Authoritarian populists are on the rise around the world, taking nations in a particularly ugly direction, and undermining liberal democracy in the process. Yascha Mounk argues that liberals should reclaim nationalism from bigots and racists who support these leaders and try to make nationalism as inclusive as possible. Mounk’s op-ed, adapted from his book, The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It (2018), explains the recent decline of support for liberal democracy and the growth in support of right-wing extremists. To reverse this course, Mounk suggests liberals not give up on nationalism, but rather offer a more tolerant and just counterweight to the otherwise bigoted and racist kind. But his is a reaction to a longstanding -ism, not really an alternative one. He conflates today’s social liberals with liberals in the broader, liberty-loving sense that gave rise to nationalism much earlier.

In 19th-century Europe, liberals like John Stuart Mill championed the advancement of societal ideals and the protection of freedoms under a body of laws. The nation was the logical, if necessary, social construct to achieve this. Young nations united peoples—often along similar ethnic, religious, and ethnic lines—under common banners and within common borders, making citizens of them. Giuseppe Mazzini, for example, called for the unification of Italy on these grounds.

Conservative governments in the latter half of that century espoused some liberal ideals while advancing others. A balance of power among fellow young, often militarily powerful, nations tipped over to Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Some that remained free from European colonialism still borrowed from the nationalist’s handbook and sowed conflict in other regions. It took two world wars to stem the destructive consequences of this nationalist trend. Since then, newly independent countries around the world co-opted nationalism in the construction of their own nations.

Nationalism today therefore isn’t entirely new. Neither is its inevitable potential for conflict. Swapping left-wing nationalism for right-wing nationalism is hardly a guarantee of a more stable, peaceful world.

Mounk is right to suggest that the notion of citizens transcending all sense of nationhood is fantasy. Likewise, the pursuit of narrow identity politics disunites citizens within nations. “The only way to keep the destructive potential of nationalism in check is to fight for a society in which collective identity transcends ethnic and religious boundaries—one in which citizens from all religious or ethnic backgrounds are treated with the same respect as citizens from the majority group.”

We’re stuck with nations as a necessary evil for now. But embracing a more inclusive form of nationalism still leads to conflict both within and between nations. So, what’s a modern liberal to do?

One solution is to reclaim the ideals of citizenship. This transcends the narrow silos of identity politics and espouses a shared sense of rights and duties with the nation. Citizenship in a liberal democratic nation means having a say in government, even when not all its citizens are socially liberal or agree on public policy. Citizenship also operates on all levels of government, from the local to the national and to the international.

Perhaps most importantly, citizenship is a practice as well as an idea, which unlike nationalism, avoids the downsides of ideology.