> Secondly, nationalism does not have a horrible track record. America was incredibly prosperous in the "big government" era of the mid 20th century.
That is conflating two clearly different definitions of nationalism.
The nationalism I'm talking about led to WWI, WWII, Bosnia, Rwanda, etc. It has nothing to do with what you are describing:
I've never heard an active government in economic affairs, such as the US in the mid-20th century, called 'nationalism'. Whatever you call it, it's a completely different thing, as other US policies were the opposite, purposely worked against, the actual nationalism that destroyed (and destroys) so many.
Nationalism was a secondary factor in WW1 (the elites failed in their alliances, and later used Nationalism as a recruiting tool, but it was not a driver), and was not related to Bosnia and Rwanda which were ethnic wars.
I think you have a misunderstanding of what the term 'Nationalism' means.
USA already had its genocidal expansionist moment as a nation before the great World Wars. An entire continent ethnically cleansed and replaced with Anglo settlers. Of course, there was no one to hold it accountable as with the Germans and Japanese. This greatly inspired 20th century fascist thinkers around the world, including Adolf Hitler.
Lebensraum, spazio vitale, manifest destiny.
Even ignoring that, if "nationalism" does not include the massive public projects and social cohesion of 1930s-50s USA, then frankly you have a bizarre definition of nationalism.
That is conflating two clearly different definitions of nationalism.
The nationalism I'm talking about led to WWI, WWII, Bosnia, Rwanda, etc. It has nothing to do with what you are describing:
I've never heard an active government in economic affairs, such as the US in the mid-20th century, called 'nationalism'. Whatever you call it, it's a completely different thing, as other US policies were the opposite, purposely worked against, the actual nationalism that destroyed (and destroys) so many.