Ilhan Omar IN UTTER TERROR AS THOUSANDS Of her Voters Just got Sent BACK | Victor Davis Hanson

🏛️ The Trap of Divided Loyalty: Why History Repeats Itself with Identity Politics

I was once leading a seminar on the nature of citizenship when a student posed a question that struck me with its profound simplicity: “Professor, what happens when someone represents two different places at the same time? Whose interest do they actually serve?” I explained that this is one of the oldest quandaries in political philosophy, and history has answered it consistently, with unwavering finality: you cannot serve two masters. Eventually, you must choose, and when that choice is made, one side will never trust you again.

That old classroom dynamic came roaring back into focus this week as I observed the developing political pattern surrounding Congresswoman Ilhan Omar in Minnesota’s Fifth District. This isn’t about a single event; it’s about the recognizable political trajectory—a pattern I’ve seen play out dozens of times, from ancient city-states to modern republics, and it always ends the same way.

The Irreconcilable Physics of Representation

Omar represents a district with a large Somali population. She is the embodiment of the American story: a refugee who became a citizen, elected to the highest legislative body. The entire ethos of this country is built on the premise of becoming American, participating in democracy. Yet, the current controversy, where she is accused of prioritizing the interests of a specific ethnic group over the broader civic whole—for instance, advising Somali constituents on how to handle immigration enforcement—unmasks the fundamental, irreconcilable division.

Her defenders will argue that she is merely providing legal counsel and asserting the rights of her constituents. That is the surface story. But the pattern beneath is the real story.

In farming, you learn about the physics of irrigation: you cannot water two fields in opposite directions with the same pump. Water flows where the choice directs it. Loyalty in politics operates on the same principle. Resources are not infinite, time is not infinite, and loyalty is certainly not infinite. Representation is the constant act of choosing whose interests come first, and those choices, over time, reveal where true allegiance lies.

Representative government is predicated on a single, vital compact: the person you elect puts your interests first—not their own, not those of some other group, but yours, the constituent. What happens when that compact is fractured by a divided loyalty? History gives a chilling, definitive answer: it’s never good.

From Alcibiades to Alaric: The Predictable Downfall

Consider Alcibiades, the brilliant, charismatic Athenian general. When the politics of Athens turned against him, he defected to Sparta, advising Athens’ enemies on how to defeat his homeland. When Sparta abandoned him, he went to Persia, and then back to Athens, constantly switching sides based on personal benefit. The result? Nobody trusted him. Not Athens, not Sparta, not Persia. He died in exile, abandoned and assassinated, because everyone eventually realized: when loyalty is divided, there is no real loyalty to anyone but the self.

The Athenian historian Thucydides documented this political poison extensively. Divided loyalty breeds suspicion. When citizens cannot trust their representatives to put the city’s interests first, they stop believing in the system. They look for strongmen who are, at least, clear about whose side they are on. This is how republics die: not from external conquest, but from internal distrust.

The same dynamic played out in the twilight of the Roman Empire with its recruitment of Barbarian Generals. Rome offered Germanic tribal leaders citizenship and command of Roman legions. For a time, it worked. But when forced to choose between their birth tribe and the state that empowered them, many chose their tribe. The most famous example, Alaric, a Visigoth general who was granted Roman citizenship, led his Visigoths to sack Rome itself in 410 AD. He never truly became Roman; his identity never shifted. When his interests and Rome’s diverged, he chose his people over Rome.

Rome learned the expensive lesson that you can grant citizenship, position, and power, but you cannot force identification with the civilization that grants it. Identity goes deeper than paperwork.

The Political Trap of Identity

While the stakes today are not the sacking of the U.S. Capitol, the underlying dynamic with politicians like Omar is identical. She won her district on identity politics: first Somali-American, first Muslim woman. Her political brand is wrapped up in being the unapologetic defender of one specific ethnic community. This is the trap of identity politics: once your entire brand is built on representing one ethnic or religious group, you become locked in.

Circumstances are changing. Immigration enforcement is rising. Public opinion is shifting. The political winds that elevated her are blowing in the opposite direction. Yet, she cannot moderate her position, because to do so would alienate the specific community—the decisive voting block—that put her in office. She cannot shift without losing her base. But if she doesn’t shift, she alienates everyone else.

This decision—to position oneself as a defender of one ethnic group against the broader society and the government you are sworn to serve—has consequences. It prompts the unshakeable question among the general public: Does she represent Minnesota, or does she represent Somalia?

America has always been a country of immigrants, but for most of its history, there was an understanding: you keep your culture, your food, and your religion, but your primary identity becomes American. That common civic identity is what allowed for diversity without divisiveness. In recent decades, that understanding has broken down. Assimilation is derided as oppressive, and maintaining primary ethnic or religious loyalty is championed as paramount. Politicians like Omar are not an aberration; they are the logical, inevitable outcome of this ideological shift.

A Predictable End

History teaches that multi-ethnic societies only survive when there is a common civic identity that supersedes the ethnic one. Societies that dissolve into competing ethnic factions collapse. There are no exceptions.

My prediction, based on this historical pattern, is clear: Omar will become increasingly isolated and politically toxic to other Democrats seeking statewide races. She may hold her district, which is heavily locked-in, but her influence will wither. Effectiveness in Congress requires building broad coalitions, and you cannot build coalitions when no one trusts your fundamental loyalty to the country’s collective interests. She will become, politically speaking, like those barbarian generals who technically served Rome but were always suspected, never fully trusted with anything important.

The takeaway for every American is simple: Watch where politicians place their loyalty. Not what they say, but what they do when their ethnic community’s interests conflict with those of the broader society. That tells you everything. America cannot function long-term with representatives whose primary loyalty is to an ethnic or religious community rather than to the nation as a whole. The current trajectory is not sustainable.

The pattern is visible now in Minnesota, in Michigan, and in cities across America. The choice has been made visible: Ethnic Identity versus Civic Identity. History has decided this contest every single time. The societies that maintained a strong civic identity survived. The societies that dissolved into competing ethnic factions collapsed.

You are watching the beginning of a fundamental political breakdown. Be prepared. The reality of political physics does not care about good intentions or progressive rhetoric. It simply is. And smart people base their decisions on reality, not on wishful thinking about how they want reality to be.