Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Words matter, especially in politics

Person speaking in front of an American flag

Not everyone views some traditionally "American" terms the same way.

Jason_V/Getty Images

Meyers is executive editor of The Fulcrum.

Even as the partisan divide drives liberals and conservatives apart, there are certain words or ideals that continue to unite Americans, like freedom and liberty. But patriotism? Not so much.

Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement, which helps funders maximize their support for democracy-focused nonprofits, recently released a study of Americans’ perception of political terms. While many of the words and phrases have universal appeal across the ideological spectrum — the aforementioned freedom and liberty, but also others like citizen, belonging, service and Constitution — a handful performed quite differently.


“We used to think we were saying words. Now we are sending signals,” said Amy McIsaac, managing director of learning and experimentation at PACE. “‘Patriotism’ has been sending signals for a very long time.”

Nearly 90 percent of Americans have a positive reaction to “freedom,” with Democrats, independents and Republicans all above 80 percent. Similarly, “liberty” has across-the-board positive reactions. The lowest positive rating was 79 percent among Democrats, reaching as high as 87 percent among independents.

“Patriotism,” on the other hand, was only rated positive among 67 percent of respondents, with a 50-point gap among the partisan extremes: 83 percent among those who are very conservative and 33 percent among the very liberal.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Chart showing positive views of 'patriotism' by political ideologySource: Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement

And the spread between the wings has grown in recent years. PACE compared its most recent data, from 2023, to data collected in 2021. Among very conservative respondents, positive views of “patriotism” increased 12 points, from 71 percent in 2021. During that same period, positive attitudes among the very liberal decreased from 44 percent to 33 percent.

Lee Pierce, a professor of rhetorical communication at SUNY Geneseo, says these words have never really been “all-American” terms.

“These words have partisan origins that correspond with the dominant identities of conservative and liberal viewpoints. I'm not sure they've become 'more’ partisan,” Pierce said. “But there has been a significant concentration of media since the 1990s so it may be that the talking points, particularly on the right, … are more consolidated so we're seeing more frequency of fewer words. That would track with the trend toward ‘"message discipline.’"

The partisanship seems to be building on itself, according to the PACE data. Nearly three-quarters of people who identify as somewhat or very conservative said “patriotism” is fully or somewhat “meant for me.” At the other end, 44 percent of the very liberal respondents and 38 percent of somewhat liberal people said “patriotism” is somewhat or fully “meant for someone else.”

“Liberals are saying, ‘Not for me,’ and conservatives are saying, “Yep, for me,” McIsaac said.

That divide led to a striking dichotomy: “Patriotism” was both the second most positive term (after “community”) and the second most negative term (just ahead of “bipartisan”).

“Patriotism” wasn’t the only word that demonstrated a partisan divide. “Republic” is viewed far more positively among Republicans (79 percent) and Republican-leaning independents (70 percent) than among Democrats (43 percent), Democratic-leanding independents (37 percent) and independents (48 percent).

But “diversity” and “racial equity” are flipped the other way, with significantly lower positivity scores among those on the right than on the left.

Deborah Schildkraut, a political science professor at Tufts University who specializes in political psychology and racial and ethnic studies, believes there’s an element of race at play.

“In short, people’s attitudes about anything having to do with race have become more strongly associated with other political outcomes, such as vote choice,” she said. “So words have partisan connotations because people of different parties feel differently (and strongly) about the issues that those words represent. “

And then there are terms that have yet to gain a foothold, presenting a challenge — and perhaps an opportunity — for the people and organizations working to bring Americans together across the partisan divide.

For example, “bridging” and “civic engagement” – concepts championed by dozens and dozens of organizations – do not resonate among many Americans. More than half of respondents, across partisan affiliations, said they feeling neither positively or negatively about the word “bridging,” or said they are not familiar with it.

Chart showing  feelings abou the term 'bridging'Source: Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement

“I also don't love the bridge metaphor,” said Pierce. “Think about a bridge — it's still two separate places (right and left) and then there's the work of building a stable structure that goes from one place to the other and then someone has to cross the bridge. I don't think you're ever going to see traction on concepts like bipartisanship until we don't have such an entrenched two-party political system, which is hard to imagine given the amount of money currently controlling US politics, especially since the decision in the Citizens United case. Right now partisanship is very profitable for politicians and corporations. As long as it's profitable it's going to be proliferated.

