The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
My New UnPopulist Article on How Nationalism is Driving the Growth of anti-Semitism on the Right
Nationalism has a longstanding historical connection to anti-Semitism, and the link between the two in the US today should not be surprising.

Today, the UnPopulist published my article "Nationalism Is Driving the Neo Right's Virulent Antisemitic Turn." It builds on my earlier Volokh Conspiracy post on the same topic, and also on 2024 National Affairs article "The Case Against Nationalism" (coauthored with Alex Nowrasteh). Originally, Alex and I were also going to coauthor this new article. But, after seeing my draft, Alex said he had little to add to it, though he very much agrees with the thesis. I am nonetheless grateful to Alex for his help in thinking through this topic, and for insights derived from his extensive expertise on it. Here is an excerpt from today's article:
American conservatism has been rocked by the rise of "Groyper" antisemitism within its ranks, roiling both official Republican Party organizations and some of the right's most influential intellectual organs….. Even now, the debate over this issue has largely overlooked the source of antisemitism's rise in conservative circles: the political right's increasing turn towards nationalism.
Nationalism doesn't just historically correlate with bigotry—it consistently drives antisemitism and other racial and ethnic prejudices. Indeed, nationalism intensifies preexisting antisemitic impulses. To the degree that today's conservatives decide to embrace—or even just make peace with—nationalism and dispense with the universalist liberal principles of the American Founding, they will find it difficult to impossible to stem the spread of antisemitism in their midst….
In October, Politico published an explosive report disclosing a selection of vile antisemitic and pro-Nazi messages from leaked group chats written by leaders of Young Republican chapters and various state GOP politicians and staffers. Later that month, Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts mired his organization in the controversy when he publicly defended prominent far-right podcaster Tucker Carlson—a longtime promoter of antisemitic ideas and conspiracy theories—after Carlson conducted a fawning interview promoting Nick Fuentes, an even more notorious antisemitic influencer who openly defends the Nazis….
The recent resurgence of right-wing antisemitism is rooted in the conservative movement's turn towards nationalism. It is no accident that it emerged at the same time as the political right—led by Trump—has increasingly defined American identity not in terms of universal liberal values but in terms of ethnic and racial identity. Many in the movement privilege native-born white Christians over other groups—and often even privilege "heritage Americans," defined as those (primarily whites) who can trace their ancestry in the U.S. over many generations all the way back to the Civil War or earlier.
Nationalist political movements—defined here as those that hold that the main purpose of government is to advance the interests of the nation's dominant ethnic group—have a long history of antisemitism and other bigotry….
A movement that exalts the interests of the ethnic and cultural majority and believes that these interests are the true foundation of the nation is inherently prone to viewing ethnic and religious minorities with suspicion and hostility. That may be especially true of minority groups with a large diaspora in many countries, a history that is perversely used against them as a reason to doubt their allegiance to the nations they live in.
These prejudices are exacerbated by Jews' disproportionate success in the commercial and intellectual worlds. Nationalists tend to believe such disproportionately successful minorities are encroaching on the rightful domain of the majority group. Such suspicion is heightened by the zero-sum worldview shared by most nationalists, under which one ethnic or racial group can only gain at the expense of others. Thus, if Jews are disproportionately successful, it must be at the expense of the ethnic majority.
Resentments are heightened by nationalists' historic predilection for conspiracy theories. If the ethnic majority has been denied its supposedly rightful position of dominance, nationalists readily assume that the cause must be some nefarious plot.
Later in the article, I explain how the best antidote to nationalism is embracing the universalist principles of the American Founding:
In his resignation statement from the Heritage board, Robert George urged Heritage to be guided by the principles of the Declaration of Independence, especially the idea "that each and every member of the human family, irrespective of race, ethnicity, religion, or anything else; … is 'created equal' and 'endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.'" George is right. Unlike nationalist movements focused on ethnic particularism, the American Founding was based on universal liberal principles…..
In his General Orders to the Continental Army, issued on the occasion of the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783, George Washington stated that one of the reasons the United States was founded was to create "an Asylum for the poor and oppressed of all nations and religions." Other leading Founding Fathers—including James Madison and Thomas Jefferson—expressed similar sentiments.
