The Case for Nationalism: How It Made Us Powerful, United, and Free

by Rich Lowry

It is one of our most honored clichés that America is an idea and not a nation. This is false. America is indisputably a nation, and one that desperately needs to protect its interests, its borders, and its identity.

The Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump swept nationalism to the forefront of the political debate. This is a good thing. Nationalism is usually assumed to be a dirty word, but it is a foundation of democratic self-government and of international peace.

National Review editor Rich Lowry refutes critics on left and the right, reclaiming the term “nationalism” from those who equate it with racism, militarism and fascism. He explains how nationalism is an American tradition, a thread that runs through such diverse leaders as Alexander Hamilton, Teddy Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Ronald Reagan.

In The Case for Nationalism, Lowry explains how nationalism was central to the American Project. It fueled the American Revolution and the ratification of the Constitution. It preserved the country during the Civil War. It led to the expansion of the American nation’s territory and power, and eventually to our invaluable contribution to creating an international system of self-governing nations.

It’s time to recover a healthy American nationalism, and especially a cultural nationalism that insists on the assimilation of immigrants and that protects our history, civic rituals and traditions, which are under constant threat. At a time in which our nation is plagued by self-doubt and self-criticism, The Case for Nationalism offers a path for America to regain its national self-confidence and achieve continued greatness.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, Cultural, Political Science, 21st Century

293 pages, Kindle Edition

First published November 5, 2019

About the author

Richard A. "Rich" Lowry (born 1968) is the editor of National Review, the conservative American magazine of news and opinion. He is a syndicated columnist and political commentator.

Lowry's latest book is the polemical biography Lincoln Unbound, [1] which was published in June 2013.

A native of Arlington, Virginia, Lowry attended the University of Virginia where he majored in English and history. After graduating, he worked for Charles Krauthammer as a research assistant. He joined William F. Buckley's National Review in 1992, after tying for second place in the magazine's Young Writer's Contest. He was named editor of the magazine in 1997.

He regularly appears on the Fox News Channel. He has guest-hosted on Hannity and is a frequent guest panelist on The McLaughlin Group, Fox News Watch, and NBC's Meet the Press.

In addition to his syndicated column with King Features, Lowry is an opinion columnist for Politico. He has also contributed essays to Time.

His New York Times best-selling book, Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years is a polemic about President Bill Clinton, whom he deprecates as "Navel-Gazer-in-Chief."

In 2009, Lowry and Keith Korman wrote Banquo's Ghosts, a political thriller. The plot revolves around a nuclear-armed Iran and an inebriated leftist journalist.

Lowry frequently speaks on the topics of American exceptionalism and the future of the Republican Party.

adapted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Lowry

Reviews

[Miles Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am giving this four stars because Lowry writes well and I think gets his point across well, which is not always the case. Ultimately, however, his case is wrong--not because he's wrong about nationalism's importance, but--because he posits a national narrative that is deeply ideaological and a product of 1980s movement conservatism. Conservatism has moved on since this book was written and the intellectual clarity that has come from the Trump years shows that the story Lowry tells is really a hodgepodge of different narratives welded together in the later post-war era to actuate a sort of right-liberalism that defined the Reagan era. This isnt to say that right liberalism was entirely bad; it served good purposes in the capable hands of Reagan. But we're a long way from 1981. Lowry seems to want to protect legacy or movement conservatism while also trying to reconcile what Trump shook loose. But in trying to do the former, he relies on tropes that ultimately led to movement conservatism's failures. So this book needs to be read because many conservatives still think like Lowry does and thats entirely understandable. But we're as far away from Reagan's inauguration was in 1981 as that event was from Pearl Harbor...see my point?

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

A cogent, articulate, occasionally polemic, response to globalism/cosmopolitanism that makes a great deal of sense and explains much of the schism in America today...the world too.

One of the best books of the year.

Rating: 5 out of 5 Stars.

A must-read no matter which side of the argument you're on.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

Like Marxism, Nationalism bounds the individual to a tribe. You get *the power* of the tribe, you are bound to be *united*, or else you will suffer the wrath of other tribespeople. Hence, somehow you are "free" to obey the whims of the tribe leader within the tight frame of the accepted custom.

[Norman Horn]

Better in many respects than I thought it would be, but still I found equivocation galore at many moments. A little nationalism goes a LONG way, and I don't find certain arguments about the necessity of hard-core nationalism promoted through an aggressive policy program very compelling at all.

