Stephen Miller, a former senior advisor to Donald Trump, has drawn criticism for using a classic television special to promote his views on immigration. On Christmas Day, Miller referenced the 1967 holiday special, “Christmas with The Martins and The Sinatras,” which features renowned entertainers Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin, both children of Italian immigrants. His comments, laden with nostalgia for a perceived simpler America, sparked outrage among many who view his rhetoric as steeped in racism and xenophobia.
Miller’s post on social media was met with backlash, particularly for its juxtaposition with a powerful film featuring Sinatra that dates back to November 1945. That film, “The House I Live In,” showcases Sinatra’s impassioned plea against bigotry and his support for cultural pluralism. In the film, Sinatra, portraying himself, encounters a group of boys bullying a Jewish child. He interrupts their taunts and engages them in a conversation about the meaning of America and the shared humanity that binds its citizens.
The film’s message resonates with many who oppose Miller’s ideology. Sinatra’s dialogue points out the absurdity of discrimination based on religion, challenging the boys by stating, “You must be a bunch of those Nazi werewolves I’ve been reading about.” This poignant narrative emphasizes the importance of unity and acceptance in a diverse society.
Yet, while Miller’s critics rightly cite the film as emblematic of American liberalism, it is essential to recognize its complexities. The lyrics of “The House I Live In,” penned by Lewis Allan—also known as Abel Meeropol—reflect a deeper historical narrative intertwined with anti-capitalist sentiments. Meeropol, who was a member of the Communist Party, also authored the famous anti-lynching song “Strange Fruit.” The film and its music, created during a time of political turbulence, capture both the ideals of Roosevelt-era liberalism and the limitations inherent in that idealism.
The film’s portrayal of anti-fascism, while admirable, is juxtaposed with troubling language and sentiments. Sinatra’s narrative includes derogatory terms for Japanese people while neglecting to address the internment of over 100,000 Japanese Americans during World War II. This omission highlights the often selective memory surrounding narratives of American democracy and patriotism.
Despite its uplifting message, “The House I Live In” predominantly features white characters, excluding the diverse tapestry that constitutes American society. This aspect underscores the contradictions within the film, revealing that even celebrated cultural artifacts can embody biases prevalent during their time.
Critics of Miller, and of Trump’s administration, are justified in invoking Sinatra’s film as a contrast to the xenophobic rhetoric associated with the MAGA movement. The film represents a spirit of inclusivity and tolerance that many believe is essential in contemporary discourse. Yet, it is crucial to understand that the nostalgic moments of liberalism, while comforting, are not without their own historical flaws.
As society grapples with the complexities of American identity, it is clear that figures like Miller embody a reactionary ideology that stands in stark contrast to the inclusive ideals championed by Sinatra. The idealism of the post-World War II era, while inspiring, is not a returnable golden age; it is a reminder of the ongoing struggle for true inclusivity and acceptance in America.
Jeffrey C. Isaac, a prominent political science professor at Indiana University, Bloomington, highlights these nuances in his work. His insights serve as a crucial reminder that while rewatching “The House I Live In” may provide temporary solace, it is vital to recognize the ongoing challenges within the broader narrative of what it means to be American.
