Throughout history, few ideologies have proven as destructive to human freedom and prosperity as nationalism. While love of country and respect for democratic institutions represent healthy civic virtues, nationalism transforms these natural sentiments into something far more dangerous—an ideology that elevates the nation above individual rights, democratic principles, and even basic human decency. The evidence is overwhelming: when nationalism takes hold, democracy dies, minorities suffer, and nations themselves ultimately collapse under the weight of their own extremism.
Understanding the difference between healthy conservatism and dangerous nationalism isn’t just an academic exercise—it’s essential for preserving the constitutional republic that generations of Americans have fought to protect. As we witness the rise of Christian nationalism in America today, particularly through movements like Project 2025, we must recognize the warning signs and defend the democratic principles that make religious freedom possible for all Americans.
What Nationalism Really Means
Nationalism is an ideology that holds the nation should be congruent with the state, emphasizing loyalty, devotion, or allegiance to a nation-state above all other individual or group interests. Unlike patriotism, which celebrates the values and principles a country represents, nationalism worships the nation itself as the supreme value. It transforms the state into an object of quasi-religious devotion, demanding absolute loyalty and viewing any criticism or dissent as betrayal.
The nationalist mindset operates on several dangerous premises. First, it assumes the nation represents the highest moral authority, placing national interests above universal human rights. Second, it typically defines the “true” nation in exclusive terms—by race, religion, ethnicity, or ideology—labeling those who don’t fit this narrow definition as lesser citizens or outright enemies. Third, it demands conformity of thought and action, viewing diversity of opinion as weakness rather than strength.
This isn’t merely theoretical. Nationalism creates what political scientists call “in-group” and “out-group” dynamics on a massive scale. The in-group—the “real” citizens—deserves all rights and protections. The out-group—minorities, immigrants, political opponents, or anyone deemed insufficiently loyal—becomes the target of suspicion, discrimination, and ultimately persecution.
The Historical Graveyard of Nationalist Movements
History provides a devastating indictment of nationalism’s consequences. Consider the most obvious example: Nazi Germany’s National Socialism, which combined radical nationalism with socialist economic policies to create one of history’s most destructive regimes. The Nazis didn’t start with genocide—they began with appeals to German national pride, promises to restore Germany’s rightful place in the world, and claims that other groups were undermining the nation’s strength. Within a decade, this nationalism had produced World War II and the Holocaust, costing tens of millions of lives and destroying Germany itself.
The pattern repeats across continents and centuries. The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia combined agrarian nationalism with genocidal ideology, claiming to restore Cambodia’s pure peasant roots while murdering nearly two million of their own citizens—roughly a quarter of the population. Their nationalism demanded the elimination of intellectuals, religious minorities, and anyone connected to foreign influences. The result was one of the 20th century’s most horrific genocides and the near-collapse of Cambodian civilization.
Soviet nationalism under Stalin merged communist ideology with Russian imperial ambitions, leading to the Ukrainian Holodomor, the Great Purge, and decades of oppression across Eastern Europe. Stalin’s nationalism demanded absolute loyalty to the Soviet state and the elimination of any group or individual who might harbor divided loyalties. Millions died in gulags, forced famines, and mass executions, all justified by nationalist claims about defending the motherland.
Contemporary examples are equally damning. Vladimir Putin’s Russia represents modern nationalism in action—a regime that justifies aggression, repression, and international law-breaking through appeals to Russian national greatness and the supposed need to protect ethnic Russians wherever they live. Putin’s nationalism has produced war in Georgia, the annexation of Crimea, the ongoing invasion of Ukraine, and a domestic system that crushes political opposition while claiming to defend Russian values.
North Korea takes nationalism to its logical extreme, creating a quasi-religious state where the Kim family serves as divine representatives of the Korean nation. Every aspect of life serves the nationalist myth, while the actual Korean people suffer under one of the world’s most repressive regimes. The nation’s supposed greatness requires absolute poverty and isolation for its citizens.
Iran’s theocratic nationalism combines religious extremism with Persian national chauvinism, creating a system that oppresses women, minorities, and religious dissidents while funding terrorism across the Middle East. The regime’s nationalism demands that Islamic and Persian identity be enforced through violence while actual Iranians flee the country in massive numbers.
Even the Roman Empire, often romanticized today, ultimately fell victim to the nationalism of its later period. As Rome transformed from a republic into an empire obsessed with its own supposed superiority and divine mission, it lost the civic virtues and democratic institutions that had made it strong. The nationalism of the later empire—with its emperor worship and claims of eternal dominance—led to internal decay, endless wars, and eventual collapse.