[Jordan]

Added to my to-read after listening to Jonah Goldberg interview Lowry. I have to see if the book is as woefully delusional, presentist, and historically ignorant as Lowry came across in that interview. It was stunning.

[Kevin · Rating 3 out of 5]

I want to write an actual review for the now nearly dead blog, but let me say this was a quick and enjoyable read for the most part but I think it struggled a little bit in weaving the themes and arguments together. There is the issue of the nation state as the best organisational structure for politics and the push back against multi-national jurisdictions (EU, UN, etc.). There is the issue of America as an actual people and place not just an idea. There is the issue of patriotism in an age of multiculturalism and woke politics, for lack of a better word. And there is the issue of populist politics married to these sundry issues.

It is clear that Lowry wants to take back nationalism as a term basically synonymous with patriotism and not with racism, xenophobia or authoritarian politics and the bulk of the book is really a call for American patriotism through a extended discussion of its history; America as a people and a nation even before the revolution.

But the idea of America as an idea, whether on the left or the right, is hardly spelled out but is rather a foil for Lowry's great American story. Similarly, the belief that the nation state would, and should, fade away in the face of global government structures is used as a foil for what Jonah Goldberg has labeled nation-ism; the idea that the nation state is the most effective form of government for liberal democratic capitalism which in turn has done so much for prosperity and human flourishing. Lowry doesn't compare and contrast two different approaches so much as seek to show that nation-ism is clearly more effective and historically more successful. Just because you believe the nation state is a necessary political structure, doesn't mean you are a nationalist.

The various threads somewhat blunt or muddy the arguments. It is easy to see a more coherent book with a title like In Defense of American Patriotism or A History of American Patriotism. In this approach, the argument about nationalism as racist or xenophobic is tackled in an epilogue or wrap-up not at the start.

Instead, the book starts and ends with Trump and populist politics. And it is not clear how American cultural unity and political popularity interact exactly with the term nationalism either today or at various times in the past. The fact that popular leaders and events have had national scope and impact is nearly a syllogism. Lowry tells an inspiring story about America's rise to world dominance but doesn't do enough to connect the dots on the political philosophy or political practice side. Did America become an Empire at some point? How does that impact nationalism? When racism and xenophobia did enter politics why is that not a part of nationalism? Lowry offers only cursory discussions.

Again, in the final section his passion comes through as he argues for cultural unity and patriotism against attackers mostly on the left. But again, not sure that opposition to woke leftism or progressive universalism makes you a nationalist.

More later I hope.

[Francesca · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well written and argued by Lowry.

[Rishabh Srivastava · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author makes a good case about the merits of nationalism (arguing that Lincoln, Gandhi, and Mandela were all nationalists) – but treats the question as a binary nationalism vs anti-nationalism question instead of a spectrum.

The first 3 quarters of the book address nationalism directly, while the last quarter is fairly rambling.

A good read on the whole. Would recommend.

[Erik · Rating 4 out of 5]

Should nationalism be a dirty word? Or should Americans of good will reclaim this term from neo-Nazis and even Donald Trump?

The author is actually somewhat sympathetic to Trump's movement, being the editor of the conservative magazine National Review. Though I lean liberal, I found much to appreciate in this book.

Today, people on both the right and left get nationalism wrong.

The far left would have America disintegrate into a constellation of interest groups based on identity politics of race, gender, and class. The far right would have our country shut our borders to all immigration and create a reserve for white Christians. Neither is what nationalism has been about when it's helped Americans accomplish great achievements in the past.

There's a good reason why leaders from Lincoln and Frederick Douglass to FDR to MLK appealed to common American ideals and a shared culture and history. Nationalism helped Americans unite their moral forces enough to abolish slavery, defeat Hitler, and end legal discrimination against African Americans--and then, to send a man to the moon.

Perhaps the best part of this book is about the "Treason of the Elites." CEOs and professionals fly around and attend conferences at luxury hotels and talk about how they're "citizens of the world." They make cosmopolitanism, which used to be a fringe philosophy, sound altruistic, advanced, and ultimately, in an age of global capital and social media, unstoppable.

