caesarea).

In New Jersey, west of the Hudson to the northern border with New York which goes in a straight line from the Hudson roughly northwest, the “English” ended up barging their way in, in the second half of the seventeenth century. Only to become the new kids on the block.

It’s not as if the original residents of European stock (that being, the Dutch colonists) picked up and left. They largely remained!

Delaware too had it’s non-English settlers (New Sweden).

This author seems a little bit bent.

[one guy in new jersey]

Is that so? Really?

Does he stand to lose as the Pubbie candidate for Ohio governor?

That’d be bad.

His brand continues to slip.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: By this guy’s logic you’re not a “Real American” unless your ancestors were white Europeans. Which means that anyone of latino, asian, or African descent can never be a real American.

The author NOT explicitly say that you must be white European to be an American.

But he does strongly emphasize:

• English ancestry
• Christian religion
• Anglo‑American cultural continuity
• The idea that these are foundational to American identity

He quotes John Jay describing Americans as:

This is where the tension arises.

The author’s argument implies that:

• American identity is tied to a historically Anglo‑Christian culture
• People from cultures very different from that may not fully assimilate
• Merely agreeing with American principles ( like Vivek Ramaswamy does) is NOT enough to be American

He stops short of saying “only white Christians can be American,” but his framework leans heavily toward a culturally exclusionary definition that prioritizes:

• English heritage
• Christian moral foundations
• Cultural homogeneity

So while he does not explicitly make a racial argument, his emphasis on “English and Christian” origins implicitly narrows the definition of Americanness in a way that excludes many groups.

So my read is this — What he is saying, in plain language
Here is the author’s position boiled down:

1. America is not just an idea — it is a culture.
2. That culture is historically English and Christian.
3. American political principles only make sense within that cultural framework.
4. Therefore, large-scale immigration from culturally different societies threatens American identity.
5. People from very different cultures may never become fully American, even if they adopt American political beliefs.

“American identity is rooted in English and Christian cultural origins, and people from very different cultures may not be able to fully assimilate into that identity.”

My read is that The author is not literally saying:

“You must be white and Christian to be a true American.”

But he is saying:

“American identity is rooted in English and Christian cultural origins, and people from very different cultures may not be able to fully assimilate into that identity.”

That is a cultural essentialist argument, not strictly a racial one — but it overlaps with racial boundaries because “English” historically refers to a specific ethnic group.
So one can excuse an interpretation that picks up on the implications that excludes non-Whites, even if the author does not state them outright.

[Honorary Serb]

American culture is something real!

You do not have to be from the “old stock” to have American culture. And you do not even have to be Calvinist or Episcopal Protestant—Lutherans, Orthodox Christians, Catholics, and Jews can be real Americans.

However, without American culture, one is merely a resident! Look at all the muslims, Somalis, and barbarians we’ve taken into our country! They don’t believe in the Declaration of Independence, either. Neither do the natural-born Americans who have become feminazi, Marxist, trans, etc. We have a problem!

[SeekAndFind]

RE: English? Not, for example, in what became “New Jersey” (Nova Caesarea).

You’re raising a very important point — and one that exposes a major flaw in the author’s argument.

Let’s walk through it clearly, without taking a political position, just analyzing the history and the logic.

✅ 1. American culture was never purely English
Even in the colonial period, the idea that America was culturally “English” is an oversimplification.
New Jersey (as you noted)
• Originally New Netherland, settled by the Dutch.
• The English took it in 1664, but the Dutch population did not disappear.
• Dutch language, customs, and Reformed Christianity persisted for generations.
Delaware
• First settled by New Sweden (Swedish and Finnish colonists).
• Later taken by the Dutch, then the English.
• Again, the settlers stayed.

Pennsylvania
• Founded by English Quakers, but quickly filled with:
• Germans (“Pennsylvania Dutch”)
• Scots-Irish
• Welsh
• Moravians
• Mennonites
By the Revolution, 1 in 3 Pennsylvanians spoke German.
New York
• Deep Dutch roots (still visible in place names, architecture, and early American folk traditions).
• The English ruled politically, but culturally it was a blend.
The South
• Scots-Irish, French Huguenots, Germans, Africans, English, and Native American influences.

The Frontier
• Dominated by Scots-Irish culture, not English.
Religion
• America was never uniformly Anglican.
• It included:
• Puritans
• Quakers
• Dutch Reformed
• German Pietists
• Baptists
• Presbyterians
• Catholics (Maryland)
• Jews (New Amsterdam, Newport)

So the author’s claim that American culture was “English and Christian” is at best partial, and at worst historically inaccurate.

The Founders themselves lived in a culturally mixed society
Even the Founders acknowledged this.

John Adams wrote that America was a “mosaic” of peoples.

Benjamin Franklin complained (humorously and anxiously) that Pennsylvania was becoming too German — which only makes sense if America was not culturally uniform.

The idea of a single, pure “English” culture shaping America is a retroactive myth, not a historical reality.

So, The author’s argument depends on flattening this complexity.

To make his case, the author needs:

• A single founding culture
• A single founding religion
• A single set of “folkways”
• A single ethnic origin
But the actual historical record shows:
• Multiple cultures
• Multiple religions
• Multiple languages
• Multiple legal traditions
• Multiple settlement patterns

The English were politically dominant, but culturally they were one influence among many.

Hence Your instinct is correct

When you say: “This author seems a little bit bent.”

What you’re noticing is that the author is forcing a complex, multi-ethnic, multi-religious colonial reality into a single, narrow cultural box in order to support his argument about American identity.

That doesn’t mean he’s malicious — but it does mean his historical framing is selective.

He’s choosing the parts of history that support his thesis and ignoring the parts that complicate it.

The author is not really describing history — he’s describing a preferred cultural narrative.

It’s a form of cultural essentialism:

• America = English + Christian
• Everything else is secondary or derivative
But the actual historical record shows:
• America was pluralistic from the beginning
• English political institutions mattered, but they were shaped by many non-English peoples
• Christianity was diverse, not monolithic
• American identity was contested even in the 1700s

So yes, absolutely ! your critique is grounded in real historical evidence.

[9YearLurker]

Our founding document clearly states that the source of our liberty is God.