Washington sounded a similar theme in his famous 1790 letter to the congregation of the Rhode Island Touro Synagogue, in which he avowed that the United States has "an enlarged and liberal policy," under which "All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship," and that the U.S. government "gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance." America, he emphasized, went beyond "mere toleration" of Jews to granting them full equality. It could do so because American identity was based on universal liberal principles, not ethnic or religious particularism.
As noted in the article, there is also troubling anti-Semitism on the far left (which I previously wrote about here). That in no way justifies the right-wing nationalist variety (and vice versa).
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Nationalism could just as easily be a unifying factor for disparate groups, and allow previously oppressive majorities to accept minority groups as equal fellow citizens of the nation. That's especially true in the US, where we don't have an ethnic/cultural majority the way Europeans and others do (though the far left and the far right racists seem mutually dedicated to the notion that the widely disparate groups that make up "white" America are in fact a singular ethnic/cultural group). When MLK and Frederick Douglass appealed to the principles of the US Constitution, that was an appeal to a form of nationalism.
"where we don't have an ethnic/cultural majority "
Are you kidding? The whole point of modern nationalism is to reassert the dominance of white males.
"Nationalism could just as easily be a unifying factor for disparate groups,"
This is the most unintentionally white thing I have heard today. "Disparate groups" don't like each other any more than they like white people.
" the widely disparate groups that make up "white" America are in fact a singular ethnic/cultural group"
Perhaps your definition of "white" is broader than theirs.
Bubba, as a percentage of the total population, what was the largest group of non "white" people this nation ever had?
Wrong answer -- it was the Germans who settled the coastal plain and the Scotch Irish who settled Appalachia. They were not considered "white" -- they didn't even speak English -- they spoke German and Gaelic.
At least those people were Protestants -- in the late 19th Century there was significant immigration from Ireland and Italy. Cities such as Boston routinely had "Irish Catholics Need Not Apply" signs, and do not forget the NYC draft riots. And as to the Italians, Columbus Day was instituted as an apology -- look up Sacco & Vanzetti.
Yet you would consider these peoples to be "white."
This was "White America" of the 1970s -- and we were trying to include Black America.
THAT is what America is, not a melting pot but various peoples becoming white. Becoming Americans, with American values -- between baseball, automobiles, and consumer manufacturing, the Japanese became more American than *we* are...
Read Daniel Patrick Moynahan's Report on the American Negro.
The Black illegitimacy rate is 76% -- if you adjust for that, the Black poverty rate drops to the median.
Black guys are smart, why pay for the cow if the milk is free?
Most of their woman are cows, after all.
The scotch-irish didn't speak gaelic. They spoke Scots.
There was no point when Germans or Scots-Irish in the U.S. weren't considered white.
"The whole point of modern nationalism is to reassert the dominance of white males." That's absurd.
It is absurd but it is also true. The modern nationalist movement is indeed absurd. Its leader is even exploring having non-white native-born Americans deported, because he is insane.
What paint store supplied the color palette that you use to identify and stereotype individual human beings with?
Nationalism could just as easily be a unifying factor for disparate groups,
Sure. It could be.
But it isn't, usually. Maybe that's because it's not really well-defined, and often ends up including ethnicity or religion as part of what makes one a member of a nation.
It is usually. It acted to unify the American, British, Italian, French, and German nations under the concept that people should work towards the nation.
Really think about it. Why as an American do you devote so much of your tax dollars towards some random person who may live 2000 miles away and share basically nothing in common with you, other than you live in same country? What purpose is there? Why do you do it? Why do you care? As opposed to some other random group of person who don't live in your country?
Leaving aside the US, are there other countries in the world?
And do you deny that there are movements in the US that define it in ethnic or religious terms? What are those Christian Nationalists on about, do you think, or anyone who wants to define the US as a "Christian nation?"
I did reference 4 different countries besides the US in post. Nationalism in the UK united several disparate ethnic groups.
And simply because there are some people who seek to use a major theme "incorrectly" it doesn't mean that's the only...or even predominant...use.
Indeed, Nationalism has often been used to unite separate ethnic, racial, and religious groups under a cohesive whole.
That may or may not be true.
But MAGA is explicitly not about uniting any of those groups under a cohesive whole.
Rather the opposite, really.