Meanwhile, these elites use the machinery of national governments to destroy jobs and siphon off the wealth of Americans into offshore accounts. No wonder these well connected and well traveled folks who aren't loyal to America at all don't want the rest of us to be American nationalists. Then we might catch on to their con game of using our country as a platform for their personal aggrandizement.

Just because Steve Bannon hit on these themes to rile up angry white voters in the Rust Belt to vote for Trump doesn't mean that cosmopolitan elites aren't in fact selling the rest of us out. It just means that, if we recognize a problem, we need to be careful about solutions.

Today, as our country faces greater polarization than anytime since the Vietnam War, and with prospects of things only getting more heated and angry, anyone who cares about our common country would do well to consider Lowry's ideas on how shared national culture can help us all work together to solve the problems that most vex our politics today.

[JP Jennings · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book paints a true picture of American history both the good and bad. Every student of America, which means all of us, should read this book.🇺🇸

[Rich Yoast · Rating 2 out of 5]

Rich Lowry
The Case for Nationalism: How it Made Us Powerful

A great deal of this book is a conservative’s attempt to argue why we (American citizens) should love our country and not listen to the naysayers within (liberals, history curriculum revisionists, multiculturalists, internationalists) whom he claims are deconstructing our sense of national unity and thus our power. Lowry is one of a long line of believers in American exceptionalism, self-proclaimed patriots, with roots in English Judeo Christian (emphasis mostly on the Protestant not Judeo aspects) political beliefs and culture but firmly rooted in US territory and tradition.

Unfortunately Lowry suffers from an extraordinary myopia. In his version, the US may make some mistakes and there have been incidents of wrongdoing (slavery, efforts to destroy the Native Americans – who he argues really weren’t making good use of our land or resources), but we were destined to be great and to expand from sea to sea and to be a shining example to the rest of the world. Thus we should love not criticize it and enjoy the results.

I must say that the book does call to mind some of the reasons I too love this country – the flag, our pledge of allegiance to it, and our history of allowing (if not welcoming) peoples from elsewhere to come and enjoy and build upon our material and cultural riches. Our ceaseless internal efforts to expand our many liberties to additional populations. But he goes further and, being an educated person, makes what must have been an extraordinary effort to ignore anything that contradicts his beliefs or analyses of history. He thus fits right in with the conservative establishment as transformed by Trump (whom he references as the inspiration for writing this book while decrying some of how Trump has gone about governing).

Lowry assumes that nationalism, our love of country, is good – something that has occurred in most peoples and throughout history. He cites Egypt and Joan of Arc as earlier examples. But he fails to provide a single example of a large country which has not used that fervor to attack its neighbors and expand its territory – i.e. to expand into empire status. While certainly not a fascist, Lowry fails to explain how Germany’s claim to conquest (to achieve room and breathing space for its population and culture) was substantially different from America’s claim to Manifest Destiny to occupy the land from coast to coast while eradicating the native Americans who, inferior in culture, got in the way not to mention conquering a substantial part of northern Mexico (consisting of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California and parts of Colorado, and Nevada). Lowry essentially argues that this was warranted if one looks at the results – and what would it be like if, for example, Native American or Spanish culture had won. In other words, the ends justify the means and should justify our love for our country. While he argues we are not an empire like the others, my first snide thought was why do so many of our federal, judicial and financial structures copy the public architecture of the Roman Empire?

Lowry agrees with the America first orientation towards international relations and immigration policies. He does not extend this vision further and reason how this will wind up being different from the many centuries of international warfare and conflict that the internationalist vision sought to correct.

I don’t disagree with Lowry that the strengths of nations derive from their constituent parts – common language, territory, political beliefs and culture. He correctly includes our pop culture, holidays, symbols and shared history as things to treasure. And that is, indeed what has made the US strong (not to mention isolation via the two oceans bordering us, weaker neighbors, and immense natural resources). He argues that America is thus not an idea but a truly unique national culture. But he further claims that assimilation of new populations, the distribution of all these common assets, and our English derived constitutional structures and democratic values are shared by all of our citizens. He further argues that the extension of social welfare and national efforts to share this wealth is not nationalism but stateism – an expansion of government power. In essence, he argues that progressive efforts to expand the outcomes he so values as why we should be nationalists, is something else – which he clearly dislikes, i.e., what’s good for me isn’t good for you.

