Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Patriotism over polarization

patriotism
Jelena Matvejeva/EyeEm/Getty Images

Murphy is the director of FixUS, the democracy reform advocacy arm of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a fiscal policy think tank of which he is also chief of staff. Henry is a program associate for FixUs and CRFB.

Patriotism is defined as “ love for or devotion to one’s country,” a value that, historically, Americans have shared very broadly. Yet one would not be criticized for questioning whether this trait is waning in the face of deep polarization, mounting national pessimism and politicization of the topic itself. In just the last few weeks, polls reminded us that rapidly growing majorities of Republicans and Democrats say their political counterparts are close-minded, dishonest, immoral, and unintelligent, and two-thirds of Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike fear American democracy itself is in danger of collapse.

Despite our national melancholy, however, American patriotism appears to remain alive and widespread; 72 percent of Americans are proud to be so, and 73 percent would, despite its faults, rather live in the U.S. than another country, according to the results of a poll we conducted with YouGov earlier this summer. At the same time, other polls, such as Gallup’s June American pride survey, suggest patriotism may simultaneously be on a decline.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Tapping into and restoring our shared sense of patriotism might be the critical element we need to overcome hyperpolarization, but if we hope to do this, we must better understand what drives our underlying love of country in the first place. We also should recognize how partisans think differently on these topics to prevent extremist voices from exploiting these divisions for their benefit.


In testing some hypotheses about what might drive our shared patriotism, our initial findings suggest three simple yet fundamental points:

We take pride in our shared story. Contrary to the divisive debates over the nation’s past, Americans, regardless of partisan affiliation, express pride toward many of the defining aspects of U.S. history, ranging from scientific and technological innovations to winning World War II, from the resolution of the Civil War and outlawing slavery to the adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and to guaranteeing women’s suffrage in the 19th Amendment (the greatest source of pride among the list provided in our poll). More in Common has  found this as well, with Americans expressing high levels of familiarity and warmness toward historical figures ranging from Benjamin Franklin and George Washington to Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr.

We stress the importance of our ideals. Americans are unequivocally united in their belief in America and what America should be. Regardless of party, Americans declare that each of our fundamental ideals is especially important to them, including America’s striving to be a land of opportunity and liberty, a melting pot and a country of equal justice for all.

We are not blindly allegiant. Some have feared the possibility of a growing pernicious form of nationalism taking root in America. Yet sentiments associated with blind patriotism are low in the aggregate, whereas huge majorities support the concept that criticizing and working to improve the country is in and of itself patriotic. For example, 85 percent of Republicans, 86 percent of independents, and 88 percent of Democrats think you should notice and work to correct America’s problems if you love the country.

With Americans having a common sense of history, a shared sense of ideals and the need to achieve them, and a belief that criticism of our nation’s problems is the task of a true patriot, it would appear the country has a foundation for building a shared patriotism.

Of course, we are a long way from realizing that goal. Our research and that of many others have found that despite our shared values, we suffer from a profound mistrust of “the other.” For example, despite majorities professing a belief that those who express their love of country differently (even through criticism) are valued community members whose freedom of speech and right to protest injustice should be protected, only 43 percent of Americans agree that people who protest U.S. policy are generally good, upstanding people and valued members of society. This severe mistrust of the motives of others – so long as their criticism is different than what we would likely give – is further compounded by a substantial perception gap where people ascribe different beliefs to others than they genuinely hold.

But what if the root of these divides lies with the American story itself – our perpetual struggle to achieve our founding ideals? What if, instead, we recognized that we all agree on the same ideals, but we just differ on how close (or not) we are to achieving our full realization?

For example, 83 percent of Republicans believe we are more than halfway to becoming the ideal land of opportunity, “where if you work hard and play by the rules, you can achieve success and a happy life for yourself,” while only 57 percent of independents and 51 percent of Democrats do so. Similarly, 73 percent of Republicans believe we are more than halfway to achieving the “equality and justice for all” ideal for the country, “where all groups in society are respected and treated fairly,” compared to 51 percent of independents and 43 percent of Democrats.

These divides are not just deserving of recognition but are worth elevating and reconciling. For, as 85 percent of Americans indicate in their appreciation of criticizing our country's flaws and problem-solving, true patriotism is not just a feeling or a sense of nationhood but a constant action thereof. One reflection of this duty is countering misperceptions, both our own and those we interact with. But more importantly, it is building trust by building bridges, and our data suggests the emerging bridge-building movement has an enormous opportunity to bring people together by focusing on the foundational task of closing the gap between the America of today and the America we dream of. We believe a shared patriotism will provide this bond: a patriotism that is not an act of worship but one of love for our fellow citizens and faith in the common ideals that have brought us this far, and one that compels us to account for our national flaws, collaboratively respond to the critical disputes of today, and continue working toward a more perfect Union tomorrow.