Protect but do not bind white straight males.
Bind but do not protect everyone else
"Bind but do not protect everyone else"
If you're just going to strawman, then...
Sarcastr0 20 hours ago
"But MAGA is explicitly not about uniting any of those groups under a cohesive whole."
That is a description of the critical race theory - and other racist policies embraced by the left.
Often?? A few examples would be helpful.
Got any?
Russia, America, Canada, Mexico, most of Latin America, India....
that kind of melting-pot nationalism works when the minority is willing to subsume their cultural and ethnic identity into the gestalt. that's largely how Italian and Irish immigrants (historically) and Asian immigrants (today) have melded in.
it doesn't work with Jews, because Jewish ethnoreligious identity has for two millennia evolved to survive assimilation in the diaspora. I don't think that's a bad thing at all, but it requires multiculturalism.
multiculturalism is in tension with nationalism. where national culture and ethnic culture conflict, one has to win. this weakens how absolute and expansive national culture can become. ultranationalists (at least outside of Israel) will always be antisemitic, because ultranationalism will not tolerate Jews maintaining their culture.
Hank Greenberg and Sandy Koufax dissent.
Ilya -- E N O U G H !
I'm not antisemetic -- yet -- but if schmucks like you keep attacking that which I value, what I *am*, I eventually likely will become so.
This is -- always has been -- a Christian country. One that has bent over backwards to be decent to non-Christians but if you would be happier in Russia --- GO BACK there... Or to Israel. Or to the Moon for all I care.
What people like you fail to understand is that there ARE right wing bigots AND that they recruit. And the reason why people like me tell them to go Fire trUCK themselves is because of the values that this country supports -- the CHRISTIAN values. Destroy those and -- well how did the Wiemar Republic work out -- and we are deeper in debt than Germany was then...
Yes. There are too many left-wing Jews in America who can't get over the fact that someone wasn't allowed into a golf club back in 1950.
So instead of realizing that America has changed for the better, they insist on flooding America with unassimilable immigrants to weaken the Christian majority. They do that, and fill America with Muslims and other third worlders, and then they act shocked, SHOCKED, that the Mamdanis of the world get elected.
In particular, a lot of the immigrants hate Jews, hate Zionism, and hate many of Somin's libertarian principles.
Yes, exactly. They are too deluded to realize that they are biting the hand that feeds them.
You should feel right at home among them.
Yeah, Ilya, if you keep attacking antisemitism - Ed's core value - he will eventually become antisemitic. That's just logic.
Yes, I took on Hussain Ibish because of my core value of antisemitism.
Right.
Sigh.
I mean, you didn't. I'm not even sure what that means. But there is significant overlap between Islamophobia and antisemitism, so even if you had in some sense it's not really meaningful. What is meaningful are your antisemitic comments right here, in this very topic. I can look at them right now and see.
"defined here as those that hold that the main purpose of government is to advance the interests of the nation's dominant ethnic group"
And this is known as "begging the question".
Your comment is a rare instance of "begging the question" being used correctly.
So you agree that this group, no matter what you call it, is bad?
If by "this group", you mean, "those that hold that the main purpose of government is to advance the interests of the nation's dominant ethnic group"?
Sure. But defining 'nationalism' in this way IS begging the question.
If you define nationalism as racism, then of course it's racist. But that's not the standard definition of nationalism:
na·tion·al·ism
/ˈnaSH(ə)nəˌlizəm/
noun
identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.
The MAGA movement and media call their position "nationalism." If you aren't calling them out on it when they do it, you have no business calling out their opponents for using the same term. It's a special case of equivocation, and it's a dishonest rhetorical technique.
And what exactly do you define this position that "MAGA" is saying is "nationalism"?
Gosh, this sure looks like a good-faith question that I will certainly spend a lot of time and thought answering.
Now I think David is begging the question. (h/t Brett).
The critical question is who constitutes the "nation," and who is an outsider. Historically, all too often, as I noted above, nationalists have defined the "nation" in ethnic or religious terms.
And that is happening in the US. Just check out Dr. Ed's comment above:
This is -- always has been -- a Christian country. One that has bent over backwards to be decent to non-Christians but if you would be happier in Russia --- GO BACK there... Or to Israel. Or to the Moon for all I care.
