The Tradition of Liberal Nationalism
The Indispensable Creed: Liberal Nationalism and the Future of American Democracy
Liberal nationalism is the only viable framework for preserving and advancing American democracy in the 21st century. It is a nationalism rooted in the principles of the Declaration of Independence, recognizing that every citizen has inherent worth and stands equal before the law. The idea is that when an office holder leaves their position, they become a private citizen once again with no retained titles. It is a nationalism that rejects racialism, resists partisan tribalism, and instead fosters unity through shared purpose. Unlike the narrower nationalisms of Europe, American nationalism has always been expansive—an identity formed not only by bloodlines but by belief, by a commitment to liberty, justice, and the common good. The American nation is a federation of families: old families and new ones that choose to fully and unreservedly join our national family. This ethos has been the foundation of American greatness, and it must be defended and carried forward into the future, whether by Democrats or Republicans, or both together, or even some new grouping that replaces them.
Our national heritage cannot simply toss overboard those leaders who did not live up to expectations and failed morally at times, sometimes horribly so. History is not so simple. Only those blinded by self-righteousness and historical amnesia would equate George Washington and Robert Lee solely on the basis of slave ownership, ignoring the difference between a nation's founder and a man who sought to break it. Likewise, dismissing Andrew Jackson's defense of the Union due to his failures ignores a fundamental truth: whatever his flaws, he fought for the nation's survival. At the end of the day, patriotism and treason are not interchangeable.
Andrew Jackson, in his Proclamation regarding Nullification, forcefully articulated the value of American unity. The United States, he declared, is a bond that ties together diverse states and their peoples, giving all the proud title of American citizen. Jackson's vision was clear: national unity is not merely a political convenience but a moral imperative. The Union is the very framework through which commerce thrives, knowledge spreads, and security is ensured. It is the refuge of the oppressed, the land where opportunity is real, and the state whose name commands respect around the world.
Jackson understood what modern America risks forgetting: disunion is self-destruction. Whether by regional secession, cultural balkanization, or factionalism that pits Americans against one another, the forces of division are threats not just to governance but to civilization itself. A fractured America would be easy prey for foreign adversaries who would take malignant joy in its decline. Something the president of the Russian Federation would desire as his former country, the Soviet Union, and its experiment with communism collapsed. Sounds like a personal problem. We should not make his problems our own. This is why liberal nationalism is necessary—because only through a harmonious national identity can the American way endure. After 250 years, we are no longer an "experiment." We are a nation, and we must act like it proudly.
Abraham Lincoln, in his Gettysburg Address, reaffirmed the moral foundation of the nation: it is dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. This is the cornerstone of liberal nationalism. Unlike small-ethnic nationalisms that derive identity exclusively from ancestry, American nationalism is built on the creed of equality, liberty, and self-government. English is the language of our Republic, not by accident but by inheritance. It is the language of our ancestors, our founding documents, our legal system, and our civic discourse. The language is a bridge to the American tradition. Those who come to this nation and embrace its ideals will find that learning its language is not a burden but a gateway to full participation in the national family. Compared to the sacrifices made by Americans of all colors—native-born and immigrant alike—who lie buried in Arlington, mastering the language of liberty is a small price to pay for the privilege of citizenship. To abandon this creed—to retreat into racialism, sectarianism, or division—is to abandon the essence of the nation itself as our ancestors willed it to become.
Lincoln recognized that national unity is not merely a matter of political stability but of moral responsibility. In his Second Inaugural Address, he acknowledged that even in a nation divided by civil war, Americans read the same Bible, prayed to the same God, and sought divine favor for their cause. In this, he reminded the country that despite its divisions, it was still one family, one people, bound by shared traditions and moral obligations. Our liberal nationalism does not demand uniformity of belief in all things, but it does require a shared commitment to the good of the nation as a whole. Liberal nationalism proposes that the USA of 1865 was able to become the USA that embraces and encompasses Christians and non-Christians.
Theodore Roosevelt, in his New Nationalism speech, declared that national interest must come before sectional or class advantage. The strength of the Republic comes not from unchecked individualism or regionalism but from a government dedicated to the welfare of the people. Roosevelt understood that true American nationalism does not serve the interests of the powerful alone, nor does it devolve into nativism or exclusion. Rather, it must be broad and capacious, ensuring that all Americans—regardless of background—have a stake in the nation's success.