What his rosy colored account fails to explain is why a substantial region (the southwest and California) still has massive population movements to and from Mexico and Central America. Why the Spanish language has persisted for much of the population in these conquered regions. Nor why the substantial population brought here in slavery continue to be treated differently and, in a time of pandemic, suffer in vastly greater proportions and continue not to share equal treatment before the law or within our economy. To accomplish this Lowry ignores key factors of our colonial history: the slavery roots of the southern colonies giving them very different reasons to rebel against England than the northern colonies’ cause. This difference, enshrined in the Constitution then led them to secession from the Union, and undermining of Reconstruction, and now hatred of the coastal liberal elites and ongoing restrictions of voting rights. Lowry is incapable of seeing why this country is so split along fracture lines that were in large measure formed from the start.

Mass immigration into this country went to the northern factories, cities and open farmlands of the north. They formed substantially different cultures and values from those of the slave owning and sharecropping south – and thus formed two very different nations and whose voting patterns have remained starkly different. His hope is for assimilation of blacks, after 400 years of being treated differently, to be accomplished by racial and ethnic intermarriage. Many blacks do treat America as an idea and ideal to strive for while being excluded from much of what Lowry argues is the nationalist culture he postulates we share.

Lowry praises the rise of nationalist fervor and policies among Republicans and praises Trump for bringing this about. But like that movement Lowry is blind to what has actually occurred to this country throughout its history, and what hyper-nationalism can bring. The white nationalist view dominating Trump is directed against much of our population and separation from the world that has largely population this nation and made it what it is. He, not those who seek to tell a multi-culturally sensitive version of our history, represents the reason why we’re being torn apart. His willful ignorance of much of our history in favor of a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant version is what has helped bring us to the justified unrest and anger and divisions that so many feel – and so many feel threatened by. He acknowledges the harms of racism but fails to understand how deeply those harms have infested almost every aspect of American life – and death. He sees our political and cultural differences as intellectual in nature, not different experiences and perceptions of reality and nation, differences in what we value in our culture and our democratic visions.

[Miguel · Rating 1 out of 5]

The Case for Nationalism is a great book if you consider watching Hannity the highlight of your news day. Like that dreck, it also has historical revisionism a-plenty and feels free to selectively editorialize progressive views as he sees fit. It essentially tries to make the “intellectual” case for the America First policy currently being promulgated by the most idiotic and noxious administration in US history, yet Lowry is fine to overlook that fact – or embrace it through this this unnecessary polemic.

[Jess · Rating 3 out of 5]

*Audiobook review* This book was fine. There’s some interesting history but a lot of contradictions. Alexander Hamilton and Andrew Jackson can’t both be your examples for nationalism. That’s just wrong. The author also confuses nationalism with support of any centralized government entity (ex: most people would not consider the creation of a central bank as “nationalism”).

[Sean · Rating 4 out of 5]

In, The Case for Nationalism, Richard Lowry sets out to divorce Nationalism from what many Americans typically have pop into their heads at its mention: racism, fascism, totalitarianism, even patriotism. From the outset, the burden of proof lies upon Lowry to show that Nationalism is not the boogeyman so many on the left and right sides of the aisle declare it to be and he is largely successful in this hefty venture. He does this by first providing historical context asserting that Nationalism is not an invention of the 19th or 20th century, that it is far older and embedded in every human and expresses itself in love of country and one’s home. He then semantically separates Nationalism from the aforementioned terms individually. Lowry argues that in each case, uncontaminated Nationalism actually fights against the ideology being mentioned and while noxious forms of Nationalism have existed, it has been the motive force for far more good in the world than bad.

In separating Patriotism from Nationalism, Lowry initially seems to be arguing a distinction without a difference. I think this boils down to the fact that he doesn’t spend enough time emphasizing that simply loving one’s country isn’t the same thing as Nationalism. It wasn’t until three quarters of the way in that I realized that while Nationalism does include an affection for one’s country, it is also rooted in shared admiration of a country’s geography, a use of a common language, and knowledge of said country’s institutional norms. This runs completely against the idea that America, at its root, is an idea or an abstraction. Emphasizing the physicality of Nationalism Lowry states:

“If America is an idea, it’s one that has shown itself remarkably adept at eliminating threatening foreign powers from our vicinity and expanding our territory through calculation, artifice, and force. We were never content to huddle against the eastern Seaboard thinking philosophical thoughts. We cared deeply about territorial questions and wanted to ward off geopolitical challengers and increase the extent and power of a nation. Our people ceaselessly strained against our western boundaries short of the Pacific Ocean, and almost all our statesmen – of all parties and dispositions – considered it a given that we would spread across the continent.”

