Liberalism and nationalism

History

American Revolution and Republicanism

The American Revolution (1775–1783) is frequently cited as one of the earliest modern syntheses of liberalism and nationalism. It was rooted in Enlightenment principles of natural rights, popular sovereignty, and the social contract. Unlike many later European nationalisms grounded in ethnicity, American nationalism was primarily civic, defined by adherence to a common set of liberal political principles and the United States Constitution. Revolutionary leaders such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued that the legitimacy of the new nation rested not on shared ancestry but on the protection of individual liberties.

19th-century European origins and the "Spring of Nations"

In the early 19th century, liberalism and nationalism were regarded as fundamentally "twin ideologies" born from the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. Both opposed the absolute monarchies and the dynastic legitimacy established by the Congress of Vienna (1815). Liberals sought individual rights and constitutional government, while nationalists sought self-determination and the creation of nation-states grounded in the "sovereignty of the people." This alliance reached its peak during the Revolutions of 1848, often called the "Spring of Nations." In Germany, Italy, and the Austrian Empire, movements combined demands for a liberal constitution with national unification or independence. Following the failure of these revolutions, "National Liberalism" in Europe began to drift toward the right, increasingly prioritizing national strength and unification (as seen in Bismarck's Germany) over individual liberties.

Latin American Republicanism and Independence

Outside Europe, the synthesis of liberalism and nationalism was central to the independence movements of Latin America. Leaders such as Simón Bolívar were deeply influenced by liberal constitutionalism but adapted it to the needs of national liberation from Spanish colonial rule. This "Creole liberalism" sought to establish independent republics based on legal equality and free trade, though it often encountered tension between liberal ideals and the perceived need for a strong, centralized state to maintain national unity.

The "Wilsonian Moment" and National Self-determination

Following World War I, the synthesis of liberalism and nationalism underwent a global transformation through the advocacy of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. In his Fourteen Points, Wilson applied the principle of "national self-determination," adapting liberal concepts of individual consent to the collective level of the nation. In Wilson's framework, a stable international order guaranteed by a League of Nations required a world of sovereign nation-states governed by constitutional and democratic principles. While Wilson's primary focus was the reorganization of defunct European empires such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire, his rhetoric prompted what historian Erez Manela terms the "Wilsonian Moment" in the colonial world. Proponents of liberal nationalism in Asia and Africa, including those involved in the March 1st Movement in Korea and the 1919 Egyptian revolution, interpreted self-determination as a liberal mandate for independence from imperial rule. The failure of the Paris Peace Conference to apply these principles outside Europe led many non-Western nationalists to abandon Wilsonian liberalism in favor of more radical or authoritarian ideologies.

Modern Era

Following World War II and the subsequent era of decolonization, the relationship between liberalism and nationalism saw a theoretical and practical revival. In the late 20th century, scholars such as Yael Tamir and David Miller sought to rehabilitate the concept, arguing that a shared national identity is essential for sustaining the welfare state and liberal democratic solidarity. This "liberal nationalism" holds that individual autonomy is best realized within a stable national community that provides a "context of choice." Since the 2010s, the Hong Kong nationalist movement has emerged as the "localist camp." According to Gary Tang, the views within the movement are closer to liberal culturalism than civic nationalism, arguing that the state should provide the necessary cultural conditions for individuals to lead a good life.