Está en la página 1de 4



American Nationalism is Civic Not Ethnic

By Clifford Angell Bates| February 9, 2017

M any critics of Trump and his supporters argue that the president’s
immigration policies are pushing America toward an ethnic identity
nationalism that is wholly at odds with what it means to be an American.
These critics are confused, in part, by a failure to distinguish between
ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism. But it is also the case that many of
Trump’s defenders have helped to encourage this confusion by neglecting
to make this distinction clear in their own speech. However unintentional
these omissions may be, they lead many liberals and conservatives to react
with horror and disbelief—unwilling, it seems, to give Trump or his
supporters any benefit of the doubt.

Too many see nationalism with European lenses and, therefore, as

something wholly at odds with the American political experience as well as
with the concept of American Exceptionalism. Yet the most serious of
Trump’s intellectual defenders speak of nationalism as something more
interchangeable with the concept of love of the country and its people.
And because there are different ways by which “a people” are constituted
into a political form—the very term “nation” needs to be clarified. A
people can come into being by tribe and by birth, or it may come into
being by events and a professed political understanding.

Understanding this will allow us to distinguish between “civic nationalism”

and “ethnic nationalism”— and this is necessary because America was
made a nation through our common civic identity as Americans. Ethnically
speaking, we have always been something of a mixture.

For most of the 19th century, the term “nationalism” was taken to refer to
the ethnic nation rather than to the civic nation. But if we look at the
Founders and much of American political culture up until the rise of the
Progressives, the form of our identity was our common constitutional
culture and citizenship under the Union. This difference between two
political trajectories—the American one and the European one—needs to
be taken into account if we are not to confuse or conflate what is going on
in America with what is happening across Europe. Although there are
some similarities (a revolt against an out of touch bureaucracy and a
popular disdain for ineffective immigration policies) Europeans and
Americans mean vastly different things when they talk about their nations
or “nationalism.”

The European experience of nationalism arose out of a reaction against the

French Revolution and its overturning of the aristocratic and monarchical
states of Europe. What the Revolution promised what the rule of the
people, but what resulted in reality was the rule of the French over the
Germans, the Dutch, the Spanish, and so on. This was resented by the
various peoples who felt that the Revolution did not deliver what was
promised because most of them understood “the people” to be their own
ethnic and national group. As a result, these various peoples demanded that
they should be governed by their own kind rather than by foreigners.

Nationalism in this context meant ethnic self-determination. The people of

Europe began to identify along racial and ethnic terms. A European
understood his people to be only those people with a shared set of
involuntary accidents of birth such as common ethnic and racial bonds. He
was not, in other words, “European,” but “French,” “German,” “Italian,”
“Spanish,” and so on. These identities produce a common language, habits,
and religious experience and the bonds of ethnicity—which are pre-existing
and involuntary—offer an immediate and ready-made shared community
that provides a basis by which a state could appear to be already present.
Aristotle noted that a political community could also be constituted and
formed between people of different stock—that is to say between different
ethnicities and even races—but that if such a community was going to
avoid constant civil strife arising from those differences and potential
fissures, the community would need a cooperative spirit to arise. As
Aristotle put it, they would need to “draw breath together” so that they can
operate as a team—in other words, like a team of horses with a common
yoke binding them to work together.

Because a political community is not merely a once off coming together for
a limited time or purpose, it must be centered around something more than
a utilitarian contract between strangers. It requires that those who form it
see themselves as sharing a common life together as they live together. It
requires them to see their fellow citizens as one would view a sibling or, at
least, as a potential friend—where one has some presumption of affection.
And while friendship could emerge out of the relationship of shared utility,
what makes the friendship of citizens is confidence in the feeling of philia,
the love and care for your brother or friend. It is only natural then—and
even good—for citizens to concern themselves with the content of the
character of those with whom they are going to share their lives.

Thus a civic nation is formed politically and not ethnically. Its origins are
found in an act of volition by the people who formed it to live together as
a common people, to share a way of life together and not as a loose set of
isolated individuals who only bother to associate for exchange of goods
and services. And in forming the political community they give it laws and
customs that will continue to shape the political culture of its citizens. In
other words, they create a “civics” for that nation.

Contrary to the various pundits who recoil at the very mention of

nationalism, the American political experience does include the need for a
bond of common identity. This identity must be one that can be some
form of lasting unity that can be passed down to the generations. The
existence of mere economic bonds is not enough. Economic bonds of
shared utility or advantage can only hold together people as long as the
utility or advantage remains; once the utility and advantage is no longer
present the need and benefit of the relationship ends. Such bonds come
and go. These are the marks of a treaty, not of nationhood. With such
fragile bonds one need not have care nor love for the other parties

Therefore a political community although it may be composed of different

kinds of people needs must see itself as a people—that is to
say one people—if it is to survive and not tear itself apart. The bonds of
citizenship are a two-way street. That street encompasses the desire
individuals have to belong to and share a life with those who will be their
fellow citizens as well as the desire and willingness those citizens have to
accept any given individual as one of their own. Membership in this
community is formed not on basis of ethnic or racial identity, but upon the
desire a person has to become a member of that community and the
willingness of the community to accept that person. This is a political
arrangement that requires the consent of both parties, so it remains a
political question and not a question of absolute right.