Nationalism’s Consistent Patterns of Destruction
These examples aren’t isolated incidents—they reveal nationalism’s inherent destructive logic. Nationalist movements consistently follow predictable patterns that lead to societal breakdown.
First comes the promise of national greatness and the identification of scapegoats supposedly holding the nation back. Whether it’s Jews in Nazi Germany, intellectuals in Cambodia, kulaks in the Soviet Union, or “Western influences” in various other contexts, nationalism always needs enemies to justify its authoritarian measures.
Next comes the erosion of democratic institutions and legal protections. Nationalists claim these restrictions serve the greater good of the nation, but they invariably target political opponents, independent media, and civil society organizations that might challenge nationalist authority. Courts become instruments of nationalist politics rather than independent arbiters of law.
The third stage involves the systematic oppression of out-groups. What begins as discrimination escalates to persecution and, in extreme cases, genocide. Nationalism provides the ideological justification for treating fellow human beings as enemies of the state simply because of their identity or beliefs.
Finally comes economic and social collapse. Nationalist regimes consistently destroy the very nations they claim to serve. They prioritize ideological purity over competence, eliminate the diversity of thought necessary for innovation, and waste enormous resources on nationalist projects and foreign ventures. The result is poverty, international isolation, and internal decay.
The economic evidence is particularly damning. Nationalist regimes consistently underperform economically compared to their democratic neighbors. Nazi Germany required constant expansion and plunder to maintain its economy. The Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its own inefficiency. North Korea remains one of the world’s poorest countries despite significant natural resources. Modern Russia’s economy has stagnated under Putin’s nationalism, dependent on oil exports and increasingly isolated from global markets.
This economic failure isn’t accidental—it’s inherent to nationalist systems. Democracy and free markets require tolerance for dissent, protection of minority rights, and openness to foreign ideas and trade. Nationalism rejects all of these, creating closed societies that cannot compete in the modern world.
The Critical Difference Between Conservatism and Nationalism
Understanding nationalism’s dangers makes it crucial to distinguish between legitimate conservatism and nationalist extremism. This distinction isn’t merely semantic—it’s essential for preserving democratic government and individual freedom.
Conservatism, properly understood, seeks to preserve and protect democratic institutions, constitutional principles, and the rule of law. Conservative thought emphasizes limited government, individual responsibility, respect for tradition, and gradual rather than revolutionary change. Conservatives may disagree about the pace of social change or the proper scope of government, but they remain committed to democratic processes and constitutional constraints on power.
True conservatism also embraces what Edmund Burke called “ordered liberty”—the idea that freedom requires stable institutions, respect for law, and civic virtues. Conservative thinkers from Burke to Russell Kirk to William F. Buckley understood that preserving freedom requires defending the constitutional and cultural foundations that make freedom possible.
Nationalism, by contrast, subordinates all these values to the supposed needs of the nation. Where conservatives seek to limit government power through constitutional constraints, nationalists want to expand government power to serve nationalist goals. Where conservatives respect individual rights and democratic processes, nationalists view these as obstacles to national greatness. Where conservatives value tradition and gradual change, nationalists often embrace radical transformation in service of their nationalist vision.
The contrast becomes clear when examining specific policies. A conservative might support strong border security while respecting the rights of legal immigrants and the due process rights of those seeking asylum. A nationalist supports immigration restrictions because they view outsiders as inherent threats to national purity, often regardless of legal status or individual circumstances.
A conservative might critique excessive government regulation while supporting the rule of law and independent courts. A nationalist attacks courts and legal institutions when they constrain nationalist policies, viewing judicial independence as an obstacle rather than a protection of constitutional government.
A conservative respects religious freedom for all Americans while perhaps advocating for policies that reflect traditional values. A nationalist seeks to impose one religious interpretation on all citizens, viewing religious diversity as weakness rather than strength.
These differences have profound practical implications. Conservative governance, whatever its flaws, operates within democratic constraints and respects constitutional limitations. Nationalist governance consistently erodes these constraints in pursuit of ideological goals.
The Danger of Christian Nationalism in America
The rise of Christian nationalism in contemporary America represents perhaps the greatest domestic threat to American democracy since the Civil War. This isn’t an attack on Christianity or conservative Christians—it’s a warning about a specific political movement that claims to represent Christianity while undermining the very principles that make religious freedom possible.
