Hanson gives several examples, and with some he exaggerates their problems, to ponder including Ancient Greece, the Balkans, Europe during its religious wars, the Middle East, Japan, and Germany. The two exceptions to the rule are the Roman Empire and the United States with the last one beginning to teeter.
And thus Hanson calls on the U.S. to let it go, with it = multiculturalism, while embracing being multiracial so that the U.S. can continue its experiment where all people are equal regardless of their race. Basically, what Hanson is calling for is a ethnocracy. An ethnocracy is best defined by American-Israeli activist Jeff Halper as the following (from Jeff Halper's An Israeli In Palestine, page 74):
An ethnocracy is opposite of a democracy, although it might incorporate some elements of democracy such as universal citizenship and elections. It arises when a particular group--the Jews in Israel, the Russians in Russia (and, more evidently, in the former Soviert Union), the Protestants in pre-1972 Northern Ireland, the whites in apartheid South Africa, the Shi'ite Muslims of Iran, the Malay in Malaysia and, if they had their way, the white Christian fundamentalists in the US--seizes control of the government and armed forces in order to enforce a regime of exclusive privilege over other groups in what is in fact a multi-ethnic or multi-religious society. Ethnocracy, or ethno-nationaism, privileges ethnos over demos, whereby one's ethnic affiliation, be it defined by race, descent, religion, language or national origin, takes precedence over citizenship in determining to who a country actually "belongs."
What is interesting in above statement is that democracy is not defined by the presence of political devices that allow people to choose leaders or laws. Rather, democracy is a state of being that is defined by how different groups within a nation share that nation with each other. If a given nation can be said to belong equally to all of the people, we have a democracy. If not, we don't.
Thus, if democracy represents an equal sharing of the nation with the different cultural groups that exist, and multiculturalism is shown to be an actual source of weakness for a nation, then democracy, as a nation's state of being, must also be seen as a weakness for any nation.
So what Hanson wants the U.S. to do is to eliminate its multiculturalism while holding on to its multiracial character. The latter trait is to be maintained so that America can continue to act as that location in the world where it treats all races equally as it was originally founded to do. We should note that at this point, Hanson seems to view the U.S. through the rose colored glasses of American conservative idealism while at the same time acknowledging some of the racial strife and battles that have plagued our nation throughout its history.
Hanson believes that if America isn't to succumb to the lessons of history, it must do the following:
In sum, the United States will at some point have to subordinate the fad of multiculturalism to the ideal of multiracialism: many different-looking Americans who are nonetheless one in their shared customs, citizenship, and culture, while holding diverse political and cultural views not predicated on identity politics.
The problem with the above statement, aside from the double, and thus, ambiguous use of the concept of culture, is that since one's culture often relies on a geographical location where a particular race holds a dominant position, one can't necessarily separate multiculturalism and multiracialism. There are many Americans, especially those who are politically and/or religiously conservative, who think that America was founded as a European Christian nation and that identity must be maintained. And we can't substitute such a view of America for our multiculturalism while, at the same time, work to make America a multiracial nation.
But our problems get worse. As with any nation that strongly identifies itself with a particular culture, to eliminate multiculturalism within one's borders does not eliminate conflict with other nations that possess different cultures especially when those other nations possess an ample amount of natural resources coveted by business. For what could be said about a single nation can also be said about the world. And if the presence of other cultures is perceived as being weakness or obstacle to what one wants, it doesn't matter whether those other cultures exist within one's borders or not, they will be violated.
Thus, what is needed is for every nation in the world to embrace a multiculturalism and multiracial character. And unless that occurs, the competition for resources and treasures will result in conflicts and wars until we can no longer afford to fight. At this point, we have two different realities pressing in on us from two sides. There is Hanson's side where history teaches that in most cases, multiculturalism weakens a nation. And Hanson can provide plenty of historical examples to support his contention. But there is another reality pressing in on us. That reality says that unless we can embrace multiculturalism stopping engaging in conflicts and fighting wars, because technology makes the proliferation of WMDs inevitable, we will find ourselves in an exchange of WMD's with the possibility that we will not know how to stop that exchange.
Thus, it is not multiculturalism that is the enemy here, it is our reaction to multiculturalism: our intolerance of others and our refusal to create a state of democracy, as defined above, that stands, not as an weakness, but a threat to our existence.