This past week, Vivek Ramaswamy published a
New York Times op-ed calling on Republicans to reject the rise of “Groyperism,” the far-right subculture known for its online provocations and racialist politics, thereby sparking a debate about something much larger.
1 In the piece, Vivek frames the Right as split between blood-and-soil nationalism and a creedal conception of American identity. He forcefully — and rightly — rejects the former, echoing this message at a Turning Point USA event.
It’s a worthy fight. Vivek’s call for moral clarity in the face of vile bigotry is necessary, and I respect him for taking it on. As others have pointed out, he’s doing more to defend JD Vance’s wife, Usha, against anti-Indian slurs than Vance himself.
2 And he’s right to say that some of his critics, especially those who dismiss the Constitution as “just a piece of paper,” are anti-American.
But he’s making a mistake in the way he defines American identity. By defaulting to a thin, purely creedal definition while sidestepping harder questions about culture and assimilation, Vivek offers an answer that is neat on paper but weak in practice. The problem isn’t so much that his definition is wrong as that it is incomplete, leaving a conceptual vacuum that cedes ground to the very forces he wants to isolate. Worse, his approach shuts down conversation rather than inviting honest discussion of one of our most unsettled national questions: What does it mean to be an American?
Here’s his core argument:
Americanness isn’t a scalar quality that varies based on your ancestry. 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.
There are three problems with this framework.
First, Vivek conflates citizenship with identity. Citizenship is binary — we’re all equal under the law, and that matters. But American identity isn’t binary in the same way. America is open to newcomers, but openness doesn’t mean identity arrives fully formed. Americanness isn’t something you can just download. It isn’t a skin-suit you can slip into overnight. It develops over time through language, memory, and participation.
Americanness isn’t something you can just download. It isn’t a skin-suit you can slip into overnight. It develops over time through language, memory, and participation.
Vivek himself is an example. Isn’t it fair to say that his sense of American identity — as a guy born and raised here — is more rooted and developed than that of his immigrant parents? Most people, including Vivek and his family, would likely say yes. You don’t have to buy into the narrow logic of blood-and-soil nationalism to see that identity deepens over time. Most of us know this intuitively, even if we hesitate to say it out loud.
Even by Vivek’s own logic, some would be considered “more American” based on their beliefs. And that brings us to the second flaw in Vivek’s conception of Americanness: a purely creedal definition leads to conceptual dead ends. It’s too thin. It means that someone with centuries of family history in America is less American, by his definition, than a person newly naturalized from Afghanistan who professes to “subscribe to the creed.”
Or consider “colorblind meritocracy,” which is part of Vivek’s definition of Americanness. I also believe it is part of the American way. But what about the millions of Democrats who support DEI and affirmative action, often with decent arguments? Are Joe Biden and Kamala Harris suddenly less American? Is a guy in Hyderabad more American than these Democrats because he supports colorblind meritocracy creed more cleanly? Of course not. This is where creedalism, untethered from culture and place, stops being coherent.
The third and deepest issue with Vivek’s conception of Americanness is that it treats the hardest questions as already settled instead of seriously engaging them. For example, part of his definition is swearing “exclusive allegiance to our nation.” Sure, that sounds nice. But is Vivek truly prepared to follow the logic of that and ban dual citizenship? How would his Jewish donors and supporters feel about that? My mom has dual citizenship with Mexico, which she acquired as an adult. Should she be deported? I would hope not.
I agree with the principle that allegiance matters — that Americanness means putting America first. But Vivek’s treatment of these questions feels designed to appease Reagan-era conservatives rather than address the genuine intellectual issues others — especially younger generations — are wrestling with. His framework treats identity as settled and thereby avoids the hard work of answering how assimilation actually happens or what it even means in today’s America.
I'm really tired of this guy ...
NO Bro YOU ARE NOT AMERICAN you are a brown con artist from a morally bankrupt civilization
