E Pluribus Unum Revisited
Identity, Belonging, and the American Project
In 2018, I wrote a piece exploring how Republicans and Democrats understand our national motto "E pluribus unum" differently. Looking back at that analysis what feels like a lifetime later, I'm struck by how the tension between "the many" and "the one" has only intensified.
As I revisit these ideas, I find myself connecting them to what I wrote recently about how politics becomes intertwined with our personal identities. The question of who we are as Americans — both individually and collectively — sits at the heart of our most contentious political debates.
The Original Framework: Two Visions of America
In my 2018 analysis, I observed that Republicans had a clear vision of the "one" America, a vision rooted in frontier myths, individual responsibility, and traditional cultural norms. This vision provided a powerful sense of belonging and purpose for MAGA.
Democrats, meanwhile, excelled at recognizing and celebrating the "many” — the diverse communities, interests, and identities that make up our nation. On the other hand, I argued Democrats often struggled to articulate a compelling vision of the "one" that could emerge from this diversity.
Thanks for reading The Chorus Consultant Community! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
The National Conservative Challenge
In recent years, a movement called national conservatism has gained significant influence, offering a direct challenge to the multicultural, creedal vision of American identity. It has become a significant force in reshaping Republican politics away from its previous libertarian leanings toward a more nationalist orientation. Figures like Vice President JD Vance, Marco Rubio, and Josh Hawley, are prominent NatCons. They argue that nations require more than shared values to hold together; they need shared history, culture, and traditions.
In a recent speech, Vance articulated this view: "If you think about it, identifying America just with agreeing with the principles, let's say, of the Declaration of Independence — that's a definition that is way overinclusive and underinclusive at the same time."
For national conservatives, America isn't primarily defined by abstract ideals but by a particular cultural inheritance, largely Anglo-Protestant, that provides the foundation for our institutions and way of life. They argue that excessive diversity and immigration threaten this cultural core and, by extension, national cohesion itself.
This perspective represents a significant evolution of the Republican vision I described in 2018. The emphasis has shifted from uplifting their “one” (as flawed and harmful as that was) to attacking and excluding anyone who doesn’t meet their definition.
The Democratic Response
Democrats have largely doubled down on their vision of America as a nation defined by its ideals. This "creedal nationalism" sees American identity as rooted in commitment to principles like equity and fairness. These are principles that are available to anyone regardless of background.
I think the challenge for Democrats is to articulate how their vision creates the bonds of mutual loyalty and affection necessary for building a movement. How does a diverse, principles-based vision of America create the sense of shared identity and purpose to win?
President Obama at the 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday in Selma: “What could more profoundly vindicate the idea of America than plain and humble people — unsung, the downtrodden, the dreamers not of high station, not born to wealth or privilege, not of one religious tradition but many, coming together to shape their country's course?”
Some progressive thinkers have attempted to answer this question by emphasizing shared struggles and aspirations rather than shared cultural traditions. They point to the labor movement, the civil rights movement, and other social justice movements as examples of how diverse Americans have come together around common causes. Others emphasize shared civic rituals and institutions, like voting or public education, as the glue that binds Americans together.
Yet these approaches often lack emotional resonance. They speak to the head more than the heart. Movements need deep-seated feelings of belonging and ultimately shared identity.
Finding a Democratic "One"
I think the challenge for Democrats is very difficult but absolutely critical: they need to articulate a vision of the "one" that is as compelling and emotionally resonant as the Republican vision, but more inclusive and forward-looking. It needs to go beyond policy specifics to address these deeper questions of identity and belonging. It must tell a story about a shared future we’re striving for together. And it must do so in a way that resonates emotionally as well as intellectually.
What might this Democratic "one" look like? President Obama tried a version of this when he emphasized that America's strength has always come from its ability to incorporate diverse peoples and traditions while remaining true to its founding ideals. He celebrated our capacity for reinvention and renewal, our history of expanding the circle of who counts as "American," and our commitment to creating a more perfect union.
I found this vision compelling. It aligned with my values to stand on American identity as both creedal and cultural, defined by our commitment to certain principles but also by the unique cultural traditions that have evolved as diverse peoples have made America their home.
I just don’t think this definition of the “one” can build a big enough movement these days. Others have tried different tactics. Bernie Sanders articulated a class-based “one.” He emphasized economic solidarity across racial and cultural differences and argued that shared economic interests could unite Americans more powerfully than cultural identity. Maybe Zohran Mamdani can make it a winner in New York City this fall and it can grow into a bigger movement.
Whatever it is, the left needs something before it will start winning consistently again.
The Personal Dimension
In "When Politics Becomes Identity," I described how my personal identity became intertwined with Obama's electoral success. This phenomenon extends beyond individual politicians to encompass our understanding of national identity itself. Just as I experienced spiritual fulfillment when Obama won, many Americans derive profound meaning from their conception of what America "is" or "should be."
When I write about the "one" that Republicans and Democrats envision, I'm really talking about competing sources of spiritual fulfillment and identity. This helps explain why debates about American identity become so heated. And that leads to the disappointment cycle.
Thanks for reading The Chorus Consultant Community! This post is public so feel free to share it.
The Disappointment Cycle
The "disappointment cycle" occurs when political figures fail to deliver the spiritual fulfillment we've invested in them. A similar cycle happens with national identity.
When Americans invest their identity in a particular vision of the nation (whether the Republican "one" or the Democratic "many"), they inevitably face disappointment when reality fails to match this vision. This creates cognitive dissonance that must be resolved either by blaming opponents or disengaging from civic life altogether.
National conservatives have responded to this disappointment by doubling down on a narrower, more exclusionary vision of America. They want a "one" that promises greater cohesion through greater homogeneity. Their argument essentially says: "The reason you feel disconnected from your country is because it's been diluted by too many people who don't share your values and traditions."
The Democratic challenge isn't just articulating a compelling vision of "the one"—it's creating one that can withstand the inevitable disappointment cycle without resorting to scapegoating or disengagement.
Finding Balance in Personal and Political Identity
I concluded "When Politics Becomes Identity" by suggesting that the healthiest approach is to engage politically while finding spiritual fulfillment in multiple domains of life. I think this observation might apply equally to national identity.
Americans need a vision of national identity that provides meaning and belonging without becoming all-consuming. We need to care deeply about our shared national project while recognizing that our identities extend beyond citizenship.
This balanced approach might help us avoid both the bitter disillusionment of the politically jaded and the tribal extremism of those whose identities have become inseparable from their political affiliations.
E Pluribus Unum for Our Time
Our national motto remains as relevant as ever. The challenge of forging "one" from "many" is the essential American project. It requires unity and diversity, shared ideals and respect for difference.
In 2018, I concluded by quoting Obama's vision of an America that is "more than the sum of its parts — that out of many, we are truly one." That vision still resonates, though the path to realizing it seems more complex than ever.
The question for each of us is: What kind of "one" do we want to create from our many differences? And how can we pursue that vision while maintaining the bonds of mutual respect and affection necessary for a functioning democracy?
I'd love to hear your thoughts on how we might navigate these waters in our own lives and communities.