Christian nationalism, as embodied in movements like Project 2025, seeks to remake American government according to a narrow interpretation of Christian theology. This 900-plus page blueprint for reshaping federal government explicitly calls for embedding “biblical principles” throughout government operations and concentrating sweeping executive powers in the presidency.
The document’s language reveals its nationalist character. It speaks of “securing our God-given individual rights,” but then proposes policies that would strip rights from those who don’t share its theological vision. It promises to “restore the family as the centerpiece of American life,” but defines family in exclusively Christian terms that exclude millions of Americans. It claims to defend American sovereignty while proposing to subordinate American law to religious doctrine.
Project 2025’s specific proposals read like a playbook for nationalist transformation. It calls for reclassifying tens of thousands of civil servants as political appointees, allowing their replacement with ideological loyalists. It proposes dismantling independent agencies that might constrain executive power. It advocates for using federal law enforcement to pursue political opponents while protecting religious organizations from anti-discrimination laws.
The theological underpinnings reveal the movement’s true character. Christian nationalism draws heavily from dominionist theology, which teaches that Christians must take control of society’s institutions to prepare for Christ’s return. This isn’t traditional Christian teaching—it’s a relatively recent political interpretation that most Christian denominations reject as inconsistent with both Christian theology and democratic governance.
The historical parallel is chilling. Just as German nationalism in the 1930s claimed to represent authentic German values while destroying German democratic institutions, Christian nationalism claims to represent authentic American values while undermining the constitutional principles that protect religious freedom for all Americans.
Why Christian Nationalism Threatens All Religious Freedom
The irony of Christian nationalism is that it ultimately threatens the very religious freedom it claims to protect. America’s founders understood that religious freedom requires protection from government establishment of religion, not just government hostility to religion. They recognized that when government picks religious winners and losers, all religious freedom suffers.
Christian nationalism rejects this understanding. It argues that America was founded as a Christian nation and that preferential treatment for Christianity represents a return to founding principles rather than a violation of them. This historical claim is simply false—the Constitution explicitly prohibits religious tests for office, and the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause was intended to prevent exactly the kind of religious favoritism that Christian nationalists advocate.
More fundamentally, Christian nationalism threatens religious freedom by transforming religion from a matter of personal conscience into a tool of political power. When religious beliefs become the basis for government policy, they inevitably become corrupted by political considerations. The result isn’t stronger faith but weakened religion and compromised government.
History provides abundant evidence of this corruption. Every society that has merged religious authority with political power has seen both institutions suffer. Medieval Europe’s conflicts between religious and secular authority weakened both church and state. Islamic theocracies consistently produce neither authentic religious practice nor effective governance. Even Israel, despite its democratic institutions, struggles with the tensions created by mixing religious identity with political authority.
Christian nationalism would produce similar results in America. By making Christianity the unofficial state religion, it would inevitably corrupt Christian witness while undermining democratic governance. Churches would become political actors rather than spiritual communities. Government would become the enforcer of religious doctrine rather than the protector of individual rights.
The ultimate victims would be ordinary Christians, who would see their faith weaponized for political purposes, and religious minorities, who would face systematic discrimination backed by government power. The winners would be political operators who use religious language to justify authoritarian policies.
A Hypothetical Warning – Muslim Nationalism in America
To understand the true danger of Christian nationalism, consider how Christians and other Americans would react to a parallel movement of Muslim nationalism. Imagine if a well-funded coalition of Muslim organizations published a 900-page plan to reshape American government according to Islamic principles.
Suppose this hypothetical “Project Sharia” called for reclassifying federal employees based on their commitment to Islamic values. Imagine it proposed that government policies should reflect “Quranic principles” and that federal agencies should prioritize Islamic organizations in grant-making. Picture it advocating for Islamic definitions of marriage and family to guide federal policy or proposing that Muslim organizations should be exempt from anti-discrimination laws when receiving federal funds.
Envision this movement arguing that America was founded as a Muslim nation and that the Constitution’s principles are best understood through Islamic interpretation. Suppose it called for dismantling federal agencies that constrain executive power while concentrating authority in a president committed to Islamic governance.
The reaction would be immediate and overwhelming. Christians would rightly recognize this as a fundamental threat to religious freedom and democratic governance. Conservative politicians would denounce it as foreign influence and religious extremism. Civil liberties organizations would mobilize to defend constitutional principles. The media would extensively cover the threat to American democracy.