Read More

The American Schism in 2025: The New Cultural Revolution

A street vendor selling public domain Donald Trump paraphernalia and souvenirs. The souvenirs are located right across the street from the White House and taken on the afternoon of July 21, 2019 near Pennslyvania Avenue in Washington, D.C.

Getty Images, P_Wei

The American Schism in 2025: The New Cultural Revolution

A common point of bewilderment today among many of Trump’s “establishment” critics is the all too tepid response to Trump’s increasingly brazen shattering of democratic norms. True, he started this during his first term, but in his second, Trump seems to relish the weaponization of his presidency to go after his enemies and to brandish his corrupt dealings, all under the Trump banner (e.g. cyber currency, Mideast business dealings, the Boeing 747 gift from Qatar). Not only does Trump conduct himself with impunity but Fox News and other mainstream media outlets barely cover them at all. (And when left-leaning media do, the interest seems to wane quickly.)

Here may be the source of the puzzlement: the left intelligentsia continues to view and characterize MAGA as a political movement, without grasping its transcendence into a new dominant cultural order. MAGA rose as a counter-establishment partisan drive during Trump’s 2016 campaign and subsequent first administration; however, by the 2024 election, it became evident that MAGA was but the eye of a full-fledged cultural shift, in some ways akin to Mao’s Cultural Revolution.

Keep ReadingShow less
The U.S. Is Rushing To Make AI Deals With Gulf Countries, But Who Will Help Keep Children Safe?

A child's hand holding an adult's hand.

Getty Images, LaylaBird

The U.S. Is Rushing To Make AI Deals With Gulf Countries, But Who Will Help Keep Children Safe?

As the United States deepens its investments in artificial intelligence (AI) partnerships abroad, it is moving fast — signing deals, building labs, and exporting tools. Recently, President Donald Trump announced sweeping AI collaborations with Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. These agreements, worth billions, are being hailed as historic moments for digital diplomacy and technological leadership.

But amid the headlines and handshakes, I keep asking the same question: where is child protection in all of this?

Keep ReadingShow less
Illinois Residents Grapple With Urban Flooding

Rear view of a person standing in the street flooded with water

Getty Images//Stock Photo

Illinois Residents Grapple With Urban Flooding

Following months of research, canvassing, and listening to community needs, journalists, including Britton Struthers-Lugo, produced solutions-based stories about the challenges faced by the Berwyn, Illinois, community.

In Part 1, Struthers-Lugo examines the issue of urban flooding, a growing concern for residents and infrastructure in Berwyn.

Keep ReadingShow less
Proposed Proof-of-Citizenship Bill Could Impact All Registered Voters in Texas

Opponents of a proof-of-citizenship bill before Texas lawmakers say many women in rural areas, who could get targeted by the bill, do not have a birth certificate matching their current last name.

Golib Tolibov/Adobe Stock AI

Proposed Proof-of-Citizenship Bill Could Impact All Registered Voters in Texas

Voting rights advocates in Texas are speaking out against a proof-of-citizenship bill before lawmakers.

Senate Bill 16 would require new registrants and some existing registered voters to prove they are U.S. citizens.

Amber Mills, issue advocacy director for the Move Texas Civic Fund, said the requirement would be in addition to what the state already does to check someone's eligibility.

"When you're completing a voter form, you do also have to submit either your driver's license number or your Social Security number," Mills pointed out. "That's really important because that is how the state verifies who you are, and that's a key indicator that they use to protect their databases on the back end."

Even if you were born in the U.S., the bill could require you to show proof of citizenship with a passport or birth certificate matching your current name. According to the Secure Democracy Foundation, more than 38% percent of rural and small-town Texans do not have a passport.

Anyone who cannot prove citizenship would be placed on a separate voter roll and could only cast ballots in the U.S. House and Senate races.

Emily French, policy director for the advocacy group Common Cause Texas, said the additional barriers could prevent many residents from casting their votes in local, state and presidential races.

"All the DPS systems, all the immigration systems which say that they are citizens, but there can still be mistakes that mark them as noncitizens and could throw them off the voter rolls until they come in with these documents that they don't have," French explained.

The bill directs the Texas Secretary of State's Office to check all registered voters' status by the end of the year and send the names of registered voters who have not proven their citizenship before September 2025 to county elections offices.

Mills noted if you are flagged, there is no online system to comply with the request and all paperwork must be submitted in person.

"We are not disputing the goal of having only eligible citizens on the voter rolls, but we know that Texas already has strong systems in place," Mills emphasized. "It's ultimately the state's responsibility, the county's responsibility to do these voter roll checks, but what SB 16 would do is not change any of that, not improve any of that. It would just add an additional burden."

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less