Two Challenges To American Nationalism

Both illustrate the need to ground white identity politics in the real world

Is nationalism foreign to America? Are white Americans actually a people without a country?

Those are two challenges against American nationalism from two credible critics on the Right.

Conservative writer Aaron Renn recently argued against the concept of Christian nationalism that the whole term is out of sync with American society and culture.

America is not a “nation” in the European sense. Nationalism was a 19th-century European state-building movement. It was about constructing national identities out of the people in various estates and villages who spoke different dialects of the same language. America, on the other hand, is a continental empire—even if, like “nationalism,” “empire” is another word we would not use to describe ourselves. Manifest destiny was not about forming a nation out of a pre-existing sub-region with a shared history but about conquering and taming the West. America has always been something of a protean nation: restless, forward-looking, growth-oriented, constantly churning, changing and building. This makes it a bad fit for the imposition of some static concept of “nationhood.”

Renn argues it would be better for Americans to look to their own history and traditions for ways to make our country better. He prefers the term “America First” rather than nationalism, as he claims it resonates more with our people than the latter term. He says what we “need today, perhaps, is a modern-day FDR—a thoroughly American character who built solutions that would appeal to the people of this country.”

James Kirkpatrick, a repeat Highly Respected guest, dismisses America altogether. He says whites need to accept they have no country and work toward achieving a homeland of their own.

“My policy is simply that white Americans have no core interest other than our own survival and upward development, and insofar as we have a greater loyalty it is solely to the European diaspora,” Kirkpatrick recently posted on X. “I'm white, and as such, I'm a stateless person. So my loyalty is to my people alone.”

He followed up with a poll asking: “Is ‘Zionism’ for white people justified and necessary? Or to put it directly, white nationalism, a state explicitly dedicated to the preservation of white people and our upward development, and to be a homeland for all whites.”

Both perspectives are worth addressing. Renn’s challenge is one over framing. Kirkpatrick’s is over our very identity.

Renn’s position is pretty close to American nationalism. He just says we should call ourselves something else. His main point is that we should not try to impose alien ideas here. I largely agree with that. He clarified his point in a subsequent Substack article:

My view is that given the left’s general hostility to historic America and its symbols, the American right should double down on them. Adopting rhetoric around “post-liberalism,” “Catholic integralism,” or “Christian nationalism” does not do this.

Some of this semantics over terminology. But there is a need for that on the American Right. Too many on our side conjure up all kinds of fantastical ideologies that have zero chance of gaining power. It ranges from from theocratic monarchism to national bolshevism. To offline people, these niche ideologies sound like a very nerdy hobby rather than something that answers their everyday problems. Ordinary right-wingers prize patriotism, order, and faith. They don’t need some obscure philosophy to tell them these things are good. They just want a politics that defends what they care about and is expressed in terms they understand. “America First” resonates with them. It’s why Trump continues to use the term.

But while the right-wing rank-and-file are not eager for “integralism” or a Romanov restoration, they are open to the term nationalism. Trump declared himself a nationalist in 2018 to a MAGA rally’s approval. It’s a term now more popular in American discourse. It’s not something that alienates regular patriots. They would prefer to call themselves patriots, but they would also be fine with nationalism. Nationalism is not in the same category as other right-wing LARPs. Real-life Americans understand it and like it. They know it means putting America first and preserving the nation they love. That’s good enough for them.

American nationalism will be different from the European nationalisms of the 19th century, but it will be a nationalism nonetheless. It just needs to be grounded in the traditions and values actual Americans care about. 

Kirkpatrick’s challenge is much more radical. He feels we should abandon America entirely and see itself as a diaspora.  It assumes whites have a strong racial identity separate from the nation they live in. 

This framework imagines whites as downtrodden helots suffering under the occupier’s leash. They’re homeless both literally and metaphorically. Under this tyranny, whites have a strong identity with their fellow whites throughout the world. The answer to all these problems is for whites to have their own country, a white Israel. Much of this is influenced by anti-colonialist nationalism of the Third World, black nationalism, and pre-Israel Zionism. 

This may be inspiring to some on the internet, yet it would strike ordinary people as very strange. Whites may not be in full control of their countries, but they do have homelands. They are not stateless people. They strongly identify with the countries they live in. This is particularly true for the white Americans we want to reach. They fly the flag outside their home, proudly stand for the anthem, and despise those who trash the country they love. It’s not even a question for them whether they have a state. They proudly live in it. 

Seventy-two percent of white Americans say they are either very or extremely proud to be Americans. Just under 50 percent say they are extremely proud as compared to only 30 percent of non-whites who say the same. This strong pride in America contrasts with the lack of explicit racial consciousness among whites. Just 15 percent of whites feel their racial identity is important. Meanwhile, a majority of every other racial group says it’s important to them.

The white Americans who are proud Americans are primarily Republicans. Eighty-seven percent of Republicans say they are either or extremely proud to be Americans. These are the people who are most open to our ideas. And they place greater emphasis on national identity than racial identity. Most white Americans who are not proud of their country are very liberal. They’re more likely to support Antifa than the alt right.

There may come a day where diaspora whiteness appeals to a sizable demographic, but that day doesn’t await in the near future. This framing can only serve to marginalize nationalists to the fringes.

It’s imperative we reach people where they are. That requires us to root ourselves in the traditions and culture of our own country. We can invent whatever ideology we want on the internet, but it’s all useless if it appeals to no one in the real world. Whatever you call it, America Firstism/nationalism is still the best option before us.