Why a Nation Must Have a Common Language
“Seis, siete, cero, dos.” The elderly man working the checkout line at the City Market in a small mountain town nestled deep in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado slowly repeated the Spanish numerals of the item number for a white onion. The computer buzzed, indicating an error. He tried again. The Hispanic man checking out slowly repeated the numbers again as the clerk tried to translate the numbers onto the English keypad. My wife and I stood in line with our groceries on the conveyor belt, waiting patiently. Our two and a half year old boy was not as patient. A minute passed. Then two, then three. Suddenly I’d had enough. I scooped up the groceries, put them back into our cart and moved us to another line, where we were able to check out quickly.
Across the United States, Americans are increasingly having frustrating experiences with non-English speaking peoples and communities. This is to be expected, given the accelerating liberal immigration policies and the dramatic uptick in Hispanic immigration in recent years. These changes are due primarily to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act) that did away with the quota system (that favored European immigrants) and indiscriminately flung open the doors to the world; but also to the staggering increase in illegal immigration across the southern border that was facilitated by the Biden administration. While a majority of Americans still speak English, there are over 1,600 communities in 44 states where English is not the majority language spoken at home. In over 1,100 of these communities, Spanish is the plurality language spoken.
Some estimate that by 2050, America might be a majority-Spanish speaking country. The United States is already the second largest Spanish-speaking country in the world, with over 43 million native Spanish-speakers at home, and 12 million English-Spanish bilingual speakers—for a combined of almost 60 million native, heritage, or second-language Spanish-speakers in the U.S. Without radical changes to current policy and the introduction of aggressive correctives, the above 2050 predictions will certainly come true.
In response to these trends, which threaten to fundamentally alter the cultural heritage of America, on March 1, President Trump signed an executive order designating English as the official language of the United States. The order asserted that “since our nation’s founding, English has been the language of our nation,” since our core political documents (the Declaration and Constitution) were written in English. In addition, the order argued that an official national language will “strengthen the fabric of [American] society” as well as “promote unity, establish efficiency in government operations, and create a pathway for civil engagement.” Most other countries have an official language, so why shouldn’t the United States? While hundreds of other languages are spoken in this country, English is still the dominant language and over 30 states and five U.S. territories have embraced English as the official language.
In response to Trump’s unapologetic embrace of English as America’s national language, citizens and political officials alike have become emboldened to assert the same. Congresswoman Mary Miller of Illinois declared that “In America, we speak ENGLISH … if you live and work here, you should speak the language of our country.” In response to a dual language tweet by the House Republicans (in English and Spanish), Congressman Brandon Gill of Texas mocked the House GOP, saying, “we’re in America. We represent Americans. We don’t pander in foreign languages. Speak English.” Following up on Trump’s EO last week, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that the Justice Department would lead the effort to codify and standardize English across the federal agencies. Bondi vowed to “promote assimilation over division” and assured Americans that Trump’s order “marks a pivotal step toward unifying our nation through a common language.”
English at the Founding
These efforts by the Trump administration were applauded by many and condemned as discriminatory by others. Those who object did so for reason now tiresome, counterfeit, and erroneous: that America’s diversity is her strength, and so the more languages her citizens speak the better; that English is an oppressive white man’s language; that Trump’s EO is an attempt to erase the many dozens if not hundreds of languages that have been present in America since before her founding; and so forth. Opponents of English as America’s official national language also point to the fact that the founders never moved to declare a national language, and many of them (such as Thomas Jefferson) spoke and read other languages besides English.
These objections fall flat. Long before the founding, the American colonies were settled and populated by English-speakers. In his wonderful book, Albion’s Seed, historian David Hackett Fischer comments that the four folk cultures that constituted the American stock between 1629-1775 “all spoke the English language, lived by British laws, and cherished their ancestral liberties.” In addition, they were “nearly all British Protestants.” Despite their many regional differences, these peoples were able to form a single nation in the late eighteenth century precisely because they shared one of the most important civilizational traits: language.
