Historical Alliances Between Nationalism and Liberalism
Modern political nationalism emerged concurrently with liberalism, and these two ideologies frequently acted as allies during their formative periods. This historical connection often presents a point of contention for many individuals who self-identify as nationalists today, as they may prefer not to acknowledge the significant overlap and shared origins.
Throughout 19th-century Europe, nationalist movements frequently found themselves in direct opposition to existing dynastic empires and the established authority of the Church. Figures advocating for the unification of peoples under a shared national identity, such as those striving for an independent Italy, a unified Germany, or an autonomous Hungary, were often engaged in struggles against the prevailing 'old order' rather than seeking its restoration. These movements directly challenged the legitimacy of multi-ethnic, dynastic powers like the vast Habsburg Empire, which encompassed diverse populations, and the Bourbon monarchy, a symbol of traditional, hereditary rule. The core aim of these nationalists was not to reinstate historical hierarchies but to establish new political entities founded on the principle of national self-determination, a concept that inherently clashed with inherited imperial systems.
Indeed, statesmen like Metternich viewed both nationalism and liberalism as intertwined threats to the stability of the established European order. He recognized that the nationalists of that era were not generally fighting to restore traditional hierarchies or ancestral monarchies. Instead, they were actively challenging the legitimacy of inherited imperial rule and advocating for a new basis of political authority rooted in the nation. This dynamic created a complex and often revolutionary political landscape where nationalist movements frequently aligned with liberal reforms, seeking to dismantle conservative monarchies and reshape the political map of Europe.
The American Distinction from European Models
For American conservatives, the primary objective is to preserve existing societal structures, which fundamentally translates to safeguarding the American nation itself. This aim differs significantly from the historical efforts to conserve traditional European entities, such as the Habsburg Empire with its complex web of ethnicities and territories, or the Bourbon monarchy, representing a specific dynastic lineage. The American nation's origins are distinct, having developed independently and not being directly influenced by the radical transformations and ideological currents that stemmed from the French Revolution.
Matt Himes's Perspective on American Conservatism
The author of the article, Matt Himes, identifies as a Catholic and acknowledges the historical and intellectual appeal of "throne and altar" concepts, which represent a traditional alliance between monarchical power and religious authority. While recognizing the authority of the pope, Himes explicitly states that he has no particular interest in advocating for America to remain a Protestant nation. His analytical perspective is profoundly shaped by his identity as an American, which influences his understanding and evaluation of Christian nationalism within the broader conservative movement in the United States.
Himes views the Protestant Reformation itself as one of the great ruptures in Western history, an event that significantly contributed to the eventual emergence of the liberal world. He notes that, compared to the average American conservative, he holds considerably more sympathy for the old Catholic critique of liberalism. This unique theological and historical positioning allows him to engage with arguments about Christian nationalism with a nuanced lens, enabling him to analyze its tenets without necessarily adopting a purely reactionary European framework that might not fully apply to the American context.
Defining Sovereignty and Political Legitimacy
One prominent definition of nationalism posits that ultimate sovereignty resides with the nation itself, rather than with a king, emperor, or any other traditional top-down authority. This definition fundamentally transfers the source of political legitimacy from a top-down model (e.g., divine right of kings) to a bottom-up model, where legitimacy is derived from the people or the nation. Garen Christopher Kaloustian argues that because this transfer of sovereignty occurs, nationalism, by its very nature, constitutes a species of liberalism.
Kaloustian's Critique of 'Bottom-Up Legitimacy'
Kaloustian contends that "to actually be conservative is to reject bottom-up legitimacy." In his framework, accepting sovereignty derived from the people or the nation aligns with liberal principles, which emphasize popular consent and individual rights, rather than conservative principles, which he associates with a rejection of such popular sovereignty. This argument forms the foundational basis of his critique against Christian nationalists, leading him to label them as liberals, regardless of their self-identification or stated political goals. For Kaloustian, any political ideology that grounds legitimacy in the collective will of the people or the nation, rather than in a higher, pre-existing authority, is inherently liberal.
Himes's Counter-Argument on American Context
However, Himes offers a counter-argument, suggesting that Kaloustian's notion of "bottom-up legitimacy" might more accurately describe a specific type of European reactionary thought, rather than a universal or exhaustive definition of conservatism applicable across all historical and cultural contexts. Himes implies that Kaloustian's argument goes awry when it is applied indiscriminately to the American context. The crucial distinction, according to Himes, lies in what specific entity or tradition is being conserved and the unique historical origins of the political entity in question. The American nation, with its distinct founding principles and historical trajectory, may not fit neatly into a framework designed to critique European reactionary movements.
Points of Divergence in Conservative Thought
The ongoing debate between Kaloustian and Himes highlights a fundamental difference in how political legitimacy is understood and interpreted within contemporary conservative circles. Kaloustian's position relies on the rejection of popular sovereignty as a core conservative tenet, viewing it as an inherently liberal concept. Himes, conversely, counters that the American tradition of conservatism does not necessarily fit neatly into this specific European reactionary model, which often sought to restore pre-Enlightenment hierarchies.
While modern political nationalism and liberalism were often allies in 19th-century Europe, challenging old dynastic orders, the American application and understanding of these concepts diverged significantly due to its distinct historical origins. The preservation of the American nation, as understood by Himes, does not automatically necessitate adherence to the anti-liberal frameworks that defined European conservatism in its opposition to dynastic empires and the French Revolution's legacy. This distinction is crucial for understanding the nuances of Christian nationalism within the American political landscape.
This exchange remains a significant part of a broader discussion on the nature and boundaries of Christian nationalism. Kaloustian's argument that Christian nationalists are, in essence, liberals—whether they realize it or not—stands in direct contrast to Himes's assertion that Christian nationalists can indeed remain within the bounds of conservative thought, particularly when viewed through the lens of the American political tradition.