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.
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?
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
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.
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.
"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"?
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.
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.
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.
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?
What effect has importing infinite Muslims into the country had on antisemitism?
'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?
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.
You are conflating patriotism and nationalism.
Nationhood used to be synonymous with race and ethnicity.
There you go, David.