Now, he's a liar, a clown and an idiot, but more seriously, the rise of Christian nationalism suggests that there are plenty of Americans who agree with him.
Citizens make up the nation. My dividing line has consistently been citizens vs non-citizens.
Government routinely does horrific things, which we would recognize as crimes if done by anybody else. It routinely violates the libertarian non-aggression principle. It is defined by violating the non-aggression principle; No entity that failed to violate it would recognizably be a "government".
And the primary victims of this are the citizens. Everybody else is just collateral damage.
The only even remotely viable excuse for all of this, the taxes, the orders and prohibitions, is that it is done for our own good, in areas where inaction is simply not an option, and no less awful means could accomplish it.
Once government decides to pursue the good of non-citizens at the expense of citizens, this excuse falls apart, and all that is left behind is oppression. To do all this for somebody else's good is simply inexcusable.
So, I conclude that if government is to have any excuse for existing, it must be acting for the welfare of its own citizens, with any benefit to others only incidental, with the rights of others a mere side constraint, not a primary concern.
And is this not nationalism?
I remember when you protested you weren’t a nativist it was only illegals.
It’s a pretty common trajectory.
Nativist: "relating to or supporting the policy of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants."
Or established. Once somebody naturalizes, they're just as much a citizen as somebody born here with ancestors born here going back five generations. A full member of the club, with one constitutionally dictated exception: They can't be President.
But until they're members of the club, they are not in the group the club exists to benefit.
You're right, I should have specified you claimed to favor immigratns and immigration.
Now you don't.
Have you ever met a permanent resident seeking citizenship? Or an immigrant student seeking to stay here?
The circle of those you dehumanize grows ever larger.
"Have you ever met a permanent resident seeking citizenship? Or an immigrant student seeking to stay here?"
I'm a member of the Phi-Am association, being married to a woman who at one time was a permanent resident seeking citizenship. I run into Green card holders on nearly a daily basis. A lot of my friends are naturalized immigrants. At work, too, as I work at a multi-national, and some of our employees who came here on H1-B visas decided to apply for permanent residence and eventually citizenship.
I've said repeatedly that a large fraction of the world population would like to live in the US, and that we ought to take advantage of that to skim the world's cream. Because that is what it is most advantageous to US citizens to do!
That it's also advantageous to the "cream" is a bonus, but can not, for the reasons I have already detailed, be the motivation for admitting them here.
What's most advantageous to US citizens is not no immigration. It is selective immigration. Somin at all costs wants immigration to be unselective, because his goal in supporting immigration isn't benefit to US citizens, it's benefit to the immigrants themselves. So he rationalizes that unselective immigration at high levels will benefit citizens, because it's up to citizens whether it happens. But it's only rationalization.
The fact is that we have a limited capacity to accept immigrants, and still keep the US a nice place to live. Within those limits, we should admit the best possible immigrants, not any random warm body.
I'm glad some of your best friends are.
But your 'I care about citizens' is a change from your previous position about 'I'm only against illegals.'
DMN pointed out how such distinctions from the right tend to end up being eyewash, and here you are.
"your previous position about 'I'm only against illegals.'"
My position has NEVER been that I'm only against illegals. That's an imbecilic over-simplification.
My position has always been that we should have selective immigration designed to benefit already existing Americans.
This naturally leads to being opposed to illegal immigration, because selective immigration means squat if you allow people to bypass the selection. Worse, illegals are anti-selected, they are defined by their willingness to violate our laws, something any rational immigration system selects against.
If all I were concerned about were illegal immigration, then, per Somin, the most straightforward solution would be to just legalize all immigration.
It's like bank robbery: If your only objection to bank robbers were JUST that they were robbers, you could neatly eliminate bank robbery by having banks just automatically give anybody who walked in all the money they asked for, no questions asked. Bingo, no more bank robbery!
Of course, the banks would speedily go bankrupt, and the actual depositors would be ruined, but this just underscores that nobody cares about bank robbery qua bank robbery, they care about maintaining a functioning banking system.
Similarly, nobody just cares about illegal immigration in the mindlessly stupid way you suggest: They care about having a functioning immigration system, and object to illegal immigration because it defeats that system.
