Subscribe
One of the European Right’s most significant political achievements of the past decade has been its success in shifting the Overton window on questions of sovereignty, migration, and national preference. Ideas that only recently belonged to the fringes of political discourse—border control, remigration, welfare preference for nationals, cultural assimilation, and the prioritisation of citizens in public policy—now occupy the centre of debate across much of the continent. Even parties that continue publicly to denounce such positions increasingly find themselves adopting diluted versions of them in practice.
Among these ideas, few have gained more traction than the principle of national priority: the proposition that the state exists first and foremost to serve its own people, and that nationals should therefore receive preference in the allocation of public resources, welfare, housing, employment, and state protection.
This represents a genuine ideological victory for the European Right. It has succeeded in forcing into the mainstream a proposition that was long treated as morally suspect despite being, in historical terms, one of the most normal assumptions in political life.
Yet every political victory creates new responsibilities. Having moved national priority into the centre of contemporary debate, the Right must now take the next step: it must answer the difficult and uncomfortable question its own success has made unavoidable.
Who exactly constitutes the nation to which this priority applies?
This is no longer a secondary or academic issue. It is the central unresolved question beneath the entire doctrine of national preference. For while it may be rhetorically effective to proclaim “nationals first” or “our people first,” such slogans remain conceptually empty until one explains who belongs to that national community in substantive terms.
At present, much of the European Right remains strategically ambiguous on this point. The ambiguity is understandable. Defining the nation in precise terms is politically perilous. Any serious definition will alienate some constituency, fracture some coalition, or trigger some controversy. Yet ambiguity cannot endure indefinitely once a movement seeks not merely to protest but to govern.
For if the nation is simply defined in purely legal-administrative terms—if a national is merely whoever possesses the passport—then national priority adds little to existing arrangements. It simply ratifies the status quo and leaves untouched the more profound concerns that have animated nationalist and conservative critiques of migration policy in the first place.
But if the nation is understood as something deeper than a legal category—as nearly all serious national conservatives plainly believe—then the Right must articulate what substantive characteristics justify membership within it.
Is the nation principally a matter of ancestry and descent? Is it cultural and civilisational, rooted in historical traditions, inherited norms, and shared memory? Is it political, defined by loyalty to institutions and constitutional order? Is it linguistic? Is it religious? Is it some combination of these? And, crucially, to what extent can outsiders join it through assimilation?
These are not peripheral matters. They are foundational questions of political philosophy, but also of statecraft, and they lead to profoundly different policy conclusions.
A nation understood primarily in civic terms will produce one immigration and citizenship regime. A nation understood in ethnocultural terms another. A nation conceived civilisationally—whether in Christian, European, or broader historical-cultural terms—yet another.
The difficulty is that many right-wing parties have thus far preferred to invoke the emotional and political force of national identity without fully specifying its content. This has allowed them to build broad electoral coalitions among voters who share dissatisfaction with liberal migration regimes but hold markedly different views on what the nation itself actually is.
Within those coalitions coexist legalists, who believe citizenship alone settles the matter; assimilationists, who believe full cultural integration can make one part of the nation; ethnonationalists, who regard ancestry as decisive; and civilisational nationalists, who define belonging in broader cultural-historical terms. These positions are not fully compatible. At some point, political movements built upon them must either adjudicate between them or accept growing internal incoherence.
This dilemma is not unique to one country. It now confronts the Right across Europe. French conservatives wrestle with the tension between republican universalism and ethnocultural Frenchness. German nationalists remain divided between constitutional patriotism and older notions of Volk. Italian conservatives oscillate between civic nationalism and civilisational Mediterranean identity. In Spain, debates have emerged over whether shared Hispanic civilisational inheritance matters more than formal nationality or European ethnocultural proximity. Similar tensions can be observed across the continent wherever nationalist politics matures from protest into programme.
To acknowledge this difficulty is not to criticise the European Right for raising the issue. On the contrary: it deserves considerable credit for having reopened a debate that liberal Europe had long sought to suppress through moral denunciation rather than sound discussion. Nations are real political communities; citizenship is not a morally neutral administrative label (or it should not be); and countries inevitably make judgments about who belongs and who does not.
But precisely because these truths are serious, they require serious treatment. The Right can no longer rely indefinitely on rhetorical shortcuts or strategic vagueness. If national priority is to become a coherent governing doctrine rather than a successful campaign slogan, its advocates must provide a philosophically and politically defensible account of the nation itself.
That task will be uncomfortable. It will divide opinion, and it will force choices many politicians would prefer to avoid. But that is the price of intellectual seriousness in politics.
The European Right has already won the battle to make national priority discussable. It has successfully shifted the Overton window and compelled the political mainstream to engage with questions it once dismissed out of hand.
Its next challenge is harder. It must now demonstrate that it knows what it means. Until it does, national priority will remain politically potent but intellectually incomplete: an idea powerful enough to mobilise electorates without paying any opportunity cost of those left outside. Yet insufficiently defined to aspire to contribute to policymaking on some key areas such as migration policy, or welfare state benefits and, more importantly, on voting rights.
Because when a nation no longer knows how to define itself, others will do so in its place—both from beyond its borders and from within. And because the worst way to confront such a fundamental question is not to give a bad answer, but to seek political advantage from the question while carefully avoiding answering it.
It is now up to the European conservatives to provide one. Or others will and they might not like the result.