American national identity has never been more fractured than it is today. Partisan identity, religious faith, ethnicity, and all sorts of new categories are being articulated as core to American identity. But at the core of this search is American nationalism: the belief that the American people constitute one nation whose interests take the highest priority of all in policy-making.

American nationalism has guided domestic politics since the Revolutionary War and subsequent national founding. Today, it takes a lesser role than a more moderate patriotism, but nationalism remains a crucial tenet of American identity and political activity. However, a significant problem has occurred that prevents the policy apparatus from establishing American nationalism as a driving force for national unity: Nobody really agrees on what it should look like.

Civic Nationalism: Values, Laws, Citizenship

Scholars most commonly agree that American identity is guided by civic nationalism: Nationalism that adheres to the traditional liberal values of freedom, egalitarianism, and individual rights. Historically, civic nationalism first emerged during the American Revolution, when European, African, Hispanic, and Native American ethnicities fought under the same banner for the same goal: To create a nation governed by the people and for the people.

Despite having the largest consensus, however, the creedal definition of American identity has been rejected by some today. For example, Americans who trace their ancestry back to the colonial era (some calling themselves “heritage Americans”) feel that the creedal definition unfairly rejects their families’ long history in the country by declaring that a new arrival to the U.S is entirely as American as they are.

Although civic nationalism remains the dominant force today, with approximately 95% of Americans agreeing that being born to two U.S. citizens makes you fully American, some dissenters have begun to formulate a new version of nationalism, one that now maintains a significant online presence and is gradually being introduced into mainstream politics.

White Nationalism: Race and Ethnicity

Put simply, American white nationalism espouses three core beliefs:

1. A White race exists, composed of all European ethnicities.

2. America is a White nation, and European ethnic identity is inseparable from American identity.

3. White people are being demographically replaced in America.

Though White nationalism is still very fringe and mostly limited to an online presence (powered by controversial commentators like Nick Fuentes), the 2016 election saw White nationalist figures heavily integrate with Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Many still align with Trumpist politics in the second administration, but a growing majority has separated due to disagreements over foreign policy (specifically, Israel).

Policy aside, however, White nationalism remains a growing force in the country primarily due to mass immigration. As more people (generally from non-European countries) migrate to the U.S and White birth rates continue to drop, supporters of White nationalism believe that a replacement of White people in America is occurring. This appears to be the guiding grievance of all supporters of this type of nationalism. Supporters often also cite the initial immigration policy of the U.S, which limited citizenship to “free white persons.”

However, opponents of White nationalism typically argue a few critical points. Firstly, all birth rates are dropping. While White nationalists consistently frame declining birth rates as a primarily European problem, that is only the case because European nations developed earlier, and thus experienced this phenomenon earlier. But birth rates and fertility across the entire U.S population appear to be dropping, just at different rates due to significant cultural differences (social conservatism and familialism are far more common in modern Eastern backgrounds, for instance, compared to modern Western ones). Second, immigration to the U.S has been handled completely differently from historical expectations. At one point, Founding Fathers like Benjamin Franklin were similarly concerned about German immigration to the U.S. Later, Irish immigration led to the creation of the nativist and White nationalist “Know Nothing Party.” Italian and Eastern European immigration incited the same fire in the Anglo-Saxon Protestant population. All of those migrant groups would be considered “White” and purely American by White nationalists today. Opponents point to this cognitive dissonance as another reason why the racial identity espoused by White nationalists makes no sense concerning American identity.

While ethnic and racial nationalism have long been considered fringe due to their small size and heavy exclusivism (cutting out half of the U.S population and thus reducing maximum support), another type of non-civic nationalism has taken conservative politics by storm. And this one maintains support from White, Black, Hispanic, and even Asian Americans.

Christian Nationalism: Culture and Religion

Christian nationalism has a simple yet powerful meaning: America is a Christian nation, founded on Christian values, for Christians alone. Although some moderates tend to espouse similar beliefs, Christian nationalism often goes hand-in-hand with Christian supremacy (the belief in the superiority of the Christian religion).

Christian nationalism arrived in mainstream discourse at the same time as White nationalism during the 2016 election. Trump’s “non-denominational” stance tends to appeal to Christian nationalists as Christianity itself is split into numerous denominations, each with entirely different views on institutional rule. Supporters of Christian nationalism often point to the religions of the Founding Fathers (51 out of the 55 delegates who signed the Constitution were Christian) as proof of America being founded as a Christian nation. Regardless, Christian nationalists believe it either is or should be.

Though motivated primarily by Protestant coalitions, Christian nationalism has received plenty of support from Catholics and Orthodox Christians, making it an ecumenical phenomenon. Christian nationalism is both a uniting force among various ethnicities and denominations, espousing a multiethnic rejection of civic nationalism, and also a dividing one that pushes away non-Christian Americans. However, this form of nationalism often takes the shape of Christian-motivated governance rather than the total alienation of non-Christians. Still, a reduction of division does not mean none at all.

