Neither Jew Nor Greek: Why Ethnic Identitarianism Isn’t Libertarian or Christian

A History of Libertarian Toleration of Intolerance

In 2008, when the Ron Paul Revolution was heating up and libertarian ideas were getting the widest hearing they had received since perhaps the presidency of Calvin Coolidge, back issues of the Ron Paul Report newsletter came to mainstream attention. Some of these newsletters contained articles with a decidedly racial tinge. Although the offending newsletters were confirmed by independent journalists to be ghostwritten, these remarks still raised more than a few eyebrows, particularly among those who were looking for an excuse to smear the libertarian cause.

And they did indeed give the growing libertarian movement negative publicity. More than that, since Paul was open about his Christian faith, it also bolstered the trope that Christians in America are backwards and hateful. Occurrences like these have helped to fuel a debate amongst libertarians about racism in our ranks and how much it should be tolerated.

The Trump era came with new culture wars and new temptations for libertarian strategists, particularly when it comes to racially-charged viewpoints. The more the left expresses concerns about racism, the more the contrarian new right dismisses them and even winks at racists in their midst. Arvin Vohra, former vice chair of the Libertarian National Committee, summed up the pro-toleration view succinctly in a 2018 Facebook post that read, “I’ll take a white supremacist who wants to tear down the welfare state over a government school teacher who wants to keep it.”

Ideological Incoherence

The question of whether racist and libertarian ideology are compatible should be a no-brainer. It is true, on the one hand, that libertarians reject the initiation of aggression and are therefore unwilling to force even racists to associate with people they don’t want to. However, as a philosophy, libertarianism espouses, as two necessary tenets of its thought, individual rights and the equal dignity of each human being. David Boaz expressed this point well in his book The Libertarian Mind:

“The positive basis of libertarian social analysis is methodological individualism, the recognition that only individuals act. The ethical or normative basis of libertarianism is respect for the dignity and worth of every (other) individual.”

Thus, while racists–like communists and nationalists–should be allowed to live their lives so long as they pose no threat to someone else, a consistent libertarian should not see them as our partners in the liberty movement. They simply do not share our most core and essential values.

American Christians are likewise in danger of being captured by this kind of right wing racism, but we must also be wary of a similar trend of racial collectivism from the Christian left. It is motivated by different, often laudable, concerns; but it is nevertheless just as much a challenge to the universalism of Christianity and the individualism of libertarianism.

Making Race Great Again

Esau McCaulley, in his book Reading While Black, presents just one example of a progressive desire to make race great again. In it, he argues against a vision of Christianity where ethnicity is insignificant:

“God’s eschatological vision for the reconciliation of all things in his Son requires my blackness and my neighbour’s Latina identity to endure forever. Colorblindness is sub-biblical and falls short of the glory of God. What is it that unites this diversity? It is not cultural assimilation, but the fact that we worship the Lamb. This means that the gifts that our cultures have are not ends in themselves. Our distinctive cultures represent the means by which we give honor to God. He is honored through the diversity of tongues singing the same song. Therefore inasmuch as I modulate my blackness or neglect my culture, I am placing limits on the gifts that God has given me to offer to his church and kingdom.”

McCaulley has a point here, but its truth value isn’t unalloyed. Yes, our skin color will endure on the New Earth. Certainly, you do not have to abandon your cultural background or country of origin to join the kingdom of God (insofar as they do not contradict Kingdom values, of course). But am I actually obligated to define myself by my ethnicity? If I fail to get in touch with my Irish or French roots, am I fighting against God’s purposes for my life and weakening my contributions to His kingdom? There is an, almost certainly unintentional, reductionism happening here. The suggestion that one of the most important things about me is my ethnicity threatens to obscure my individuality and my humanity.

There are some strong defenses that can be offered of McCaulley’s emphasis on ethnic pride, particularly in regard to its self-esteem raising effects among people who have been taught that their ethnicity makes them inferior in some way. But narratives of racial pride should be a means, not an end–the goal is to remind ourselves of our fundamental equality, not for me to see my group as having some unique and innate qualities of excellence. This is why progressives reject white pride out of hand: white people in America were not historically made to feel inferior, so there is a danger that white racial pride would not be a self-esteem raising corrective but a dangerous intoxicant. In short, racial or ethnic pride is not a good goal in itself, but only a means to a good end–equality. Thus, contrary to McCaulley, the goal actually is color blindness, which is to say an attitude of not seeing color as particularly significant in comparison to our shared humanity or our individuality.

McCaulley’s analysis is fraught in other ways. One is that it suggests the ethnic identity which he argues we are obligated to hold up high is not socially constructed but actually real. But if ethnic identities are real, then they have carefully defined boundaries–I am black, she is Latina, he is white, etc. But if ethnic identity is real, important, and has hard boundaries, this suggests that it should be protected–in other words, that these boundaries should not be transgressed. This leads, logically at least, to ethnic identitarianism and racial purity codes.

That McCaulley’s argument gestures in this direction is borne out by his eschatological vision. The Apostle John’s proclamation of a divine kingdom made up of all tribes, tongues, and peoples is not meant to convey a gospel that is available to every individual without regard to race. Instead, it is the hope of a multi-ethnic future where all peoples are separate but equal.

When the fundamentalist Bob Jones University refused to admit blacks, then later admitted them under a policy of no interracial dating, they appealed to this same reading of Revelation–one of distinct peoples and tongues praising God together, but also apart. At the time, they were mocked and derided by not only the left but mainstream conservatives and moderates. Why is their logic now considered progressive?

Contra McCaulley and Jones, while from a sociological or historical point of view we can speak broadly of the contributions of the black church, of Chinese Christians, or of western Protestantism, these contributions are not made by faceless groups, but individuals. It will not be western or Asian Christianities standing before the Lamb among the great multitude in John’s vision, but western and Asian Christians–individuals united in their humanity and their union with Christ.

A Libertarian Christian Approach to Ethnic Identity

Though the philosophy of individualism has fallen on some hard times in an increasingly isolated west, at its core it is, ironically, universal in its outlook. Since every individual is equal, though distinct, they can be thought of as sharing a single humanity. But ethnic collectivism, whether progressive or reactionary, is nearly always sectional. It imagines that every individual is just a drop in the ocean of ethnic identity. Moreover, it sees every attempt to make us more alike than we are different as a kind of ideological heresy.

But we find a better model for approaching ethnic identity in the Apostle Paul. While he observed many features of the Jewish Torah himself and valued his Jewish ancestry, he saw it as largely a matter of indifference whether someone saw themselves as a Jew or Greek or if they kept the Jewish festivals and sabbaths. What counted most was their being in Christ.

Following the apostle Paul’s lead, those of us who are Christians ought to see ethnic identity as optional and relativized in the interest of our universal humanity and our new collective identity in Christ. Similarly, those of us who are libertarians should be consistent in living out our individualist philosophy and speaking forcefully against racist ideas as fundamentally incompatible with our values of equal human rights and dignity.

As both Christians and libertarians, we have an ideological imperative to emphasize the value of humanity and the value of the individual, but should reject the notion that race or ethnicity are fundamentally important or even real. Ethnic identitarianism is neither libertarian, nor is it Christian.