Liberal nationalism does not seek over-centralization; it honors federalism but understands that America was built on the balance between local autonomy and national authority. But it also rejects the fragmentation of the country into a collection of rival factions. It calls for a government that represents the people and upholds human dignity rather than serving only wealth and power. A nation that loses its sense of common purpose—that allows itself to be fragmented by ideological extremism or economic exploitation and foreign interests—ceases to be a nation of free people. It becomes a divided house to be ruled by the vain and selfish.
American nationalism is a bit distinct from European nationalism. It does not have a defined end date, as did the national unifications of 1870 or 1871. It has a start date: July 1776. It is a nationalism of persistent solidarity for the common good. It is a nationalism that affirms the equal worth of every citizen, the duty of the state to promote their welfare, and the need to maintain a moral order that allows families and communities to flourish. It is not neutral anarchy, but structured liberty—the freedom to live in peace, to raise families according to one's faith and traditions, and to take pride in a shared civic identity. The logic of American nationhood has no expiration date. This is the liberal nationalism of America's Protestant heritage that rejected a national sectarian religious establishment, gave freedom of religion to the small religious minorities, the ethos that built the nation's economic system, took the Magna Carta more seriously than the British, and developed the idea of a culture of opportunity. This is the liberal nationalism that welcomed immigrants from Europe and around the world, offering them not just jobs but membership in a national family. To reject this nationalism is to deny the forces that made America the greatest.
A country without a national vision is a country in decline. The work of preserving the Republic, the Union, and democracy itself is difficult, but it is a duty that must not be shirked. Liberal nationalism demands action. It calls for a rejection of racialism, which seeks to divide Americans against one another. It calls for a rejection of partisanship that prioritizes party over country. And it calls for an embrace of national responsibility—a recognition that America is not merely a collection of individuals but a shared assignment of self-government.
Americans are not ashamed to be liberals, patriots, and nationalists. Our task is to ensure that America remains strong, unified, and free—not just today but for all generations to come. The alternative is unacceptable. As Frederick Douglass said, and many like to quote him: "Power concedes nothing without a demand." It is time to demand a renewal of American nationalism, rooted in its liberal and democratic traditions. Liberals have to make a clear declaration: America is good, America is ours, and America is worthy of our loyalty. The Republic depends on it.
I don't think the real problem is with 70% of the American people being onboard with what you argue here, rather it is that the government (writ large and with a broad brush), especially the 4th branch of government, the permanent bureaucracy, does not support it. Too many, and far too many in the House of Representatives and the Senate no longer hold these views. Rather they see themselves as somehow our "betters," a neofeudal nobility interested in increasing their own power in some cheap version of Games of Thrones or increasing their own lucre. Let's take Anthony Lord Fauci as a prime example, he crushed any of the patent-expired medications that had proven efficacy in the early treatment of Covid. Fauci was well aware of the efficacy of HCQ, Ivermectin, Z-packs, Vitamin D, and Zinc in treating similar viruses as early as 2004. But he forbade their use in the US and pressured other governments to go along with him. The result, the countries with the "best" medical systems in the world, the US and Western Europe as well as our neighbors to the North Canada had the highest mortality rates from Covid in the world, while countries where the use of HCQ and Ivermectin was common for other issues and often taken over the counter as prophylactics against Malaria, parasites and other diseases common in poorer regions of the world and equally poor medical systems had some of the lowest mortality rates in the world. Why you might ask -- because Anthony Lord Fauci had economic interest in novel untested, and in retrospect dangerous vaccines, and Remdesivir produced by Gilead one of whose major investors was none other than Bill Lord Gates.
I could dozens of other examples from the spouses of folks in Congress heading up NGOs that were virtually totally supported by taxpayer funds, to the incredible wealth gained by folks in Congress while in office, to the revolving door from the military and congress into lucrative businesses that they had been involved with while in government service.
I might argue that we no longer have a government, we have multiple interlocking crime families that are as crooked, corrupt, and criminal as any Irish, Italian, Russian, or Mexican crime families and possibly more so. At least with the various "mob" families they're honest about what they are doing rather than wrapping themselves in the Flag and the good of the American people.