The Revanchist Answer

Answering the question of “which nationalism is right” is difficult because each form of nationalism has rights and wrongs. But the revanchist perspective requires us to evaluate each on the basis of national security, and the one that is most beneficial for the nation is the one that we should prioritize as American identity. We gave each form a rating out of 5 based on how much it either strengthened or weakened national security, with 5 being the strongest.

Civic Nationalism (4/5): For national security, civic nationalism unites far more than it divides. While many may find its inclusivism to be far too tolerant of newcomers, civic nationalism also bases itself on the ideals of Americanism; the same ideals that have motivated American global power for decades. Domestically, civic nationalism unites the people by creating an identity that applies to all of the citizen population. Some may think this undermines heritage as a factor in American identity, but in terms of American global power, a united America trumps a divided one in every scenario. We subtracted one point, however, because civic nationalism is far too lax on cultural unity (often allowing multiculturalism) and often allows too many foreign influences to affect the population without any assimilation. Unity through values is significantly undermined if foreign cultures introduce opposing values.

White Nationalism (2/5): White nationalism received a low score because, although it is intended to unite White Americans and establish a European ethnic identity at the core of American identity, it is fringe even among White people (estimated support is limited to 4-8%). So, not only does it exclude half of the American population that is not European, but also most of the White population. Fringe ideologies with such minimal support yet such a loud online presence often undermine national security in many ways. For one, it obviously divides the population, weakening America’s ability to act as a unit in global and domestic affairs. And second, it redefines American identity to be downstream from European identity, placing ethnicity above loyalty to the U.S. This type of identitarian dissent is not conducive to national unity or even national security, as it calls into question whether its supporters prefer American or European primacy. However, it receives two points because it is often tied to a rejection of multiculturalism and an appreciation for a common religion (Christianity), which we believe strengthens its position. We conclude our score of White nationalism at a 2/5.

Christian Nationalism (3/5): If leveraged properly, Christian nationalism can be beneficial to American identity and national security. The American Constitution establishes freedom of religion in the land, and many believe Christian nationalism undermines this. However, while Christian supremacy certainly does, Christian nationalism, when used purely to maintain a common core identity, can enforce American cultural dominance over multiculturalism, thus strengthening national unity. This kind of nationalism is also not purely civic, as it promotes the Christian religion as core to American identity, but still bases itself on the core values that established the American nation (most of which trace their lineage back to the Protestant Reformation). Still, though it reaps many of the benefits of cultural and civic nationalism without most of the negatives, most Christian nationalism is technically opposed to America’s original message of “separation of church and state.” Additionally, it alienates 32 to 38% of America, which is not Christian. Considering the utility for national unity but taking into account its own version of exclusivism, we score Christian nationalism at a 3/5.

Our Conclusion

So, what should American nationalism look like? In essence, it looks like all of the above options.

At the heart of American nationalism should be exceptionalism: America is distinct and exemplary compared to all other nations. There has never been a nation that can accommodate so many different people yet unite them all under a single banner, and America can only be further strengthened by embracing its uniquely dynamic culture and Christian spirit.

So finally, we conclude that American nationalism should be a combination of cultural and religious nationalism that does not reject the creedal values of America’s founding while still valuing the European origin of its culture. Of all the strands of patriotism, this compound nationalism takes the center stage as the most productive for national security, unity, and strength.

With the United States entering a new phase in the war against Iran, the realities of modern military conflict are beginning to slam on the doors of the Pentagon.

On Tuesday, July 21, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee to request an additional $67 billion to fund the war in Iran, and after being grilled and called a “failure” by Senator Gary Peters (D-MI), it became clear that the war has caused serious damage to the U.S’s defense budget.

In fact, the Pentagon’s funding for ongoing Navy and Air Force operations is projected to run out by the end of July, and critical operations budgets are expected to run out similarly by mid-August. The cost of the Iran war is rising, the Pentagon is running out of money, and a hidden problem is emerging: Should a conflict break out in the Indo-Pacific, will the U.S be able to afford it?

The accelerating financial strain on the Pentagon is detrimental to U.S operations in the Middle East, but the Indo-Pacific requires similar military focus to counter China. According to the WSJ, the U.S already diverted significant military assets from the Indo-Pacific to strengthen operations at the start of the war. Specifically, thousands of Marines, including approximately 2,500 Marines from the Okinawa-based 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit in Japan, the amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli, the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group, and Patriot missile batteries and high-end interceptors.

This massive diversion of military assets to the Middle East from the Indo-Pacific significantly weakens the counter-China presence of the United States. Now, coupled with the financial strain on the Pentagon and depleting funds, the American capability to deter Chinese aggression is looking bleak.

With Chinese irredentism still unyielding, will the U.S be able to maintain its role as a protector of Asia? Or will it simply be too expensive?