I assume your nationalism, then, is multiethnic and multicultural. after all, Zohran Mamdani is a US citizen, so he is an equal member of the Nation as you or I.
Zohran can lose his citizenship. Naturalized is not equal to natural born.
But that is the standard definition of nationalism — entirely consistent with what you quoted — if a nation is defined in racial (ethnic) terms. In common American parlance many people use "nation" as synonymous with "country" — in which case "nationalism" would not be that different from "patriotism" — but that's not the way it was used historically. (If it were, then "nation state" would be a redundant term, and we couldn't talk about "white nationalism.")
"if a nation is defined in racial (ethnic) terms."
And, again, this is begging the question. Yes, nationalism is racist if you define nationalism as being racist. Congratulations, you've generated a tautology: You're automatically right, and nobody cares.
Tell us about the whole Real Americans thing then.
Or the bigots on here agreeing with DMN. MAGA patriots all.
Real Americans are American citizens.
That's now how the right uses that phrase and you know it.
Ask yourself why you need to lie about this.
I have been consistent on this point for literally decades.
I don't know that I've ever seen you use Real American, especially with capitals.
That's because if "Real Americans" are just American citizens, why wouldn't you just say "American citizens"? And so I do.
Unlike nationalist movements focused on ethnic particularism, the American Founding was based on universal liberal principles…..
No. Read John Locke -- and a bunch more but Locke will help.
The American Founding was based on the Western Christian Liberal Enlightenment -- values which then expanded beyond the initial Christian concept (Israel, clearly not a Christian country, has adopted them).
Washington sounded a similar theme in his famous 1790 letter to the congregation of the Rhode Island Touro Synagogue
Washington had no right to discuss the religion laws of the separate states, particularly before the 14th Amendment. Rhode Island had a STATE policy of religious tolerance (as did Pennsylvania), Masschusetts and Connecticut did not. (The Congregational Church would remain the official taxpayer-supported church in Massachusetts until 1855.)
Check your facts, Ilya...
Washington had no right to discuss the religion laws of the separate states,
He had every right to do so, and you would do well to take his words to heart.
He had every right to discuss them. Just not to do anything regarding them. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"; "Respecting" = "Having to do with". The whole topic was entirely barred as a subject of legislation, either positive or negative.
And as most of a President's authority derives from legislation, Washington, while he had the right to discuss those laws, (As confirmed by that self same 1st amendment!) he had no right to ACT concerning them, in even the least regard.
He had every right to discuss them.
Which is exactly what I said. Do you have an objection?
Did he act to establish a national religion? I'm not aware that he ever did so.
You might consider that I was agreeing with you.
What values do you claim are Christian?
And the Enlightenment was not a Christian endeavour - quite the contrary.
The Enlightenment was nearly 100% Christian.
Nope. Most Enlightenment participants were Christian (originally, at least) but that doesn't make it Christian itself. The Premiership isn't Christian, and neither is McDonalds.
Heh. Has Dr. Ed ever checked his facts? Like, for instance, the fake one he posted the sentence before?
I'm not so sure I agree with you a 100% on your Police work there, IS.
It wasn't Right Wingers murdering Israelis on October 7, supporting Ham-Ass, Nick Fuentes? I don't even know who that is, you know who I do know who is? Mullah Ill-hand Omar, Priapism Slap-a-Jap, Hakeem the (Bad) Dream Jefferson, and Ayatollah Zoran Mandamn-he,
You know who was helping fill in for the Israeli First Responders, Doctors, Nurses, called up after October 7? "Right Wing" First Responders, Doctors, Nurses from Amurica, many of them Non-Jews, funny, I didn't see many Mullah Omar's volunteering.
Frank
Is it true that the average IQ in both Somalia and the Gaza Strip is only 68?!?
That's two standard deviations below the norm, generally considered to be mentally retarded or whatever we are calling it this week.
If this is true, this is a issue...
Is it true that the average IQ in both Somalia and the Gaza Strip is only 68?!?
No. It's not true. It's a malicious falsehood, only swallowed by jackasses like you.
Is it true that the average IQ in Dr. Ed's household is only 68?
Only if some members of the household have IQ's well above 68.
You're determined to be VC's answer to Max Naumann
Somin is a Russian Jew telling us to be against nationalism ... in the USA! Go tell Israel to abolish nationalism.