Rev. Jonathan Mayhew of Boston knew this when, in 1766, he spoke about the common culture between Americans and Britons: “We are strongly connected with them by a great commercial intercourse, by our common language, by our common religion as Protestants, and by being subject to the same King.” And of course, John Jay famously wrote in Federalist no. 2 in 1787 that the Americans were “one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, [and] very similar in their manners and customs.” As everyone understood, without a shared language civilization and nationhood simply were not possible.
We know this intuitively, through a study of history, and from biblical teaching. In the story of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11), the children of men seek to build a great civilization lest they be “scattered abroad upon the face of the earth.” When God condescends to take note of their project, he declares, “Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.” The reason these people would be successful is because they all shared the same language; thus, to frustrate their endeavors, God confused their language: “let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth.”
There are two things we learn from this story: first, that a common language is necessary for great civilizational achievements, and second, that confusion of language among a people is a sign of judgment from God and a precursor to division, fracture, and being scattered. By shared language, civilizations are built; by linguistic confusion, civilizations are destroyed.
The American founders not only knew these truths but assumed them such that they rarely talked about the need for a common language. There was no need to, because everyone spoke English. All the signers of the Declaration and each of the delegates to the 1787 Philadelphia Convention were native English-speakers. Despite the fact that many of them knew other languages from their classical education or foreign delegations, Americans overwhelmingly spoke English in their homes, in their communities, in churches and school buildings, and especially in business and politics.
Noah Webster on the American Tongue
One man, however, who understood the importance of a common language for national life, and who wrote about it extensively and dedicated his life to improving the English language, was Noah Webster. Webster, of course, is best known as the author and editor of the famed Webster’s Dictionary. Yet before he published the first edition of his dictionary (in 1806), Webster was writing on the nature of the English language. In his seminal 1789 text, Dissertations on the English Language, Webster explained the origin and importance of English for the Americans:
“The United States were settled by emigrants from different parts of Europe. But their descendants mostly speak the same tongue; and the intercourse among the learned of the different States, which the revolution has begun, and an American Court will perpetuate, must gradually destroy the differences of dialect which our ancestors brought from their native countries … The English tongue … is the inheritance which the Americans have received from their British parents. To cultivate and adorn it, is a task reserved for men who shall understand the connection between language and logic, and form an adequate idea of the influence which a uniformity of speech may have on national attachments.”
For Webster, all non-English languages in America would eventually fade away: “It must be considered further, that the English is the common root or stock from which our national language will be derived. All others will gradually waste away—and within a century and a half, North America will be peopled with a hundred millions of men, all speaking the same language.” Webster vision was prescient, for by 1940 (a hundred and fifty years after Webster wrote), there were 150 million Americans of whom 90-95% were literate in the written and fluent in the spoken English language.
Yet it wasn’t just the ascendancy of the English language Webster was concerned with, but the amalgamation of differences in dialect and accent, until a uniformity in written and spoken English formed from regional varieties. This goal, however, could not be accomplished without deliberate education and publications in proper English: “nothing but the establishment of schools and some uniformity in the use of books, can annihilate differences in speaking and preserve the purity of the American tongue.”
Webster called English “the American tongue.” English was not only the language of the north, middle, south, and frontier folk cultures during the colonial period when America was originally populated, but it also became the unofficial national language at the time of the founding. Without a national language, there could be no unity among America’s different states and regions. Without English as a unifying tongue by which the Americans could cooperate to declare independence, fight and win a war, and establish new political institutions, there would have been no American nation. Without the English language, America never would have existed. Webster knew this well, for he asserted without hesitation that “our political harmony is therefore concerned in a uniformity of language.”
A Common Language for a Particular People
It is easy enough to see how a common tongue would be necessary for national unity, cooperation, and he creation of a common culture in America. But there is more to the story than just the human need for clear communication. While it is true that all children have the innate ability to learn any human language (or multiple languages), this does not mean that all languages are equal. Anyone who has worked in language translation knows that there is never a pure one-to-one correspondence in translation; instead, there is a “dynamic equivalence” in which the translator must take the sense of the word or phrase in the host language and find an equivalent sense in the receptor language. This may require using words or phrases in the receptor language not present in the original language.
