Civic nationalism must be revived to heal U.S. political divides

Show summary Hide summary

• Why the march mattered: unity, symbols, and a warning about rising hatred
• What the Union flag signaled about belonging and civic patriotism
• Roots in political thought: why civic identity is more than nostalgia
  • Rousseau and the idea of voluntary political association
• The current erosion of civic bonds: forces breaking at the seams
• Why defending free speech and the rule of law matters for national cohesion
• Economics, identity, and the limits of grievance-based politics
• Practical elements of a resilient civic nationalism

Early September’s demonstration against anti-Semitism in Britain wasn’t just a protest about one form of hatred — it became a public statement about what binds a modern democracy. Tens of thousands showed up in the streets, carrying not only the flag of Israel but the Union flag too, transforming a moment of alarm into a collective appeal for shared freedoms and civic belonging.

Those images — a diverse crowd, national symbols, and urgent speeches — forced a simple question into the open: what does national identity mean today, and can it be a force that protects liberty rather than erodes it? The answer matters because the threats to liberal values are not confined to one ideology or one political camp; they emerge across institutions and from competing visions of who “we” are.

Why the march mattered: unity, symbols, and a warning about rising hatred

The march that drew roughly 70,000 people came on the heels of disturbing events: attacks on synagogues, heated pro-Palestinian demonstrations in London, and a palpable rise in anti-Jewish abuse. Organizers and speakers used the gathering to do two things at once — condemn hatred and insist on common civic commitments.

One organizer reminded the crowd that the Union flag stands for a set of rights and protections that many in the Jewish community have historically valued: the protection of individual liberties, the necessity of free speech, and the integrity of the rule of law. Those were not empty slogans slapped on banners; for many attendees, they represent the real social contract that keeps plural societies functioning.

What the Union flag signaled about belonging and civic patriotism

At the march, waving the Union flag was less an act of exclusion and more an affirmation that national symbols can be inclusive when tied to shared principles. Civic patriotism — the kind that anchors identity in laws and responsibilities rather than ethnicity or religion — was on display.

• Inclusive membership: Civic nationalism defines belonging by agreement to democratic rules, not by ancestry.
• Shared responsibility: Citizens accept obligations to protect the rights of others, including minorities.
• Symbolic unity: Flags and rituals can help people commit emotionally to a polity they actively choose to defend.

That combination — legal frameworks backed by communal commitment — is what allows a diverse country to act as one when its institutions, or its people, are under threat.

Roots in political thought: why civic identity is more than nostalgia

Rousseau and the idea of voluntary political association

The intellectual tradition behind civic nationalism stretches back to Enlightenment thinkers who rejected blood-based tribalism in favor of voluntary, reasoned membership. One influential view held that citizens unite around a “general will” — a commitment to common laws and mutual obligations that transcends narrow self-interest.

This is not a plea to turn the clock backward. Rather, it’s an argument that national cohesion built on shared values is a contemporary necessity: it provides the moral and institutional scaffolding that lets democracies absorb differences without fragmenting.

The current erosion of civic bonds: forces breaking at the seams

Over recent decades, the idea of civic patriotism has come under pressure from multiple directions. Below are key trends eroding the shared public culture that once helped democracies function.

1. Identity politics and cultural fragmentation: Some progressive movements reduce citizenship to group identities, weakening the sense of a common civic project.
2. Ethnic or exclusionary nationalism: On the opposite end, some illiberal actors push narrow, ancestry-based definitions of “us,” excluding those who don’t fit a particular profile.
3. Institutional constraints on free expression: Universities, workplaces, and public bodies increasingly restrict speech, shifting the balance away from open debate.
4. Legal and administrative distortions: When courts, immigration systems, or policing priorities bend to political pressures, public confidence in the rule of law weakens.

Combined, these trends risk leaving civic life either empty — reduced to transactional economic interests — or fragmented into competing grievances that do not add up to a functioning polity.

Why defending free speech and the rule of law matters for national cohesion

Free expression, an independent judiciary, and equal treatment under the law are not abstract luxuries; they are the mechanisms by which a plural society negotiates difference. When these mechanisms are eroded, trust frays and polarization deepens.

• Free speech: It allows minority voices to be heard and contested ideas to be tested in the public square.
• Rule of law: It ensures that disagreements are resolved according to impartial rules rather than raw power.
• Equal citizenship: It guarantees that all people, regardless of background, stand before the same laws and can claim the same rights.

Without these guardrails, national identity becomes hollow — either an emotional veneer or a banner for illiberal projects.

Economics, identity, and the limits of grievance-based politics

There is no denying the importance of economic justice: fair wages, reliable public services, and equal opportunity matter deeply to citizens. But when political narratives reduce citizenship to economic grievance alone, they risk turning people into passive claimants rather than active participants in a civic enterprise.

That approach tends to depoliticize belonging: instead of being co-authors of a shared future, people become consumers of state benefits. The consequence is a weaker, less resilient national community that can’t mobilize around collective defenses of freedom when they’re needed.

Practical elements of a resilient civic nationalism

Rebuilding a robust civic identity requires concrete steps that reinforce both principle and practice. Policymakers, institutions, and communities can act in ways that revive the civic glue.

• Promote civic education that teaches rights, responsibilities, and democratic procedures.
• Protect institutions that guarantee free speech and judicial independence.
• Encourage symbols and rituals that emphasize inclusive membership rather than exclusion.
• Support public debates that allow disagreement without delegitimizing opponents.

These are not nostalgic trimmings; they are investments in the structures that let plural societies survive differences and defend freedoms.

Neil Davenport is a writer based in London.

You might also like:

• Islamists and progressives: surprising common ground and why it matters
• Kemi Badenoch takes on the uniparty in UK politics
• Sadiq Khan accused of online trolling after heated exchange with critics
• St. Patrick woke debate sparks backlash over recasting history
• Crybully culture silences debate and fuels cancel culture