In a famous scene of James Joyce’s seminal novel Ulysses, the protagonist Leopold Bloom is asked about his nationality. Bloom responds that his nation is “Ireland, I was born here, Ireland.” In response, the Citizen, Joyce’s personification of narrow-minded nationalism, spits in disgust. For the Citizen, Leopold Bloom, a Jew of Hungarian descent, can never be Irish.
For many liberals and progressives, the attitudes represented by the Citizen epitomize what they associate with nationalism: close-mindedness, bigotry, and intolerance. This reputation is neither undeserved nor completely unsubstantiated. Far-right ideologies, such as white nationalism and Christian nationalism, have proven destructive to our country, leading to violence against minorities and concerted attacks on our democratic institutions and norms. Throughout history, many forms of nationalism, particularly in Europe, were rooted in the idea of a “people”' with a shared ethnicity and ancestry. Expressions of xenophobia derived from certain strands of ethnic nationalism should be definitively rejected by progressives as they have no place in a pluralistic, multiracial democracy like the United States. However, I also believe that it is important to draw a clear distinction between right-wing strands of nationalism and a more progressive form of civic nationalism, if Americans are to truly appreciate and constructively mobilize the values underlying the idea of a nation.
As a self-identified liberal, I will argue for a particular type of nationalism. Nationalism has never been a fixed concept and in fact, it has proven exceedingly difficult for political theorists to attach a single definition to nationalism. If liberals and progressives abandon the idea of nationalism, I fear that they will be missing the opportunity to harness the energies capable of building solidarity and achieving long-standing progressive goals. There is tremendous potential for nationalism in the United States, particularly to address critical problems in our country such as economic inequality and poverty.
I am going to conceptualize the nation as an “imagined political community,” using the definition proffered by political scientist Benedict Anderson. As Anderson argues, even though the members of a nation will never meet most of their fellow members, they feel a special bond with them. In order for any nation to exist, there needs to be a national spirit or shared consciousness among its various members. This consciousness can be built by appealing to common ancestry and culture or by laying claim to a shared system of values and principles. While conceptions of the nation have been broadly and narrowly tailored throughout history, I believe that the idea of an “imagined political community” has always been at the heart of nationalism. This concept is particularly evident at the FIFA World Cup or any other international sports competition where multitudes of attendees collectively cheer on their national team.
A particularly compelling idea of nationalism is found in Theodore Roosevelt’s “New Nationalism” speech, delivered over one hundred years ago in Osawatomie, Kansas. As Roosevelt put it, “The New Nationalism puts the national need before sectional and personal advantage . . . [and] regards the executive power as the steward of the public welfare.” For me, Roosevelt captures exactly how progressives should understand and mobilize nationalism: to serve the broader public need and welfare. It was this form of nationalism that mobilized the volunteers who removed over 100,000 tons of debris from Ground Zero after 9/11 and motivated the over 90,000 health care workerswho signed up to assist overwhelmed hospitals in New York City during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Progressives should not be shy about expressing their patriotism. They need to stand strongly and unambiguously behind their own brand of nationalism, a version that prioritizes tolerance and inclusivity. As research by behavioral economists has shown, national identity can be deployed to encourage people to act more selflessly in the public interest. During World War II, Americans were mobilized to serve in the army and to work in war plants by an acute sense of patriotism and national identity. These efforts were bolstered by massive recycling efforts to save metal, rubber, and other household goods that generated much-needed supplies for those at the war front. Recently, American doctors mobilized national identity during the pandemic when they encouraged their fellow citizens to wear a mask and follow public health measures by appealing to a patriotic sensibility.
In a similar manner, we must utilize nationalism to convince Americans that we have a civic duty to provide each other with sufficient means to survive and the opportunities to pursue a fruitful life. Income inequality in the United States is significantly higher than in other developed nations in the world and has only been exacerbated by the Great Recession of 2008 and the COVID-19 pandemic. While some amount of economic inequality is necessary to incentivize entrepreneurship and economic growth, excessive inequality erodes trust in democracies and can fuel authoritarian movements. As of 2021, approximately 38 million Americans are living below the poverty line. Economists and policy experts argue that much of this poverty is due to a “reluctant welfare state.” The traditional sense of rugged individualism in the United States has led to the “tragedy of the commons,” a term coined by 19th-century British writer William Forster Lloyd to describe how purely selfish behavior on the part of individuals can lead to suboptimal outcomes for the whole group. Nationalism can be a tool to build solidarity across various coalitions in the United States and encourage individuals to contribute more to the public welfare through a fairer taxation code.
Nowadays, we hear much discourse about identity politics. Author and journalist Jonathan Rauch has provided a working definition for identity politics: “political mobilization organized around group characteristics such as race, gender, and sexuality, as opposed to party, ideology, or pecuniary interest.” While identity politics is often derided for being divisive and alienating, it is not inherently bad. Identity politics may even be necessary if people are being discriminated against because of a specific group characteristic that they hold. However, as intellectual historian Mark Lilla has argued, it is a mistake to think of the United States as being composed of various identity groups with discrete interests. We need to have a broader conception of what binds us together as Americans so we can address the problems that affect the majority of us. Our national identity can provide us not only with a sense of the individual rights we are entitled to, but also the duties that we have towards our fellow citizens. A shared national identity can also allow American citizens to work together to fight for those who are less privileged and bolster the struggle for a more equitable and just society.
I understand that many of my fellow liberals and progressives chafe at the idea of nationalism because it includes some people while excluding others. But this is true of any of our core identities. Humans are inherently tribal and we derive meaning through belonging to groups. For better or for worse, the nation is one of the few ideas that has allowed large groups of humans to come together beyond superficial characteristics and based on shared ideals. As the philosopher Anthony Appiah has argued, nationalism and cosmopolitanism are not mutually exclusive or fundamentally opposed to one another. We can have special bonds with fellow members of our nation while acknowledging that we have broader obligations to humanity as a whole. The brand of nationalism that liberals and progressives should harness can be found in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in his Letter from a Birmingham City Jail: “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly . . . Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.”
Before liberals and progressives give up on nationalism, we must consider what it can be rather than cede its potential to the far right. We should not perceive the hundreds of white supremacists who attended the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville or those who stormed the Capitol on January 6 to be the exemplification of nationalism. A narrow formulation of American identity is a choice made by certain extremist groups but is not by any means an obligation for American nationalism. Progressives and liberals should proudly stand by their brand of civic nationalism and utilize it to create solidarity and reach their policy goals.