The point is that language is not a neutral medium with a simple exchange rate (as different monetary currencies are), but each language contains distinctives and idiosyncrasies that shape those people who speak that language and inhabit its conceptual world. This bears repeating: the language you learn as a child and speak throughout your life will form you into a particular person with a certain conception of yourself, your community, the world at large, and the divine and religious realms. This is true for a political people and nation as much as for an individual. The language a people speak will cultivate them into a distinct and particular people with unique cultural habits, customs, and ways of life.
For example, the German language is unique in that it is capable of conceptualizing in its grammar and syntax highly complex and abstract ideas. A single German word is often a combination of three or four other words, each of which contains a mini-idea. For example, the single German word Rechtsschutzversicherungsgesellschaft means “legal protection insurance company,” a compound of four distinct ideas that is fully comprehensible in vernacular conversion. Most Americans are also familiar with the well-known German words Zeitgeist (spirit of the time) and Weltanschauung (view of the world, or worldview), two concepts American English has borrowed from the German, yet must express in phrases instead of single lexemes. Consequently, the German people are known for their specialties in philosophy and theology, two disciplines that are highly abstract and require precision in language, expression, and description. The point it that the German language enables those who speak it to understand and conceptualize reality in a dimension that non-German speakers cannot.
Each language makes its own contribution to the richness of human life. While German is a philosophical language, it is harsh on the ears. French, on the other hand, is one of the most beautiful languages to listen to. This makes it ideal for literary prose, novels, poetry, and in general, artistic expression. While the French have undoubtedly made their own contributions to Western philosophy, the French people are more generally known as a romantic and literary people. Italian is beautiful to listen to in song and opera. English, as well, is unique. This is true grammatically, but also conceptually and historically. For instance, the English tongue is in many ways an amalgam of many different languages: Greek, Latin, Norman French, Old English (Germanic), and more. This makes it possible for many different peoples to pick up and learn (although in other ways, English syntax and verbal irregularities make it a difficult language to learn), which in turn, facilitated the formation of one people from many peoples. This idea was captured in the American founding motto of e pluribus unum: out of many, one. The English language made it possible to form one people out of many peoples, traditions, and ways of life in America.
English is also unique for its expression of political ideals, institutions, and practices. The American political and legal tradition is built on top of English common law, the concepts, judgments, and habits of which of could not be understood or adapted in America without a knowledge of the English language. Well-known and cherished American constitutional ideals and legal customs such as habeas corpus, due process, trial by jury, writ, amicus curiae, tort, plaintiff, and oath (among many others) are all borrowed from the English common law. In addition, our political vocabulary, while deeply rooted in ancient Greek and Roman traditions, was filtered through the English language and experience. Terms like republic, constitution, liberty and freedom, sovereignty, federalism, legislature, executive, and judicial are all understood from and as part of the English political tradition. Additionally, some political institutions and practices are uniquely borrowed from the British parliamentary tradition, such as a speak of the house, bills, motions, committees, and debates.
These are not just words, but words that capture a political custom and way of life that is hundreds of years old, shaped by specific institutions, virtues, and public decorum. In turn, these English words and their customs shape the people who speak English and who regularly draw inspiration and edification from the storied English traditions they flow from. For example, the very idea of having a “public debate” or “national discussion” on issues that touch all Americans is an indelible part of the English political heritage that is not present in many other cultures, both historically and in the present. Hence, Brits and Americans are a deliberative and discursive people, constantly talking and debating in public, and whose political institutions and decisions are meant to be public knowledge and informed by the people’s opinions, needs, and wants.
It should be clear from these considerations that a common language is not merely important for ease of communication, but it goes to the heart of fostering a common mind and way of life, and in forming and maintain a true body politic—a unified people with a common understanding of themselves, the world, and God, and of their common purpose and meaning as a people. If a shared language is lost, all of this is imperiled.
A Nation or an Empire?
For almost four hundred years, America has been an English-speaking people. Without the English language, America’s heritage would be utterly transformed into something other than America. The gradual and incessant increase in Spanish-speaking communities in the United States is a type of cultural and political conquest that threatens to erase American history, tradition, and ways of life. It is not a neutral development, and it is high time that Americans identify the growth of Spanish-speaking persons and exclusive Hispanic enclaves as the civilizational threat they are. An aggressive political stance that declares English the national political language, requires English be taught in public schools, and that demands linguistic assimilation of foreign-speaking enclaves and communities is entirely warranted.