Why is this distinction important? The answer to that question can be shown in part by what is expected of an immigrant into this country. If America is only an idea, then increasingly the strictures required of someone to become an American will grow ever more lax and fluid. There is less of a need to learn English, to learn American dates and holidays, or even know the national anthem, much less respect it. And this will eventually lead to cultural disunity. Lowry quotes the historian Tzvetan Todorov who explains how a person learns a culture:

“By mastery of the language above all; by familiarization with the country’s history, its landscapes, and the mores of its original population…”

None of this can be accomplished however, if America is seen as an amorphous idea alone and not the intricate spiderweb of grounded physical realities it truly is. A National, cultural unity in America is needed for it to operate and Lowry quotes another great from the past, Frederick Douglass, who in 1869 laid out a vision of that unity in America for all who choose to come here:

“We shall spread the network of our science and civilization over all who seek their shelter whether from Asia, Africa, or the Isles of the sea. We shall mold them all, each after his kind, into Americans; Indians and Celt; Negro and Saxon; Latin and Teuton; Mongolian and Caucasian; Jew and Gentile; all shall here bow to the same law, speak the same language, support the same Government, enjoy the same liberty, vibrate with the same national enthusiasm, and seek the same national ends.”

After reading this book, I can think of no better sentiment that sums up what Nationalism is all about. And it is a beautiful sight.

[E · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent book. Makes a clear case for the existence of a distinct American identity that should be preserved via positive nationalism. Makes an argument for the difference between nationalism and patriotism, though perhaps at time that distinction slips as he lauds the country. I particularly appreciated how Lowry traced nationalism all the way back to ancient Israel and drew helpful connections to the surge of nationalism that swept Europe in the nineteenth century.

The book is mostly retrospective, but in doing so he proves the benefits (and necessity) of nationalism and especially highlights the importance of assimilation into American culture, which was the default position of society for hundreds of years but is now for whatever reason demonized as hateful. And that might be the insurmountable problem. If today's elites refuse to see the value of the common American national heritage and instead value diversity simply for the sake of diversity, they will continue to divide instead of seeking to unite. So while this book does a wonderful job of summarizing the grandeurs of the American national identity, I fear that it some ways it also unintentionally serves as its obituary.

[Michael Kearney · Rating 2 out of 5]

The first 9 chapters was instructive in presenting a very 'white bread' renduring of America's Nationalistic past. Chapter 10 was very much more pointed when he starts by claiming Howard Zinn desecrated American memory. Yes, A Peoples History of the United States is not the rosie colored version of our history that Lowery was pedaling.
Lowery does not hide his adamant views against immigration (especially non-English speakers). He says nothing of all the hard working immigrants who have helped this country open our collective eyes and have a more global vision. He deplores identity politics and claims the big solution to this "tribalization" is intermarriage. Like many conservatives he sees things as have very narrow black/white outcomes. Intermarriage is a fine thing, but to slams somebodies identity, is just wrong!
His view is that ethnic identity is un-American.
Lowery is stuck on the idea that America is great because it is America. I reject that notion. America has the potential for greatness if and only if it cares for all histories and treats everyone with fairness.
True liberty and justice for all.

[Samara Karow · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is well-researched and articulate, but I had to dock a star because I disagree with some of the opinions posited. My favorite chapter is, “The Exemplar Of Ancient Israel,” which, as a zionist, I wholeheartedly agree with. I appreciate Lowry’s de-emphasis on race, as he succinctly says on page 232, “We are all Thomas Jefferson and W.C. Handy, the Pilgrims and Frederick Douglass, British and African, black and white, sitting at a vast Thanksgiving table within sight of an enormous flat-screen tuned to a Lions or Cowboys game under the watchful gaze of a red, white and blue-bedecked Eagle, sharing, laughing, squabbling, commiserating, and doing it all loudly, in the distinct, instantly recognizable American style that makes its indelible imprint on us all.” I didn’t appreciate the pro-Trump sentiments in the intro and the epilogue, but it’s interesting to hear other people’s opinions.