Every argument Christians would make against Muslim nationalism applies equally to Christian nationalism. The threat to religious freedom would be identical. The corruption of democratic institutions would be the same. The transformation of America from a constitutional republic into a religious autocracy would be equally destructive regardless of which religion provided the justification.
The only difference would be the identity of the religious majority imposing its will on everyone else. The fundamental violation of American principles would be identical. This hypothetical exercise reveals the hypocrisy of supporting Christian nationalism while opposing other forms of religious authoritarianism.
The Conservative Case Against Nationalism
Genuine conservatives should be the first to reject nationalism, whether Christian or secular. Nationalism represents everything conservatives claim to oppose: the concentration of power in the state, the subordination of individual rights to collective goals, and the transformation of government from a limited protector of liberty into an unlimited enforcer of ideology.
Conservative philosophy emphasizes the danger of concentrated power and the importance of checking government authority through constitutional constraints, separation of powers, and protection of individual rights. Nationalism rejects all of these principles in favor of expanding government power to serve nationalist goals.
Conservative thought also values tradition and gradual change over revolutionary transformation. Nationalism typically demands radical restructuring of society to match its ideological vision. Even when nationalists claim to restore traditional values, they usually propose revolutionary changes to achieve their goals.
Most importantly, conservatism traditionally supports religious freedom as a fundamental principle. Conservative thinkers from Edmund Burke to modern figures like Russell Kirk understood that religious liberty requires protection from government interference in matters of conscience. Christian nationalism would eliminate this protection in favor of government enforcement of religious conformity.
The conservative case against nationalism isn’t just philosophical—it’s practical. Nationalist governments consistently fail to achieve their stated goals while destroying the institutions that make freedom and prosperity possible. They promise national greatness but deliver international isolation, economic stagnation, and internal oppression.
Conservative Christians have particular reason to reject Christian nationalism. Their faith teaches the importance of voluntary conversion and authentic spiritual commitment. Government-enforced Christianity produces neither genuine faith nor effective governance—it corrupts both religion and politics while persecuting those who disagree.
Defending Democratic Principles
The alternative to nationalism isn’t the absence of national identity or civic commitment—it’s constitutional democracy based on individual rights and the rule of law. America’s founders created a system that allows for strong national defense, effective governance, and civic pride without sacrificing individual freedom or minority rights.
This system depends on certain key principles that nationalists consistently attack. First is the separation of powers, which prevents any one branch of government from accumulating too much authority. Nationalist movements always seek to concentrate power in the executive branch while weakening legislative and judicial constraints.
Second is federalism, which divides power between national and state governments while protecting space for local community governance. Nationalists typically want to centralize authority to implement their ideology uniformly across the entire nation.
Third is the protection of individual rights through constitutional guarantees and independent courts. Nationalists view these protections as obstacles to national unity and consistently work to weaken them.
Fourth is the separation of church and state, which protects religious freedom by preventing government from favoring any particular religious interpretation. Nationalists, particularly Christian nationalists, want to eliminate this separation to impose their religious vision through government power.
Defending these principles requires active civic engagement from Americans of all backgrounds. It means supporting candidates who respect constitutional constraints even when they disagree with particular policies. It means defending the rights of political opponents and religious minorities even when their views are unpopular. It means prioritizing democratic processes over particular political outcomes.
Most importantly, it means understanding the difference between healthy patriotism and dangerous nationalism. Patriotism celebrates the principles and values that make freedom possible. Nationalism worships the state itself and demands the sacrifice of individual freedom for collective goals.
The Stakes Could Not Be Higher
The choice facing America today isn’t between different policy preferences or political parties—it’s between constitutional democracy and nationalist authoritarianism. Project 2025 and the Christian nationalist movement it represents offer a clear vision of America transformed from a constitutional republic into a religious autocracy.
This transformation wouldn’t happen overnight, but it would be irreversible once complete. Nationalist movements that capture democratic institutions use those institutions to eliminate democracy itself. They change election laws to favor their supporters, pack courts with loyalists, and use government power to silence opposition.
The international evidence is overwhelming. From Hungary’s Viktor Orban to Turkey’s Recep Erdogan to India’s Narendra Modi, democratically elected leaders have used nationalist appeals to dismantle democratic institutions. They promise to restore national greatness while creating authoritarian systems that serve their own power rather than their people’s freedom.
American institutions are stronger than those in many other countries, but they aren’t immune to nationalist assault. The events of January 6, 2021, demonstrated how quickly democratic norms can collapse when nationalist ideology takes hold. Project 2025 represents a systematic plan to complete what the January 6 insurrection began—the transformation of America from a constitutional democracy into a nationalist autocracy.
