[T]here is no such thing as man in the world. In my lifetime I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc.; thanks to Montesquieu, I even know that one can be Persian. But as for man, I declare that I have never in my life met him.
—Joseph de Maistre, 1797
It was at a rally in Texas in 2018 that Donald Trump, then in his first presidential term, stopped being coy about where he stood on the question of nationalism. “Radical Democrats want to turn back the clock,” Trump asserted. “Restore the rule of corrupt, power-hungry globalists. You know what a globalist is, right? A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly not caring about our country so much. And, you know what? We can’t have that.”
“You know,” the president continued in impeccable barstool English, “they have a word, it sort of became old-fashioned. It’s called a nationalist. And I say, ‘Really? We’re not supposed to use that word.’ You know what I am? I’m a nationalist. OK? I’m a nationalist.”
Nationalism has enjoyed many moments over the centuries, and Trump’s second election shows that it is enjoying one now. Not in liberal and progressive society, mind you, where a sympathetic mention of the word can elicit raised eyebrows and sidelong glances. But for populists of the right-wing persuasion, nationalism is part of the price of admission. And not only in the United States: Oddly, there is even a nascent Nationalist International, a network of politicians, intellectuals, and activists stretching across dozens of countries, stoked by hyper-influencers such as Steve Bannon and his English friend Nigel Farage, working to slay globalism and all its works.
Assuredly, elite society has its reasons for keeping its distance from nationalism. In American discourse, it seems to carry implicit modifiers like “white” and “Christian,” and hence to be reserved for the erstwhile majority that we are constantly told is dwindling. But not all nationalists over the centuries have had in mind ethnic or religious exclusion. An ideology that asserts that the nation—however defined—ought to be coterminous with the state, nationalism has often figured in mainstream liberal and even progressive projects. Depending on where one looks, nationalism has been imperialistic and anti-imperialistic, sectionalist and anti-sectionalist, liberal and anti-liberal. Today, a moderate and civic nationalism, one that aims to rebalance equal opportunity with economic growth and relax the recurring cultural and political spasms of our day, could help rejuvenate democracy at home and abroad.