In many ways, the conflict over language is part of a larger civilizational clash: the contest as to whether America will be a nation or an empire. From our founding through the Second World War, America was a nation with a national culture, language, religion, political tradition, and way of life. But with the two world wars, and the resulting Cold War, America ascended to become a global hegemon, and in the process established a political, military, and economic American Empire. With the defeat of the USSR in 1989, American unipolar dominance as the sole world superpower commenced. Yet with American imperial governance came many problems that have weakened and diluted our identity and ability to be a nation. Empires that militarily invade or micromanage the world invite the world to infiltrate their shores and power centers in order to benefit other nations through the imperial center. This is why we see populations from China, India, Somalia, Mexico, Iran, Palestine, and Israel popping up all throughout the United States with the expressed intent of taking political power and wealth for the sake of their native peoples—both here in the States and overseas.
With such transplanted peoples and uncontrolled migration to the United States—aided and abetted by sappy humanitarian ideologies that lead to bloated refugee and asylum policies— comes many foreign languages as well. New York City, probably America’s leading and most important financial and cultural center, can boast of more than 200 non-English languages. Democratic Representative Yassamin Ansari (of Iranian migrant parents) boasted that “more than 64 languages are spoken” in her district of Arizona. These trends will only become more common and solidified unless direct action is taken by citizens and their American representatives to
Nations are a mostly homogenous people, having a self-determined ethnic and religious core, are monolingual, high trust societies, where the common good and care for the living and future generations take priority over self-ambition and profit; and where those who hold political power do so as a trust of the people, and where good will and a common decorum maintain the peace, making the treat of state violence the exception. On the other hand, empires are polyglot experiments in multicultural and multilingual diversity that embrace religious pluralism and indifference (i.e., public atheism); they are often low-trust societies with high wealth disparities, and an isolated and out-of-touch ruling elite that hold society together through a combination of commercial self-interest, nepotism and bribery, and the constant threat of violence (whether tyrannical, anarchial, or both, anarcho-tyranny). Empires that mix many languages are, in essence, defying God’s divine judgment at the Tower of Babel by breeding language confusion yet still seeking to reach the heights of civilizational achievement. The result will be civilizational disaster and collapse.
The American experiment in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries in empire, by most measures, has been a disaster. The victim has been the traditional American people and their national identity, including a dilution of their religion, political institutions, and now their language. The common experience by Americans is that they are now strangers in their own land, surrounded by foreign peoples who don’t speak their language, who could care less about assimilating, and whose purpose to plunder America for her wealth, education, power, and opportunities instead of seeking to learn about, contribute to, and help preserve the beautiful and exceptional American people.
Conclusion: Citizen Aliens
Polyglot empires breed confusion and division. The experience of being a Native American English-speaker in one’s own country, yet at times being surrounded by loud public voices speaking a foreign language, is one of confusion and anger. You feel lost in your own country, alienated from what once was familiar and comforting. Simple tasks, such as buying groceries or stopping at a gas station, become moments of bewilderment and frustration. The result is that a skepticism and deadening takes place; those people who cannot speak your language are not your own, and beyond very rudimentary communication (need for help, water, food, shelter, etc.) there can be no common life with them.
Where there is no common tongue, there is no way to communicate, no common education, no communal civil life, no commercial or business relations, no common worship, and certainly no unified political organization and effort. The inevitable result is that such confusion will breed alienation and division, which will lead to separation, dysfunction, and possibly even violence. It would be much better to culturally and politically assert the prerogative of English as America’s language in order to mitigate the growth of other languages before a violent backlash breaks out.
This is not an argument against the right of peoples from non-English backgrounds to privately speak another language in the home or in personal conversation. That cannot be helped or even controlled, although one would hope that non-English speakers would recognize the English language as America’s tongue, and would care to teach their children and help them become American citizens by assimilating to our national language. This will not happen, however, unless Americans begin to assert their right as a people and nation to nourish and preserve the English language as their national language and heritage.
Image Credit: Unsplash
