👍 Thanks for posting AJA.
I appreciate you finding this and posting it here.
(Have you noticed recently how fewer people bother to thank original posters with a thumbs up even though they post a reply?)

"Today many condemn the idea of nationalism by connecting it to race hatred (e.g., white nationalism). But historically, the modern nation-state has proven uniquely suitable to preserving individual rights. The American nation in particular was successful in uniting individuals of different races, ethnic backgrounds, and creeds into one people based on shared principles, a unique physical space, and a common national story. Our nation is the best example in human history of positive nationalism.
The key to this benign nationalism is American citizenship, based on an understanding of American exceptionalism and formed by the American melting pot. But today, our citizenship is eroding and, along with it, American nationalism in the positive sense is disappearing."

It is one of the major tasks of global interests to destroy nationalism b/c it presents a challenge to their abusive and destructive drive to weaken the bond between people enabling them to stand together for a common goal and defy being enslaved by outside forces.

It is a major issue in the EU which is hell-bent to destroy nationalism of the member countries using all kinds of tools in the process. Countries with strong national identity resist the replacement of natives with African migrants and the elimination of Christians to benefit Muslims.

Nationalism is NOT a white supremacist privilege. It exists across the globe and nations in Africa are equally defending it just as nations in South America. It is only the global left which is making it a white supremacist issue b/c it is convenient to paint it in those colors.

Thanks for the informative article. Not all the members of the Gulch visit or subscribe to such news sites. This info is much appreciated. The article is correct in that Tribalism is growing in the US. It is occurring at the local level besides nationally. What is very unsettling is the incessant attacks our history and the caucasian race. This growing racial divisiveness is being pushed by leftist white politicians, who are also pursuing reparations for other ethnic & racial groups. Colleges and University professors are rewriting American history by publishing their version of that history.

I am a huge fan of Hillsdale College. One of the few institutions that receives my donations. Imprimis is always spot on.

There is more than one application of the term nationalism of course. Todays American nationalism is similar to but yet quite different than the European term. Most commonly used here as America first in application to commerce rather than political thought. Wow! I'm really in the weeds now.

I found this article interesting because it represents a view that aligns exactly with mine in some ways and is opposite from mine in others. It meanders a lot, so maybe that’s bound to happen. I liked it, though, so thanks for posting it.

The nation-state – I think of the nation-state as a powerful framework forgetting people to work together in groups larger than a village. Hanson says it’s uniquely suitable to preserving individual rights. I think it’s suitable for violating individual rights. USA was an exception when it was founded. I don’t think they should have called it a “nation” because the word nation comes from native, while the USA was founded on ideas of liberty. So when I hear “the nation of Japan” and “the nation established by the American Revolution,” I think of two distinct definitions of the word nation.

Blurring the lines between residency and citizenship – I think this is a natural outgrowth of increased transportation and communication technology. Technology caused the nation-state to replace the city-state. Now the world-state is replacing the nation state simply because people easily move information, goods, and people over long distances, and we need legal frameworks to manage disputes and respect people’s rights.

20 million Illegal immigrants – I agree with what Hanson says in the article completely. I think he may understate it. If we have important rules on the books and just ignore them (20 million people!), the law falls apart. People charged with administering them can selectively enforce them, destroying the whole purpose of the law.

“To avoid a fragmentation of society based on racial and ethnic chauvinism takes an extra effort to keep the melting pot working. We’re no longer making that effort. Indeed, we’re doing the opposite, encouraging diversity rather than unity.”
We don’t need to be melting pot on all issues, just the important issues of individual liberty. I regularly work with people from all over the world, with different languages and religions. There is no need to anglicize their names, as Hanson suggests, to be citizens here because we’re based on an idea. There’s a Japanese race, Japanese language, and Japanese nation, but there’s not US race, language, or nation in the nativist sense of the word.

“Campuses have “safe spaces” that are reserved for people of particular races.”
I think this is an unrelated issue that just happens to intersect with this issue. The same people who feel the need for racial safe spaces want safe spaces for people who disagree on religion and politics.

“Third, the middle class, which had been encouraged and celebrated since the time of the American Founding, is now under sustained attack.”
I think this is misleading and unrelated to immigration. Mutual trades makes everyone richer. “Middle-class under attack” refers to increased wealth disparity, which is the amount of wealth the rich have minus the amount the poor have. Wealth disparity has gone up since WWII, but all segments of society have gotten richer; it’s just the rich have gotten richer faster. So it’s not an undesirable development as Hanson portrays, but even if we do desire even wealth distribution, I think WWII was an anomaly. It was not the natural state the exists unless “the middle class is under attack.”

“nullification of federal law through the creation of sanctuary cities”
I think this is a huge problem. Not using force to keep willing sellers and buyers apart is a positive thing, but it can’t happen by ignoring the law. People in favor of openness and liberty in immigration should make our case to liberalize immigration law.

“abolishing the Electoral College”
This article really meanders. The Electoral College and having 2 senators per state worked to keep the country united at a time when states had different issues. Everything’s been homogenized, partly by federal overreach and partly by better transportation technology. So the original reason for these policies doesn’t exist. I’m not sure how they should be fixed. More and more I think we need a fix, something that places hard limits on federal taxes and intrusiveness. Maybe the states could be broken up into smaller regions that do have similar interests. It’s not an easy problem.

“affluence combined with leisure paradoxically creates a laxity that leads to the kind of societal and institutional disintegration”
Sometimes I think the US is like Rome. We’re heading from being the decadent Roman empire to being a reasonably modern country of Italy, which a nice place but not the center of a powerful empire. I don’t have the solution to that, but I think we should be focusing on being a republic and avoiding any appearance or mannerisms of empire.