*
Secular nationalism was a big force in the world from the mid 19th century to the mid twentieth, because it led to larger and more powerful nations, like Germany (especially Germany).
In other words, this was the era whan secular nationalism was a strong cohesive and strengthening force.
(Indeed, all-but-secular nationalism arguably led to the USA differentiating itself from Great Britain even before this.)
*
But in more recent decades, secular nationalism has not been able to make big units cohere, but has instead been (merely) a force for fragmentation and weakening.
So there are two kinds of secular nationalism, in terms of effects: cohesive nationalism (which is strong and creates power) and fragmenting nationalism (which may be weaker and diminishes power).
*
Effective cohesive secular nationism requires that the ruling elite of a potential or actual nation (or a significant proportion of them) are seriously concerned with differentiating themselves (their culture) from another specific country.
So that Germany nationalism defined itself in terms of differences from the French, the USA was defined in terms of differences from the British.
And the pattern can be seen almost everywhere: nationalism differentiates-against.
Fragmenting nationalism has done the same: Irish and Scots and Welsh nationalists are almost exclusively concerned with differentiating themselves from England.
*
Sometimes nationalism tries to work in more than one direction: e.g. Canada tries to define itself against both the USA and the UK (and in the case of Quebec, against Anglophone Canada) - but this bi-directionality merely makes 'Canadian nationalism' very weak.
*
My reading of history is that nationalism does not keep its strength for more than about a generation, at most two. After this, some other factor is needed to maintain coherence.
In other words, nationalism is a phase in the life of a nation - not a permanent basis for organization.
*
But when the ruling elites do not have this concern to differentiate themselves, then nationalism is insignificant.
Nationalism is currently insignificant in England and in the USA - because they do not have this concern to differentiate their culture from another nation. Whether this is a good or bad thing, they just don't.
And if the ruling elites do not have this concern, then nationalism has no purchase, no strength, no power to cohere or re-shape.
*
So there is near-zero chance of a politically and culturally strong nationalism arising in either England or the USA.
People who are worried about resurgent English or US nationalism therefore need not worry; people who hope for resurgent English or US nationalism are going to find their hopes disappointed.
*
