Chris Salcedo recently published an article titled “Can We Stop Pretending That Americans Have Anything In Common With the Left?” (Feb. 23, 2026) — you can read it here — and while I may agree with much of his concern, my goal in this piece is not ideological agreement but structural assessment.
Chris asked a question most commentators are afraid to say out loud:
“Can we stop pretending Americans have anything in common with the Left?”
You can roll your eyes at the tone.
Or you can step back and ask the deeper question underneath it:
Do we still share a common American anchor?
Because if the anchor is gone, then the argument isn’t about tax rates or tariffs.
It’s about identity.
So, let’s compare where we are to where we were — not emotionally, but structurally.
Ideologically I may agree with much of his concern.
But my agreement is not analysis.
So instead of arguing this from an ideological or partisan angle, I want to approach it from a structural one — almost scientific in method.
Consequently, we need a reference point.
We should measure drift the way engineers measure stress:
Against the original design.
The Founders gave us anchors:
constitutional reverence,
rule of law,
national identity before party,
assimilation,
and a shared civic framework.
The question is not:
Who is louder?
The question is:
Are we measurably drifting from those anchors?
Before examining the anchors we need to consider Identity vs Party.
1. National Identity Before Party
There was a time — and it wasn’t mythical — when Americans were Americans first.
During WWII, Democrats and Republicans didn’t argue about whether defeating Nazi Germany was “problematic nationalism.”
During the Cold War, Americans didn’t debate whether rooting for America was morally suspect.
You could disagree on policy — but you did not question whether the country itself was legitimate.
Now?
We live in a political culture where:
One side openly questions whether American history is something to be proud of.
The other side questions whether federal institutions can be trusted at all.
Major national holidays trigger culture-war skirmishes instead of shared celebration.
When the American flag itself becomes a partisan signal, that’s not policy disagreement.
That’s identity drift.
National identity used to supersede party identity.
Now party identity increasingly defines national identity.
That’s a reversal.
2. Shared Media Floor
There was a time when everyone watched the same three networks.
Walter Cronkite might lean one way or another, but when he reported something, the country heard the same story at the same time.
You argued about interpretation — not about whether the event happened at all.
Now?
Reality itself is segmented.
One half of the country consumes Fox, alternative platforms, Substack writers, podcasts.
The other half consumes MSNBC, CNN, curated algorithmic feeds.
Add social media amplification and you get:
Emotion outranking verification.
Virality outranking nuance.
Outrage outranking facts.
Algorithms reward what triggers you.
They do not reward what grounds you.
When reality fragments, common anchors thin.
And when anchors thin, everything feels existential.
That’s not conspiracy.
That’s mechanics.
3. The Assimilation Model
This is where drift becomes visible without squinting.
For most of American history, immigration meant:
You come here.
You become American.
You learned English.
You adopted civic norms.
You entered a shared identity.
It didn’t mean you erased your heritage.
It meant you joined a national culture.
Today?
Assimilation is treated in some circles as oppressive, this is mostly on the left.
Some don’t say “become American.”
They say “bring your system here.”
We translate government services into dozens of languages without expectation of linguistic integration.
We encourage hyphenated identity first, civic identity second.
The right in large part still believes in assimilation as civic glue.
VS.
The left increasingly prioritizes multicultural coexistence over integration.
That’s not a moral accusation.
That’s a philosophical divide.
But more importantly it is a divergence from the historic anchor.
And when civic identity weakens, tribal identity strengthens.
That’s not sustainable long-term.
4. Law Enforcement and Legitimacy (Root → Drift → Present)
For most of American history, law enforcement was treated as a legitimate extension of constitutional order.
You could criticize officers.
You could challenge misconduct.
You could reform departments.
But the baseline assumption remained:
The enforcement of law itself was legitimate.
Even during the civil rights era — one of the most turbulent periods in modern history — the argument was that law enforcement was misapplying the law, not that enforcement as a category was immoral.
That distinction matters.
Because what has shifted in recent years is not just criticism of tactics — it is moral framing.
When “Defund the Police” becomes a national slogan,
when major cities reduce police budgets under activist pressure,
when “Abolish ICE” moves from protest sign to campaign rhetoric,
the argument is no longer “reform enforcement.”
It becomes “the enforcement function itself is suspect.”
That is a departure from the traditional American anchor that law — even flawed law — is enforced through legitimate institutions.
Now apply proportion:
The dominant institutional position on the right remains:
Support law enforcement.
Support ICE.
Oppose defunding.
View enforcement as necessary to sovereignty.
That posture aligns with the historic anchor.
This is not about pretending no one on the right criticizes federal leadership. It is about recognizing scale.
Questioning whether federal leadership is politicized is not the same as arguing that enforcement of law is morally illegitimate.
Those are categorically different.
Drift is not measured by fringe rhetoric.
It is measured by what becomes normalized, funded, defended, and implemented.
And when moral suspicion attaches to the enforcement function itself — particularly at municipal and activist levels — that marks a measurable departure from America’s traditional posture toward authority.
5. The Diagnostic Test
Here is the clean test:
When your political opponent wins an election,
do you still accept the system?
If the answer becomes “only when my side wins,”
then the anchor is thinning.
If institutions are legitimate only when they align with your tribe,
then drift is real.
What Salcedo Is Sensing
Not that Democrats aren’t human. That is not it at all.
He’s sensing that the shared moral floor feels thinner than it used to.
He sees:
Media refusal to cover certain stories.
Reluctance to enforce immigration law aggressively.
Cultural hostility toward enforcement institutions.
That is interpreted as identity departure.
You may agree or disagree with the conclusion.
But the structural question is valid:
Are we debating policy within a shared identity?
Or are we renegotiating the identity itself?
Drift Is Not Collapse
We are not in civil war — yet.
Institutions still function.
But we are in legitimacy stress.
The danger is not disagreement.
The danger is conditional legitimacy.
When civic identity becomes optional,
when assimilation becomes offensive,
when reality fragments into tribal feeds,
the anchor doesn’t snap overnight.
It erodes.
And erosion leading to collapse is harder to fix than breakage.
Formalization of Ordered Coherence Degradation Across Complex Systems
Chris Ciappa
Founder & Chief Coherence Architect | dAIsy AI Chat Companion · Mind-Mesch Memory Architecture · SAQ™ Quantum Security Stack | Samirac Partners LLC