Liberty Exposé: Federal Nationalism, Building Unity Through Enterprise

Omar Chatriwala

Commenting on the current feelings of polarization in America seems obvious to the point of sounding platitudinous. Whatever their underlying commonalities might be in truth, Americans increasingly perceive themselves as standing in antagonistic opposition to those with competing political views. The negative repercussions of this polarization, which are dramatized to devastating effect in the gridlock of Capitol Hill, touch every aspect of civic life and diminish the credibility of our political experiment. 

In response to this dilemma, one often hears a combination of moral admonishment on the left and misplaced nostalgia on the right. In the former case, the appeal takes the form of a call to conscience: “we must set aside our differences and meet the moral imperatives of our time by embracing our higher ideals and better angels.” The virtue of this appeal derives from its insistence that America rests on a creedal element that remains revolutionary and humanitarian in character — that we are committed not just to the aggrandizement of national power, but also to the ongoing perfection of a political experiment committed to democratic liberation. But by itself this creedal reminder lacks the cultural density and galvanizing power needed to bring the opposing sides together, for it imagines that America’s ideals could be achieved without the mediation of a strong national identity. 

On the “conservative” side, the response to polarization takes the form of a warrior-like defense of American “greatness,” which is equated to an amorphous blend of anti-statism and individual liberty. Drawing inspiration from the anti-communism of the Cold War era and the canonized principle of the Reagan administration (“Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”), this appeal to greatness defines unequivocal affirmation of American virtue as a mark of patriotism, and equates resentment towards political elites with an implicit defense of individual self-reliance. The strength of this vision comes from its ability to channel the impulse to individual self-possession and national distinction. 

However, the “conservative” response suffers from two deficiencies. First, while it affirms an image of national greatness, it constantly undermines the possibility of collective action through the federal government. As Julius Krein incisively observes, the “entire conservative movement has been built upon the fiction that a traditional sense of collective duty can be renewed by maximizing individual freedom.” Despite “promoting a kitschy patriotism, it is constantly devaluing the bonds of common citizenship by eliminating or privatizing the functions of the state.” Thus the conservative image of national greatness remains just that: an image without the power needed for its own vindication. 

The political consequence of this sleight of hand amounts to a sustained diminishment of the political agency of conservative voters. The malaises of diminished national pride, economic displacement, and suspended identity may be activated for political gain through nativist appeals and anti-establishment defiance, but the capacity to actually address these issues remains hampered by Republican efforts to limit the agency of the federal government. 

Conservative nationalism’s second deficiency betrays precisely what the liberal approach tries to correct for: a persistent complacency regarding America’s standing and a lack of moral scrutiny. By upholding the American system as the already-perfected exemplar of freedom, and refusing to acknowledge the moral ambiguities in its history, conservative nationalism traps us in a cocoon of self-delusion that evades any attempt to unsettle individual conscience or problematize collective responsibility. Alienated from our own moral capacities and the claims of others, yet simultaneously compelled to invoke the noble language that inspired the American founding, we rend our integrity and deny the possibility of true solidarity, which always requires mutual recognition in truth. In such a vacuum of solidarity, devoid of the bonds of common purpose, it is no wonder that narrower, more dangerous identity groups predicated on racial supremacy would become more appealing. 

Neither the appeal to America’s moral creed nor the defense of American “greatness” prove adequate because the fundamental causes of polarization proceed from deeper structural deficiencies in our national governance. Standing issues of a collective nature that require concerted national intervention remain unresolved, which creates a chronic bottleneck of long overdue issues that lack proper channels for resolution. What America needs is a new national project that elevates collective action through government as both the site of the nation’s ongoing perfection and the patriotic center of America’s identity as a people. 

Conservatism’s Proper Response: Federal Nationalism

Despite the prevailing anti-statism of modern conservatism, one need only look to the nation’s founding to derive inspiration for a new American nationalism congruent with conservative ideals. As Ofir Haivry and Yoram Hazony point out, the Federalist vision that largely informed the framing of the Constitution was both nationalist and conservative in spirit. In opposition to the Jeffersonian, anti-federalist preference for decentralized control by the states, leading Federalists like Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, and John Marshall saw America as a unique nation with a language and cultural inheritance of British origin— and therefore, a singular people whose interests would be served by a higher union. 

The early Federalists viewed the American political project not as a carte blanche revolutionary project akin to the French Revolution, but rather a republican extension of British constitutional principles. Furthermore, the Federalists carried with them a strong anti-slavery sensibility, believing that the creation of a strong, unified nation was an essential precondition for its eventual abolishment. Thus the notion of nationhood, granting its other shortcomings, was tied to America’s moral errand. 

Frustrated by the weak level of military and economic coordination permitted under the Articles of Confederation (1777), these early Federalists constructed a robust national government that borrowed heavily from British constitutional principles, making provisions for a strong executive with veto power, a national judiciary, a bicameral legislature, and eventually the Bill of Rights (1789). The Federalist impulse then took on new life during the 19th century in the National Republican Party (later the American Whig Party), which served as the advocate for national economic independence, proactive development of American industries, and a central bank. In turn, this basic program, along with a persistent aversion to slavery and a reverence for the Constitution, provided the bedrock for the Republican Party from the time of Lincoln into the 20th century. 

America in the early 21st century finds itself mired in a series of systemic issues that require a revival of federal nationalism. Just as the period of the founding was tested by intense factional differences which required a bold nation-building enterprise, our own day faces acute divisions that require the intervention of a national effort committed to the common interest. It is necessary to reconstitute American faith in the capabilities of government through grand enterprises that meet the needs of its transracial working and middle-class majorities. For it is unity born through common enterprise—the felt power of cooperative effort and its enduring accomplishments—that shall strengthen the bonds of national citizenship and redeem the nation’s political inheritance.