While Americans are more positive about “civic engagement,” particularly on the left, there’s still a significant share of people who say they are unfamiliar with the term.

Chart showing feelings about the term 'civic engagement'Source: Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement

Kristin Hansen, executive director of the Civic Health Project, is among those who see opportunities with such terms.

“Enough people across enough different sectors think these terms are working and will resonate with people,” said Hansen, who is deeply involved in bridge-building efforts. However, she does think there is an opportunity for some rebranding.

“When you use terms like ‘bridging divides’ and ‘bridging differences,’ you hear ‘divides’ and differences,” she said, explaining that the movement needs to start using more positive concepts. ”Building toward trust is more positive. Trust is the simplest word that conveys the same ideals and has broad resonance from right to left party because it doesn't sound so high-falutin.”

Among the other words Hansen is trying to bring to the bridging movement are connection, belonging and inclusion.

“We are evolving DEI toward something more like inclusion or belonging rather than identity markers,” she said.

Schildkraut also sees value in finding different language for bringing people together.

“One phrase you hear a lot in movement circles is ‘meeting people where they are.’ So yes, I can see why finding terms that resonate with people may be a better strategy than trying to get them to appreciate words like bridging and civic engagement in the way that scholars or organizers might use and understand those terms,” she said.

Read More

Sacred Succession: The Pope's Final Gift to Democracy
a person standing on a sidewalk with a hat on
Photo by Chris Weiher on Unsplash

Sacred Succession: The Pope's Final Gift to Democracy

When the bells of St. Peter's Basilica tolled on Easter Monday, announcing Pope Francis's death at 88, they rang for the world's 1.3 billion Catholics and all of humanity. During the moment of transition for the Catholic Church, we witnessed the conclave, a ritual of power transfer that predates modern democracy yet might offer surprising lessons for our contemporary political moment.

The death of a pope represents more than a religious milestone. It is a moment that transcends theological boundaries, offering insights into how institutions navigate succession, how power transfers in an age of global uncertainty, and how ancient traditions might illuminate modern challenges.

Keep ReadingShow less
The American Pope

The newly elected Pontiff, Pope Leo XIV is seen for the first time from the Vatican balcony on May 8, 2025 in Vatican City, Vatican.

(Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)

The American Pope

Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost made history on Thursday by being elected as the pope, marking the first time an American has been chosen for this role within the Roman Catholic Church. At 69 years old, he has taken on the papal name Leo XIV.

Originally from Chicago, Prevost has dedicated much of his ministry to Peru. His election occurred on the second day of the cardinals' conclave in Vatican City, after four ballots were cast.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Donald Trump speaks during a rally at Macomb Community College on April 29, 2025 at Warren, Michigan.

President Donald Trump speaks during a rally at Macomb Community College on April 29, 2025 at Warren, Michigan.

Getty Images, Scott Olson

​​The American Schism in 2025: Understanding the Other Side

In distilling lessons from my research onAmerican Schism, I often refer to a secret sauce or magic formula that U.S. citizens deployed at times during our history to productively bridge major societal divisions. To be clear, in these periods, the rifts endured but relying on the formula’s specific ingredients led us to better outcomes as compared to other eras when this formula was abandoned. In the former moments, we often forged new policy solutions — in the latter, we often experienced violent episodes.

One of the three key elements of this magic formula is what I label deep empathetic listening (stay tuned to this series for future discussion of the other two elements). Sounding simple but too often forsaken today, this form of listening is not easy work. It is analogous to a routine practice from high school debate club: first, through research and critical thinking, one constructs a rational argument for a particular point of view supported by data and carefully vetted sources. Then, perhaps a week later, one is assigned the same but from the opposing point of view. It is perhaps not surprising that our civic discourse has collapsed today — with current communication methods and platforms such as social media, critically researched data is sparse while sanctimonious outrage is omnipresent.

Keep ReadingShow less