As I've said previously, I'm resisting writing a full reply to the Post-Conservative's most recent (and very interesting) post, in the exchange we've been having.
In fact, I'm resisting writing a lot of blog posts, as I should be doing other things! The lure of an immediate audience is difficult to resist...
However, I've been turning our debate over and over in my mind, as much questioning my own positions as the Post-Conservative's, and I can at least give a foretaste of what my eventual reply will be.
This is it; I think there's a danger of an over-reaction against universalism. As I've said many times on this blog, I think our modern Western society has too much universalism (or the wrong sort of universalism), and not enough particularism-- not nearly enough particularism, which the human heart and spirit craves. And this has led to a huge backlash recently.
But we need universalism too. Especially we need the sort of universalism that covers any two or more people who are likely to run into each other, or to have an interaction with other, in ordinary life.
Why? That would require a long post. But in a list of words; courtesy, solidarity, fraternity, openness, humanity.
To me, cultural nationalism (which would, in fact, contain an element of civic nationalism) is capable of including all our fellow citizens, and even long-term migrants. At least, it's open to them if they want to be a part of it. Yes, "inclusion" is a horribly abused word, but it doesn't make it a bad word.
A cultural identity that is founded essentially on genetics (or race, or DNA, or colour, or any such thing) is, in my view, too particularistic-- no wriggle room, no give, no flexibility. Unlike cultural nationalism, you can't "opt in" no matter how much you want to. This, too, seems inhuman to me. Even the family, the social form most rooted in biology, has room for adoptive members.
However, this is just the outline of a response, which I'm afraid won't come for a long time!