I have advocated an American conservatism that includes what I call enlightened nationalism.
But this morning's mail brought notice of an article that decouples conservatism from nationalism. Brion McClanahan writes:
What is “American conservatism”?
[. . .]
But I know one thing that American conservatism is not: nationalism.
That hasn’t stopped modern American “conservatives” for hopping on that train.
Trump bought a ticket and rode it to success in 2016.
[. . .]
In fact, most American “conservatives” have long identified with decentralization, not nationalism.
For example, John C. Calhoun described himself as a “conservative,” and because he was a “conservative” he was a “State’s rights man.”
Translation: that means he wasn’t an American “nationalist.” He was a “Unionist” but never a “nationalist” because Calhoun understood that an American “nation” by a traditional definition never existed.
Here, as elsewhere, much depends on the definition of terms. McClanahan does not inform us as to the "traditional definition" of nationalism. I am all for decentralization, limited government, states' rights, and the Tenth Amendment. Why should anyone think that these are incompatible with enlightened nationalism as I defined it (link above) in broad agreement with Trump's America Firstism?