American Unity Once Defined 9/11, But Shared National Identity Has Since Fractured
Source: Chris Bray. "Stories About 9/11 Are Stories About Shared Identity And Mutuality." September 11, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that Americans used to feel a deep, automatic sense of brotherhood with strangers—shown by 1919 small towns throwing parties for passing soldiers and by 9/11 heroes dying to save people they'd never met. He worries that this bond is breaking down, pointing to people who mock political violence or hold what he sees as anti-American beliefs, and asks whether a modern attack would produce the same unity or reveal a country that no longer sees itself as one people.
Conclusion
The mutual sympathy and shared national identity that defined Americans' response to 9/11 has decayed to the point that a similar attack today would likely not produce the same unified response, because a significant portion of the population no longer considers itself bound to fellow Americans in the same way.
Premises
- Historical American culture (exemplified by the 1919 Transcontinental Motor Convoy) shows a pattern of strangers treating each other as kin, with small towns spontaneously celebrating soldiers as 'our guys'
- On 9/11 itself, countless individuals (Crowther, Brown, boat rescuers) sacrificed themselves for strangers purely out of felt kinship, not obligation
- The nationwide reaction to 9/11 was one of shared outrage and identity, where an attack on New York was felt as an attack on Wyoming and Arkansas alike
- Contemporary examples (e.g., a teacher mocking Charlie Kirk's assassination, the ideology on display at 'Socialism 2026') show some Americans now express open contempt or hostility toward others, rather than mutual identification
- Some current political/ideological movements are explicitly described as 'antithetical to human flourishing' and to shared identity, indicating a faction that rejects the premise of shared Americanness altogether
Assumptions
- That the described historical incidents (1919 convoy, 9/11 rescues) are representative of a broader national character rather than exceptional/anecdotal moments
- That mutual affection and unconditional aid for a random 'countryman' constitutes the essence of stable national identity
- That a political/ideological disagreement (support or mockery of Charlie Kirk, socialist beliefs) is equivalent to a rejection of shared national identity rather than ordinary political disagreement
- That the behavior of a single teacher or a conference of activists can be generalized to represent a meaningful faction of 'no longer our countrymen'
- That unity in 2001 was primarily cultural/emotional rather than a temporary reaction to a specific, unprecedented shock