[Brent Pinkall · Rating 2 out of 5]

Meh. Lowry doesn't so much present a "case" for nationalism as he does point out people in history who were nationalists. This book is mainly a collection of people and events that reflect nationalist values, but saying "X was nationalist" is not the same as arguing why X was right. A number of his examples were questionable, too. For example he argues that the Civil Rights Movement was nationalist (as evidenced by the fact that MLK quoted a patriotic song in his I Have a Dream Speech) or that National Parks are nationalist (still can't figure that one out). He essentially defines nationalism as patriotism and a desire for a country to govern itself. With that definition, every U.S. president throughout history was nationalist. In short, the book felt sloppy and didn't answer my questions.

[Vance Ginn · Rating 2 out of 5]

Lowry writes an interesting book with a lot of connections with history but little economics and doesn’t do a great job making the case for nationalism. I expected a more well-rounded case.

However, I think that is what nationalism is mostly about, a case for a bigger government to run our lives as some see fit at the expense of others through a nationalist lens. This remains a very weak case and suffers from evidence throughout history.

I’m not a conservative or a nationalist or a conservative nationalist or a progressive. I’m a classical liberal who finds it essential understand assumptions for someone’s cause and other than politics and some well-meaning intentions. I can’t find a good cause for nationalism.

Check it out for yourself.

[TK Small]

In political terms, the question of what constitutes a nation is a hot-button topic, whether here in the United States or any other place in the world. They definitely, Ukraine is a nation, but Russia maintains that it isn't.

"The Case for Nationalism" by Rich Lowry makes the argument that the United States has a set of characteristics that make us a nation, and that preserving our unique identity is worth pursuing. The book makes some important points but seems to gloss over, while still acknowledging, some of the darker chapters of our history. Regardless of your political views, this was a good read.

[Robert Scott · Rating 3 out of 5]

According to Lowry, nationalism isn't an expression of hatred of foreigners and other cultures, but it is an expression of love for your fellow ​nationals. He spends most of this book countering what he calls “the smear against nationalism,” that many people assume that nationalism is “inherently militaristic, undemocratic, or racist.” He can redefine “nationalism” all he wants, but polling, history, and common sense show that nationalism has inherent ethno‐​centric and militaristic characteristics that can’t be wiped away by redefining the term. Lowry's idealistic portrait of nationalism is just unrealistic.

[Marc Minnick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mr.Lowry presents a thorough analysis as to how nationalism is essential to healthy nation-state. Nationalism has been much aligned by the left as a form of racism, fascism and white superiority; all of which is a false narrative. Nationalism preserved the Union during the Civil war: Without Nationalism the Revolutionary war never would have happened and through the years Nationalism furthered the acquisition off territorial land masses of the Louisiana purchase, Texas, Alaska and most of all the we the southwest including California.A must read for students of American History.

[Colby · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked this book very much. I would have awarded five stars if the first chapters were as driving as the final chapters. It should be read by all citizens who mistakenly think that nationalism is synonymous with white privilege and who are concerned about the destruction of our American freedoms, culture and history, and the rapid movement toward socialism. Rich Lowry in a short volume makes all the arguments in favor of the necessity of preserving and building nationalism.

[Bill V · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall, I did not particularly enjoy this book. I didn't find his arguments all that compelling and I write this as someone who does believe in nationalism. Then again, I have difficulty grasping fine abstractions so it could be a failing on my part. The center part of the book was tedious and the latter part rebounds quite nicely.

[Lori · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book. Gives a brief history of this great country and how we came to be. It also outlines some of our mistakes and how we rose above. The only question I have now is what are we doing today in society that we will one day look back on with embarrassment and shame?

[Hans Bleeker · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really believe that this should be read by all history and political science teachers in The US.

[Paul D. Miller · Rating 1 out of 5]

The advocates for nationalism haven't found their best champion yet.

[Haidong · Rating 4 out of 5]

good historic information about origin of our national pride and need to preserve that now in the era of assault from multiple fronts.

[Dave Hale · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well developed thoughts throughout this book. I found Rich Lowery to be a like-minded patriot. I was hoping for a little more treatment of contrasting Nationalism with Globalism.

[Malin Friess · Rating 2 out of 5]

Skimmed a lot of the book. Lots of history, but short on policy decisions (what to do about immigrants, borders, involvement in foreign conflicts). Can't recommend this book.