America is a remarkable place, and it is easy to forget what makes it unique.

Nations are a relatively new concept in world history, although large and small political entities have been around for at least 8-10,000 years.

Political units either tended to be based upon shared identities–from tribes to cities–or upon conquest by force–empires.

Nations, though, are larger political units that are new to the scene. They are a modern admixture of empire and tribe, based upon a shared identity that grew out of the changes in the modern world. Even Germany and Italy, which seem to us to be enduring units that obviously belong as a single unit, didn’t exist much more than 150 years ago. Italy’s full unification came after WWI, and only really began in 1871.

In the ancient world the city was the basic unit of governance because in cities everybody could potentially know everybody else (cities then would be like small towns today). You identified with everyone because in a sense they were your neighbors, and your lot was thrown in with theirs.

Rome was something of an exception, and was more like the United States, but was still fundamentally an empire. Still, it was the closest thing to a Nation in the ancient West. China was its analog in the East. Proto-nations. The existence of large groups with shared identities was rare as a hen’s tooth.

The shared identity of nations today is based largely upon language and ethnic commonalities, and a sense of shared history. While nationhood seems an obvious thing to us today, it didn’t solidify as an idea until the 19th Century, really. Somebody in southern France barely shared anything in common with somebody across the country as they saw it, and France was by far the most nation-like region in Europe.

Political scientists generally point to the 17th Century Peace of Westphalia as when the nation-state was born, and there is an intellectual case to be made for that idea in international relations. But regarding real nationhood for peoples themselves–the idea that one is English or French–I date to the late 18th century with the French and American revolutions, with the former being more important than the latter.

The French Revolution sparked the psychological creation of the state in my view, with the Revolution creating the spark, and Napoleon’s mobilization of France for war putting the idea into form. Until Napoleon governments were generally small, elite institutions with modest control and decidedly distant from normal life. Almost nobody really thought of themselves as part of a large political unit, unless they were forced to.

Napoleon created the idea of a National Purpose, mobilizing millions into one unit.

Most nations today that are relatively stable all have the same basic formula: a relatively unified ethnic and linguistic unit where most people see themselves largely reflected in their fellows. Nations are not government forms or geographic areas; they reflect the basic cultural unity of the group. Countries where this is not the case tend to be unstable, with people feeling alienated from the government and their fellows. One of the reasons Africa is such a mess is that the political units are not identity units, which in most cases are ethnic groups and tribes still.

What does this have to do with America’s success and now trouble?

America has been unique because what has bound us together is a shared sense of history and devotion to an idea that has been embodied by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Contrast this with France–which is now in its 6th or 7th governmental iteration since the French Revolution. Most people don’t think of it this way, but the current government is the Fifth French Republic, with the revolutionary government being the first. Yet nobody thinks of France as anything but France, despite the rather frequent changes in government types.  Because the government is simply the icing on a cake that has remained very stable, the French identity.

Americans share no ethnic backgrounds and are much more culturally diverse than any other stable nation. However, until recently all Americans, native-born or immigrant, had a basic understanding of and appreciation for our shared history and ideals. It is what brought the immigrants here, after all, and when they became Americans George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were as much theirs as the descendants of the troops who fought in the Revolutionary War.

Waves of immigration have not been all sweetness and light. When immigrant numbers became too large for the country to swallow tensions arose, because immigrant groups seemed segregated from the larger population. Slaves and their descendants were largely excluded from the shared history and the benefits of the American idea. But over the decades integration has led to people of all colors and creeds seeing themselves as fundamentally American.

“It’s a free country” has been a common creed, and for the most part, we all believed in that.

The military since World War II has been both a microcosm and the best example of this peculiarity of our nation. For all the talk of “diversity” in civilian society, the military has genuinely been an example of diversity that actually works. People who generally look and think differently all come together with a common purpose to achieve common goals. Ideally, if not always actually, a Band of Brothers whose common purpose overrides whatever differences they have.

Every World War II movie ever made emphasized this uniquely American way of being. All these movies throw together people of different colors, ethnic backgrounds, and religious creeds and show how they are united in a cause. They are all American, whether Christian or Jew, from Brooklyn or Mississippi.

What makes a Frenchman French is fundamentally different from what makes an American American. Frenchmen are obnoxious frog leg and cheese-eating wine-swilling surrender monkeys, right? (Actually, the French have a glorious military history until WWII, but are still obnoxious). Americans? We are all George Washington, right?

America is fraying today because, without the common sense of purpose, nothing else binds us. Most Americans are not rooted in a place–we move constantly. We don’t share the same religion or ethnic background or any of the traditional ties that bind us. Our sense of trust has been based on the idea that we all believe in the same basic political philosophy, which many political scientists and sociologists have characterized as America’s civil religion.

It is that civil religion that has been fraying. The belief that we are all essentially free and equal and that we all share the common American history that is our religious text of sorts. George Washington, the Founders, The Great Emancipator, World War II, The Cold War, America the liberator…

That idea is no longer held to be either true or good by vast numbers of Americans, and large swathes of the Democrat Party believe the civil religion of America to be a blatant lie intended to oppress the disadvantaged. Critical theory and Marxist ideology are undermining our shared civil religion, and nothing else binds us.

1619, not 1776 is the real founding year of our country. That argument right there encapsulates everything: is America fundamentally about oppression, or freedom?

That is why there is so much talk of civil war. We don’t see ourselves in each other, and the differences are becoming vast. Neither side believes in the fairness of the process, and we don’t share the same goals.

The military has been the model for an America that works. Not because the military is the most efficient part of our society (hint: it isn’t!) or because it is run especially well or anything practical like that. It’s because we believe that for all its flaws, when the chips are down everybody has each others’ back.

I have never served in the military, so my view is entirely from the outside. I am pretty cynical about the top leadership in the military–they are, after all, primarily politicians. But my outsider’s sense is that the military has been regarded so highly since it became all volunteer because it came to embody our ideals, if in imperfect form. Everybody, regardless of background, all working to achieve the same goals.

When we look around at the political landscape today, is that what you see? Do you expect our society to move closer to that ideal or farther away in the next decade? Do you believe that the system is fundamentally fair? That everybody has a shot at success?

If not–and few of us do–we have identified why America is facing trouble. Nothing besides those ideas bind up together other than a common currency and the IRS.

We have to find some way back to a place where we all at least share the idea that the playing field is level. It will be a long road, and the first step begins with throwing out of power the people who are determined to destroy the American ideal.

After Vietnam, it took a couple of decades to get the military into a shape that is recognizable to us today. It was a long road from the hollow force it became after Vietnam. But it was done.

Let’s hope that the same can be done with America herself, and work to make that happen.