Positive nationalism is both a moral ideology and a familiar one in recent American governance. I note this in light of Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., doubling down on Friday on his articulation of positive nationalism.
American Nationalism isn’t racial nationalism b/c American isn’t a race.
As Reagan said, unlike other nations, “Anybody from any corner of the world can come to America to live & become an American”
Our identity is belief that all people are created equal,with God given rights
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) November 16, 2018
While Rubio’s argument has predictably sparked a new round of rancor on Twitter, it isn’t anything new. Nor is Rubio’s positive nationalism equivalent to President Trump’s transactional nationalism. Where Trump’s nationalism is defined by his particular business mindset, Rubio’s is rooted in history. Indeed, the world we live in today was made by positive American nationalism in the 20th century — more specifically, by American nationalism’s trammeling of authoritarian veins of nationalism. Former President George W. Bush best encapsulated this nationalism during his 2003 State of the Union address.
Click on the embedded video below and listen to Bush’s description of American nationalism in the 20th century.
In Bush’s referencing of an ideological agenda of freedom bound to great military power, we see the central tents of nationalism per se: the mix of national power and nationally defining ideology. And while Bush referenced American nationalism to make the case for war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the moral purity of American nationalism is unquestionable. After all, absent America, Nazism would likely have ruled over over much of the world. Had that occurred, some people would have been eradicated and all others would have been subjugated.
But that’s just the World War II side of American nationalism. Because absent America after the war, Soviet domination would have been substituted for what actually followed: a growing community of free nations allied in mutual cooperation.
But let’s go back to Bush for a second here because Bush wasn’t a stranger to this positive-nationalist narrative. A few months prior to his 2003 State of the Union, Bush delivered his ideologically defining speech at West Point military academy. There, Bush noted:
Once again, here we see the defining ingredients of nationalism: national ideology and national power.
I recognize that some will say Bush misread the lessons of American nationalism and wrongly enacted them in the form of the Iraq War. While I have some sympathy for that argument, it does not dilute the moral foundation of American nationalism per se. Because no person and no ideology are perfect. While Bush’s understanding of American nationalism might have motivated his decision to invade Iraq, it also motivated his decision to defend the nation against successive terrorist attacks and to support American leadership in the world through organizations such as NATO. It also motivated Bush’s highly successful and profoundly courageous decision to authorize the January 2007 surge of U.S. military forces into Iraq. More importantly, the moral positivity of positive American nationalism is measured not by one president, but by the sum of America’s story in the world: a story of shared prosperity, security, and human freedom.
That speaks to my ultimate point here: Rubio’s postulations of American nationalism are neither new nor immoral. Instead, they reflect an ideology that won the 20th century and guided the first presidency of the 21st century.
