Even outside the context of easily recognizable Tom Metzger-style white supremacists, there do exist racialist currents on the right advocating the sort of white identity politics Goldberg describes. This is harmful and to be opposed for the same reasons as minority identity politics, as described here (web link: http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0600race.htm).

But combating this racial wrong-headedness will require more than disagreeing with Francis’ assertions about Western culture being a product of white "genetic endowments." It is worthwhile to explore the appeal of identity politics.

Identity politics appeals to groups that feel they are not fully assimilated into a culture’s mainstream. Many of these groups have grievances that are rooted in mistreatment at the hands of their society’s dominant groups. It is difficult to imagine Afro-centrism existing without America’s history of slavery, segregation and both de facto and de jure racial discrimination. The history of slavery and colonialism is what drives much of the criticism of Western civilization and Susan Sontag’s description of whites as "the cancer of human history."

Minority identity politics actually have an impeccable academic pedigree in the United States. On the campuses that frequently house all-black, all-Latino or all-gay dormitories, such fields as law, sociology, political science and philosophy abound with critical race theory, critical feminist studies and gay and lesbian studies - all predicated on various group identities. These fields generally assume that a culture’s customs, values and laws are a collection of the power-wielding class’ prejudices. Critical legal studies maintain that the law is the instrument of oppression this class uses to maintain its hierarchical status. Based on these theories, the rule of law is not the means through which individual liberty may be protected but rather a structure that protects the political supremacy of white, heterosexual males.

The writer David Frum (most recently acclaimed for inserting the phrase "axis of evil" into President Bush’s State of the Union address) asked in his book Dead Right: "If the interests of blacks and whites, women and men, Hispanics and Anglos were so radically different, if even their epistemology was different - as the fashionable new ’critical race theorists’ argued in the law schools and the humanities departments - who but the sappiest white, man, or Anglo would take the black, woman or Hispanic’s side of the argument?" Given the existence of affirmative action and the use of tax dollars to promote bilingual education and multiculturalism, it is a worthwhile question.

If America is reduced to a collection of competing racial interests, it is only a matter of time before whites begin to assert their interests. This is especially true in light of the projections that whites will attain minority status themselves sometime in the middle of the 21st century. It is condescending and improbable to assume that a white minority will behave any differently in the political marketplace than other minorities. Such racial competition would be a bad thing for America. VDARE.com writer Steve Sailer - who maintains "the correct criterion for judging public policies such as immigration is whether they optimally benefit Americans as a whole instead of any race or class" - warns that such a situation could cause "the power of government to grow dramatically as American life becomes increasingly politicized along ethnic bloc lines."

Goldberg seems to recognize this risk himself as he does make the connection between left-wing identity politics and what he calls "the racial right." (The liberal groups are going to love that phrase in the fundraising letters.) But he fails to make the connection between racial preferences, mass immigration of people who are eligible to benefit from these preferences and what he concedes is a lack of assimilation. As such, he fails to come up with any solution to the problem other than to lump many respectable critics of current immigration policy in with racists and admonish immigrants to assimilate.

The question then becomes: Who is really increasing the likelihood of white identity politics? Those who take the national question seriously and want immigrants to assimilate, immigration reform that includes a reduction in the number of immigrants admitted to facilitate this assimilation and an end to truly divisive domestic policies such as preferences, or those opposed to these objectives?

Prevailing immigration patterns may exacerbate identity politics among other groups as well. Researcher George Borjas has painstakingly demonstrated the low skill levels of the post-1965 immigrant pool relative to the US labor force. This immigration is likely to negatively impact unskilled workers already residing in the United States who are disproportionately minorities.

Obsession with race is ultimately more compatible with collectivism than individualism. Ayn Rand rightly dismissed racism as "barnyard socialism." Yet the alternative to a diverse country fragmenting into competing ethnic groups that seek to use government power to break up one another’s "power structures" is to forge a strong national identity among these groups. Chronicles editor Thomas Fleming once wrote, "A man will fight and die for a nation, ’for the ashes of his fathers and the temples of his gods,’ but for a race, the most he will do is subscribe to a newsletter that makes him feel less like a loser."

A national identity relies upon common bonds among the people that Abraham Lincoln described as "the mystic cords of memory." Those cords must be strengthened or they will give way to other shared identities, and identity politics. This strengthening won’t be accomplished by demonizing immigration reformers. Instead, part of what it will take is a return to the policies that have made America capable of assimilating more immigrants than any nation in history: Intermittent immigration featuring waves and pauses, Americanization of newcomers and a common language. None of which will be easy or painless, but unity is vastly preferable to fragmentation.