Pluralism: The Bedrock of America, Not a ‘Lie’

America’s Foundational Value Under Attack

Representative Andy Ogles of Tennessee recently ignited a firestorm by declaring that “pluralism is a lie.” This assertion, made in the context of an Islamophobic online rant, goes beyond mere political disagreement. It strikes at the very core of what it means to be American, according to journalist Ali Velshi. Velshi argues that to dismiss pluralism is to misunderstand not only American politics but the nation’s fundamental operating system.

Understanding Pluralism: Beyond Mere Tolerance

Velshi draws a critical distinction between tolerance and pluralism, asserting that this is where conversations about diversity often falter. “Tolerance is a posture of sufferance,” he explains. “Tolerance implies a majority that’s doing the tolerating and a minority that should be grateful for it. Tolerance says we permit you to exist here. Tolerance is conditional and can be withdrawn.” In essence, tolerance locates power in one group, extending a conditional right to others.

Pluralism, however, is structurally different. “Pluralism says there’s no default group from which permission flows,” Velshi states. “Pluralism holds that a society is constituted of its many parts, not by one part that generously accommodates the others.” It does not ask minorities to be grateful but recognizes that society itself is composed of minorities, and even the majority is a temporary, contingent coalition, not a fixed ethnic or religious entity.

Constitutional Architecture: The Founders’ Vision

This understanding of pluralism is not a modern liberal talking point but a constitutional fact, Velshi contends. He points to the U.S. Constitution’s architecture, acknowledging the founders’ own imperfections, including slave ownership. Yet, they established something unprecedented with the First Amendment, which includes not only freedom of speech and assembly but also an explicit prohibition on the establishment of religion, paired with the free exercise clause. This dual protection means the government cannot endorse a religion, nor can it prevent individuals from practicing their own.

The intellectual groundwork for this pluralist framework was laid even before the Constitution’s ratification. In 1785, James Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” directly opposed a bill proposing public funds for Christian teachers. Madison argued that civil authority has no jurisdiction over religious beliefs and that compelling citizens to support any religion through state power violates fundamental human rights. This argument became the bedrock of the Establishment Clause.

Furthermore, Article 6 of the Constitution, often overlooked, unequivocally states, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Ever.” This absolute prohibition, written into the original document, underscores the founders’ intent to create a nation free from religious tests for public service.

Federalist Papers and the Multiplicity of Interests

In Federalist 51, Madison articulated the logic of the constitutional design, arguing that protection against tyranny arises from a “multiplicity of interests” and “many factions, no single one dominant.” He referred to this as a “multiplicity of sects.” His proposed solution to religious conflict was not to favor one religion but to ensure a diversity of faiths so extensive that no single group could oppress others. This, Velshi emphasizes, is the essence of pluralism, as conceived by the Constitution’s architect.

A Deliberate Departure from European Models

Pluralism, Velshi argues, was a deliberate departure from the ethnic and religious nation-state models prevalent in Europe. Nations like England, with its established Church of England, and France, a Catholic civilization state, fused crown and faith. Even Germany’s post-war democracy, while admirable, emerged from a history grappling with ethnic definitions of national identity, leading to catastrophic outcomes.

America, in contrast, charted a different course, though not without its profound failures. The historical injustices faced by Native peoples, enslaved Africans, and marginalized immigrant groups like the Chinese and Japanese internment victims represent betrayals of the nation’s founding architecture. However, the underlying structure itself was different, promising not assimilation into a dominant culture but the absence of a legally enshrined dominant culture.

The Promise of America: Pluralism, Not Assimilation

The promise of America, Velshi asserts, was pluralism. “The promise was not you can live here if you assimilate into our dominant culture, the promise was that there is no dominant culture enshrined in law,” he states. When Ogles claims pluralism is a lie, he is not defending America but describing a different country—one built on the preservation of a particular religion, culture, or ethnic continuity, akin to a Christian nationalist state. This vision aligns more with the European ethnic nation-state model that the founders explicitly rejected.

Thomas Jefferson’s famous “wall of separation between church and state,” articulated in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, was not a metaphor but a description of a structural boundary. This wall protected religious communities from government interference and prevented the government from being captured by any single religion. The First Amendment, Velshi emphasizes, protects all faiths equally by ensuring no single faith is the official religion of the United States. Declaring America a “Christian nation” in law would dismantle the Establishment Clause and replace pluralism with establishment, leading to a state closer to the theocratic European models the Pilgrims fled.

Pluralism Fuels American Dynamism

The periods of greatest American economic dynamism, scientific innovation, and cultural output have coincided with the expansion of pluralism, not its contraction. Velshi highlights the mid-20th century research universities, crucial for global technological advancement, which were partly built by Jewish scientists fleeing European ethnic nationalism. The nation’s current medical and engineering infrastructure heavily relies on immigrants from South Asia, East Asia, and the Middle East.

He underscores the pivotal role of Black Americans in realizing America’s pluralistic promise. Through their relentless pursuit of the rights enshrined in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act, Black Americans have consistently held the nation accountable to its founding texts. These advancements were not gifts but demands that the constitutional promise be fulfilled. “Every single expansion of American pluralism has had black Americans at its center,” Velshi notes.

The Strength of Many: Compounding Human Capital

The success of America, Velshi argues, is a direct result of pluralism. “When you don’t mandate a single cultural operating system, you get a full range of human ingenuity operating in the same space at the same time under the same rules.” He likens this to “compounding interest on human capital.” Pluralism is not a lie but the most honest reflection of America’s reality: a nation composed of many peoples, faiths, and cultures negotiating a shared civic life under a set of rules that protect this multiplicity.

“Madison knew it, Jefferson knew it, they built it into the documents on purpose,” Velshi asserts. While this negotiation can be difficult and even ugly, the answer is not to abandon pluralism but to continue the work of building a country large enough to encompass its diversity. This, he concludes, is what America was designed to be, and any narrative to the contrary defends something other than America itself.

Looking Ahead

As the debate over pluralism continues, its implications for national identity, social cohesion, and future progress remain paramount. The ongoing tension between those who uphold the foundational principles of a diverse and inclusive society and those who seek to redefine American identity along more exclusive lines will likely shape political discourse and policy for years to come. The core question remains: will America continue to embrace its pluralistic architecture or retreat into a more homogenous, exclusionary vision?

Source: Ali Velshi: pluralism is a foundational American value (YouTube)