Religious freedom, individual rights, economic prosperity, and international standing would all suffer under such a system. Most tragically, the very Americans who support nationalism in hopes of restoring traditional values would find themselves living in a country that violates everything America has traditionally represented.
The choice is clear. Americans can preserve the constitutional democracy that has made religious freedom possible for people of all faiths, or they can embrace nationalism and lose the freedom that previous generations died to protect. There is no middle ground between democracy and authoritarianism, between constitutional government and nationalist rule.
History’s verdict on nationalism is unambiguous: it destroys everything it touches while promising to restore what it demolishes. America can choose to learn from history’s lessons, or it can repeat history’s mistakes. The decision rests with voters who must choose between the Constitution and nationalism, between freedom and authoritarianism, between America’s democratic promise and its nationalist temptation.
The stakes have never been higher, and the choice has never been clearer. Democracy depends on Americans understanding the difference between love of country and worship of the state, between constitutional governance and nationalist ideology, between religious freedom and religious dominance, between civic duty and blind obedience.
-Jeanette Brown
Sources:
1. The Kettering Foundation explains in their article *Project 2025: The Blueprint for Christian Nationalist Regime Change* that Project 2025 works to implement biblical principles while expanding executive authority. ([Kettering Foundation][1])
2. The Americans United document *Project 2025 Toolkit* explains how Christian nationalist organizations view Project 2025 as a strategic guide to transform federal government operations and their impact on religious freedom. ([Americans United][2])
3. The Britannica article *Project 2025* provides information about the initiative through its recommendations and its connection to a think tank and its training programs for political appointees. ([Encyclopedia Britannica][3])
4. The Interfaith Alliance published an article titled *How Project 2025 Threatens Religious Freedom & Democracy*. ([Interfaith Alliance][4])
5. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights examines through *Project 2025: What’s At Stake for Civil Rights* how the initiative would impact civil rights protections. ([Leadership Conference][5])
6. The Baptist Joint Committee examines religious liberty effects in Project 2025 through their article *What does Project 2025 say about religious liberty and the role of religion in governance*. ([BJC][6])
7. The PBS video *“How Project 2025 Impacts the Separation of Church and State”* examines how Project 2025 proposals would affect the division between religious institutions and public governance. ([PBS][7])
8. The Freedom House report *Global Expansion of Authoritarian Rule* demonstrates how democratic institutions worldwide face decline while civil liberties diminish and more countries become “not free” states. ([Freedom House][8])
9. The V-Dem Democracy Report 2024: Democracy Winning and Losing at the Ballot provides researchers with data about worldwide democratic regression. ([V-Dem][9])
10. The Global State of Democracy Report 2022 from International IDEA monitors democratic institutions and their quality across numerous countries. ([International IDEA][10])
11. The journal article *The Global Resurgence of Authoritarianism and Its …* (Salajan, 2024) examines North Korea as well as other authoritarian regimes in its analysis of global authoritarianism. ([Chicago Journals][11])
12. Katherine Stewart explores Christian nationalism and religious movements and their political power dynamics in her 2025 book *Money, Lies, and God: Inside the Movement to Destroy American Democracy*. ([Wikipedia][12])
13. The 2024 film *Bad Faith: Christian Nationalism’s Unholy War on Democracy* investigates Christian nationalism from its beginnings to its dangers for democratic institutions. ([Wikipedia][13])
14. The Fulcrum presents an analysis of Project 2025 as a Christo-fascist initiative to establish a theocratic government. ([The Fulcrum][14])
The standard historical resources about the Holocaust and Nazi Germany include any work related to World War II and Holocaust studies. The two essential books about Hitler are Ian Kershaw’s *Hitler: A Biography* and William L. Shirer’s *The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich*.
The complete history of Pol Pot’s rule in Cambodia is presented in *Pol Pot: The History of a Nightmare* by Philip Short.
The works of Stephen Kotkin and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn among others provide detailed information about Stalin and the Soviet Union.
The current situation in Modern Russia under Putin receives analysis through Freedom House reports and V-Dem data and think tank and journalist articles about Russian repression which includes opposition suppression and media control and Crimean annexation. The Freedom House *Russia Country Report* and human rights organizations Amnesty and Human Rights Watch provide detailed information about Russian human rights violations.
The United Nations and Human Rights Watch along with other organizations publish reports that detail the extent of North Korean authoritarian rule and human rights violations and the development of a personality cult.