If there is a rise in anti-semitism in the USA, it is almost entirely leftists who are opposed to Israel nationalism. Go tell them. The post is barking up the wrong tree.
There is also the fact you have conservatives like Ben Shapiro that think the US should spend infinite blood and treasure ensuring Israel's existence which doesn't always play well. Nevermind people like Bernstein and his "conservatives support Israel wrong so I'll go looking for allies at this gays for Palestine rally" sentiment which makes me say good luck and fuck off on the topic.
When did Bernstein look for allies at any Palestine rally?
So the fact that you disagree with Shapiro justifies your antisemitism, and that of others?
I am an American.
What characteristics do you claim make you an American?
You obviously don't have American values.
Not those fake values promoted by anti-Americans like Somin.
You are a mind-reader with a 0% success rate.
The thing is, this is false under any definition.
Somin is a Russian Jew
Note. Not a Russian, not an American. A Russian Jew.
Yes, and it is relevant when he posts an anti-American, anti-nationalist, leftist rant.
What effect has importing infinite Muslims into the country had on antisemitism?
FFS.
1. We don't import Muslims. If we did, Trump would have tried to put a tariff on it.
2. While you see various numbers bandied about (usually 4.5 million today) those are usually taken from people trying to take the "highest end estimate" from the inaccurate extrapolation of the Religion Census (protip- the Census doesn't record religion). Accurate numbers reflect approximately 3.5 million around the time, but let's split the difference and say 4 million. Regardless, they're about (a little over) 1% of the US population.
3. Do you really need a history lesson about anti-Semitism in the United States? Really? Should I start with Henry Ford? The Ivy Leagues? Do you want to discuss ... country clubs?
Yeah, that. A lot of people point to the 1990 Shoal Creek controversy as being a turning point because it put a spotlight on exclusion of African-Americans. But it was also a turning point in the exclusion of Jews- because the PGA would no longer hold tournaments at clubs that refused to have black or Jewish members. In fact, Tom Watson (pretty famous golfer and good guy) resigned his membership in a club that refused to admit a Jewish applicant that year.
I could keep going, but you should get the idea. Why ... is there some golden age of America that you'd like to return to? Maybe you're forgetting some details about how that really was.
Why didn't you answer the question in Kleppe's post? You completely ignored the effect of a growing, foreign born Muslim population on anti-Semitism in the United States.
No doubt your Trump Derangement Syndrome prevented it.
'That's not what nationalism means!' posts from the MAGA right wingers in amongst the openly bigoted posts from the MAGA right wingers, fitting that definition to a tee.
Yes, when Somin cites George Washington for anti-nationalism, Somin misunderstands nationalism.
Nationalism really is a powerful focus that is underappreciated.
Think about it. Why pay so much in tax revenue? Why volunteer to "serve your country"? Why care about politics? Why care one bit more when some random natural disaster in California or Louisiana hits, rather than in another country somewhere...
So Somalians can steal your tax money and send it to terrorists in their home country.
Perhaps they would benefit from more nationalist feelings to become more loyal to America?
Somalis have Somali nationalism.
I'd argue they don't even have that. Somali "nationalism" is weak, at best...and may be part of the issues Somalia has.
Loyalty to their family and ethnic group at home? Sure. But to a concept of Somalia? Not really.
Another key element of nationalism is "loyalty". Who...or what...are you as a person loyal towards?
The current day status is one is loyal towards the concept of one's nation. But...what predated this?
One could be loyal towards an individual...this was the classic concept of chieftains and feudalism. Systematic chains of loyalty. Is this a better option? Or perhaps, one should be loyal towards one's religion and religious rulers? Or perhaps one should be loyal towards one's own family and ethnic group over all other bonds? Or perhaps one should just consider being loyal only to themselves.
These are important questions to consider. If one wants to eliminate the concept of nationalism, what is to replace it?
Nationhood used to be synonymous with race and ethnicity. People are always going to be more loyal to their own.
I see British whites as much more of my "people" than the crotch dropping of a "migrant" from El Salvador that was done at our expense in one of our hospitals.
"I see British whites"
What are "British Whites"? A mixture of Scots, English, Welsh, Scots-Irish. And that's just to get started.
