CultureLeads: Why National Identity Shapes Strategy

Tom Raquer

Lt. Col. (Ret.), USAF • Southeast Asia Foreign Area Officer

Published: March 11, 2026

From the series:

After the Winter — Collapse, Spring, and the New First Turning

Preview

A republic that loses confidence in its own cultural identity will eventually struggle to sustain a coherent strategy.

Political institutions do not sustain themselves automatically. They depend on a deeper foundation of shared identity, cultural cohesion, and legitimacy.

When that foundation weakens, the stability of the state itself becomes uncertain.

Series Doctrine

This series examines strategy during periods of national crisis.

For a constitutional republic, the ultimate purpose of strategy is not global management. It is the preservation of the republic itself, including its citizens, its institutions, and its political legitimacy.

Strategic Framing

Strategy is often discussed in terms of military ability, economic power, or alliances.

Yet these instruments ultimately rest upon something deeper: the cultural cohesion of the society that sustains them.

Without shared identity and legitimacy, even powerful institutions struggle to endure.

The Cultural Foundation of Strategy

Strategy is usually described in terms of military strength, economic capacity, and diplomatic influence.

These elements matter.

But they rest upon something deeper.

Every political system ultimately depends upon culture. Culture encompasses shared beliefs, norms, and identities. These elements give legitimacy to institutions and confer authority to leaders.

When cultural cohesion weakens, the political system built upon it begins to strain.

This is why culture is not merely a social phenomenon.

It is a strategic variable.

Culture Before Politics

Political institutions do not create culture.

They show it.

Constitutions, laws, and governments organize political life, but they depend upon a population that broadly accepts their legitimacy.

When cultural consensus erodes, political conflict intensifies.

Debates that once occurred within a shared national framework start to question the framework itself.

In such moments, the stability of institutions becomes uncertain.

Cultural Fragmentation in the Current Moment

The United States today shows many signs of cultural fragmentation.

Political polarization has intensified.

National narratives are increasingly contested.

Institutions that once served as shared reference points—universities, media, and even historical memory—no longer command universal trust.

Debates that once occurred within a broadly shared national identity now often question the legitimacy of that identity itself.

From a strategic perspective, this matters not because disagreement is new in American history. Instead, it matters because the degree of fragmentation affects the republic’s capacity to sustain coherent policy. It also impacts long‑term commitments.

Legitimacy and the Republic

The survival of a constitutional republic depends upon a particular form of legitimacy.

Citizens must believe that the political system symbolizes them and serves the common good.

Without that belief, institutions become fragile.

This insight connects directly to the strategic framework described by Carl von Clausewitz.

Clausewitz argued that every political system possesses a centre of gravity—the source of power that holds it together.

For a republic, that centre of gravity lies in the cohesion of its citizens.

When cultural divisions weaken that cohesion, the political foundation of the state itself begins to erode.

The Fourth Turning Context

Periods of crisis intensify these pressures.

According to generational theorists William Strauss and Neil Howe, societies periodically enter eras of systemic instability known as Fourth Turnings.

During these periods, institutions lose legitimacy, political conflict intensifies, and societies struggle to redefine their identity.

Such crises are not merely political.

They are cultural.

The historian Fernand Braudel made an observation. Beneath the visible events of politics lie deeper civilizational structures. These structures change only slowly over time.

When those deeper cultural structures start to shift, political institutions often struggle to adapt.

Fourth Turning crises represent precisely this moment—when societies are forced to reconsider the foundations of their collective identity.

Why Culture Leads

When cultural cohesion weakens, political institutions can’t easily compensate.

Policy reforms, elections, and institutional adjustments temporarily stabilize the framework. Nevertheless, they can’t fully resolve deeper questions of identity and legitimacy.

Those questions must ultimately be addressed within society itself.

This is why culture often leads politics during periods of crisis.

Political systems depend upon cultural foundations that develop slowly over time.

When those foundations shift, institutions must eventually adapt.

Strategic Implications

For strategists, this reality carries important implications.

Foreign policy debates often focus on external threats and geopolitical competition.

But during periods of internal crisis, the most important strategic challenge may lie within the society itself.

Preserving cultural cohesion is essential to the survival of the political system.

Without that cohesion, the republic’s institutions can’t operate effectively.

This relationship between culture and strategy becomes especially visible during periods of war.

A nation divided over its identity will struggle to sustain the political legitimacy needed to sustain prolonged conflict.

For a constitutional republic, the cohesion of its citizens thus remains the ultimate strategic foundation for any external commitment.

Closing Reflection

Political institutions organize a nation, but culture sustains it.

When cultural legitimacy weakens, the stability of the political system becomes uncertain.

For a constitutional republic, thus, the preservation of cultural cohesion is not merely a social concern.

It is a strategic necessity.

Question for Strategists

If culture forms the foundation of political legitimacy, how should strategists think about national identity during periods of systemic crisis?

Reader Question

How do you see the relationship between culture and strategy in the current American crisis?

I welcome thoughtful comments from readers and fellow strategists.

Strategic Prompt

If a society’s cultural cohesion weakens, can a republic still sustain long‑term strategic commitments abroad?

Or must internal cultural renewal precede effective foreign policy?

For First Turning Strategists

The purpose of this series is not prediction, but strategic clarity.

The Fourth Turning crisis now unfolding will reshape institutions, alliances, and the global order.

The central task for American strategists is thus not to preserve every feature of the old system. Instead, they need to guarantee that the constitutional republic survives the crisis intact. Their goal is also to keep the civic cohesion of its citizens.

If the republic endures, renewal remains possible.

Sources and Strategic Influences

The arguments developed in this series draw upon several historical and strategic traditions, including the work of:

• Carl von Clausewitz
• Fernand Braudel
• Samuel P. Huntington
• William Strauss
• Neil Howe

These essays try to apply those traditions to the strategic problems confronting the United States. These issues arise during the current Fourth Turning crisis.

About the Author

Tom Raquer is a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Air Force. He is also a former Southeast Asia Foreign Area Officer.

His writing focuses on strategy, political legitimacy, and the long‑term stability of the American constitutional republic.

He is the author of the Substack series “After the Winter — Collapse, Spring, and the New First Turning.”

Continue the Series

• The Centre of Gravity Is the American Citizen
• War in the Winter of a Fourth Turning
• Culture Leads: Why National Identity Shapes Strategy
• Why Iran Rejects Ceasefires
• Abating the Iran War