The last few years in American politics have seen a massive shift in political rhetoric. Traditionally American politics has been undergirded by a rhetorical image of unity, with leaders emphasizing similarities and common struggles between the various groups that make up American society. With such a large and heterogeneous country, it has been the conventional wisdom that the path to power for national leaders is through diverse coalitions that incorporate various groups.

Flying in the face of that conventional wisdom is the orange wonder, Donald Trump, who won on a campaign of division and resentment. However, this is not to say that American history is absent a long tradition of generally white politicians appealing to grievance and hatred, particularly on a racial basis, to attain power in the form of racial nationalism. Viewed through this lens, the rise of Trump appears not as a mysterious aberration from the norm, but a feverish explosion of thinly veiled white nationalism on the national stage with a long pedigree behind it.

Before proceeding further, a note of clarification on the difference between identity politics and nationalist politics. Identity politics is premised on the notion that certain groups by weight of their history have particular issues that afflict them and require special attention to overcome those issues. Groups are presented as unique in comparison to other groups, but not superior to them. Nationalist politics, on the other hand, promote a group that is presented as superior to all other groups and uses politics as a means to enforce that superiority.

The inflammatory rhetoric of the president has led many to cast about for historical parallels to give some sense to the chaos enveloping the country. Many have looked to Nazi Germany as an apt comparison of the current political moment. The Nazi's are certainly a useful comparison, but there is another country that I believe should serve as a cautionary tale for Americans, the sad violent case of Yugoslavia.

For those of you born after the Iron Curtain fell, here's a brief run down of the country. Yugoslavia was formed as a combination of several Slavic countries after the First World War. Almost from birth, the country faced ethnic tension from nationalist groups, but the turmoil of the Second World War and communist occupation temporarily stifled the flames of conflict. After the death of the strong man dictator Marshall Tito in 1980, tensions began to rise again as leaders began to stoke ethnic resentment to gain more political power. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, these tensions came to the forefront in a series of violent wars that tore Yugoslavia apart. One of the most defining features of these wars was widespread campaigns of ethnic cleansing.

Now many of you must be wondering what an Eastern European state that's been defunct for over 30 years has to teach America today. To understand why, it is important to consider three key things. First, whenever nationalism has appeared on American shores, from the Civil War to Charlottesville, it has always been violent. Additionally, a large enough group in power can mute the effects of nationalism on other minority groups. Finally, there is the fact that over the coming decades there is going to be no single majority racial group in America.

Taking these three together a picture begins to emerge of just how dangerous the current turn into nationalist politics is. In the past, whenever white nationalism emerged, with the obvious exception of the Civil War, it never posed the danger of completely tearing the country apart. Whites were a large enough social and cultural group that there was never serious threat of retaliation from minorities no matter how many atrocities or insults that were forced upon them. The country has shifted now and no group can be considered the sole social and cultural power.

What then does this changed social reality mean for the country going forward? While the Untied States is not in imminent danger of descending into civil war and ethnic cleansing, it is not hard to see another decade or two of the current rhetoric becoming an increasingly destabilizing influence on the country. The only way for the country to survive and prosper is to reject the nationalist dogma of coercion and control in favor of a policy of compromise and coalition. It is only by embracing our diversity and working toward the common good that America can avoid destroying itself as Yugoslavia did.