You add on every other ethnicity that married in or immigrated. German, Dutch, Indian, Jamaican, Irish....
You are conflating patriotism and nationalism.
You don't get patriotism without nationalism. Nationalism literally is defined as "identification with one's own nation and support for its interests"
Patriotism is "devotion to and vigorous support for one's country"
You can't have that without identifying with the country in the first place.
You’ve never seen people distinguish patriotism from nationalism?
Your semantic games are overdetermined.
Again: countries and nations are different concepts.
I see you took this to the open thread. It doesn't seem to be going well for you.
Nationhood used to be synonymous with race and ethnicity.
There you go, David.
Like John Denver, that guy who said "Light is the best Disinfectant" is full of Shit (Man)!!!!!
Wake up! Most of the antisemitism in this country is on the left. Yes, I know that you (Somin) are a leftist and a Jew.
Turns out that a week or two ago, Twitter/X allowed people to see where posts were geographically coming from. And guess what? The bulk of what you call right wing antisemitic nationalist posts weren’t coming from Alabama, Georgia, Florida, etc. They were coming from the Muslim world, and especially the Middle East, pretending to be conservatives. Americans. It’s mostly a false flag operation, being run by Muslims in order to reduce support for Israel on the right in the US (your leftist friends are already antisemitic and anti-Israel). Congrats. You fell for their false flag campaign!
That is, in fact, a good point. Heck, we don't know which of the commenters HERE are actually sitting at stations in Pakistani troll farms.
We just know that a significant fraction of the hate on the internet that claims to be domestic is anything but. Probably all across the political spectrum.
1 They weren't Muslims. They were from Africa and Indonesia and Ecuador. Anyplace with cheap labor.
2. Word was these were engagement farmers *paid by twitter*. And hardly all of them were political.
Hence the swift change back to no one can see where anyone is from.
But of course you love the false flag of it all. Another conspiracy! MAGA isn't as hateful as they seem, it's all Muslims trying to make it so!
I'd love if it were true, but so far this is nowhere near supported.
In the meantime, you'll have to look elsewhere to justify ignoring the bigoted side of MAGA.
1. Where did I say they were?
2. I think there's a relevant difference between, "Twitter hires Pakistanis to pretend to be American Nazis in the GOP" and "Twitter's stupid engagement algorithm makes it a paying proposition for Pakistanis to pretend to be American Nazis in the GOP."
1. Look at the comment your applied approvingly to.
2. I don't think there is much of a difference. Pay directly versus make a system that pays automatically. Both are knowingly done, and the upshot is exactly the same.
Gloves ? Buy any gloves in the past decade or two ? Made in CHINA ... except the white sheepskin type - Made in Pakistan.
.... or sitting in faculty offices of Ivory Tower trolls farms in the United States spewing their hate for anything outside their narrow ideological range.
Frankly, the extreme left and extreme right are often very similar.
Maybe Somin is part of a Russian troll farm. He posts knee-jerk anti-Americanism on a range of issues. Citing George Washington in favor of anti-nationalism is something that a foreign troll would say. It has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.
I often disagree with Professor Somin, but he’s no Russian troll. Being an extreme nationalist and hating ones country are not the only possible alternatives. There are many approaches in between. Condemning one extreme does not mean one is advocating the other.
If not for false choices, Roger would have no choices at all.
Indeed, I've often said that Somin loves America. The problem is, he loves America so much he wants to share it with everybody, and can't accept that doing that would destroy it.
Alternatively, Somin loves his own idea of what America is to the exclusion of all others.
It seems to me the real problem is taking things to extreme. America always had a blend of nationalism and universalism. And there’s nothing wrong with having national pride,
By way of analogy, it’s fine to cheer for the home team. But it becomes very ugly very fast when people take this to the point of rioting in the streets or assaulting fans of the opposing team.
But at the same time if, having seen sports fans riot, you then go to the other extreme and completely outlaw showing any sign of cheering or fan loyalty, sooner or later a new generation will come that will see the ban as grossly irrational and will completely rebel, with none of the breaks or social mores against rioting that might have developed if moderate but not extreme cheering is allowed.
Too much myopic discourse. The profusion of labels hides truth.
Live your life and be free. Switch off the distractions and click-bait.
Peace and good will to all !