This episode originally aired on July 7, 2026.
As America marks its 250th birthday this year, the national mood is deeply fractured.
While many citizens feel let down by the federal government, others are feeling a strong sense of national pride.
Patriotism has become a partisan discussion, less about a shared love of country and more about one political side or another.
This raises critical questions: What does it truly mean to be a patriot, how did public perception shift so drastically and what lies ahead for national confidence?
Guests:
- Brian Kisida, associate professor, Truman School of Government & Public Affairs, University of Missouri
- Daniel Rivers, history professor, Ohio State University
- David Steigerwald, history professor, Ohio State University
Transcript
This transcript is generated with AI. To ensure its accuracy, review the audio file.
Amy Juravich: Welcome to All Sides with Amy Juravich. What does it mean to be a patriot is a question every American has asked themselves at some point, and it's changed dramatically over the years. America is a huge country with many different groups that have very different concepts of what it means to be patriotic. As America marked its 250th birthday, the national mood is deeply fractured. Patriotism has become a partisan discussion. Less about shared love of country and more about one political side or another. How has the public perception shifted so dramatically around the topic and what challenges lie ahead for national confidence? We have a panel of experts joining us for our discussion of the past, present, and future of patriotism. Joining us now is Brian Kisida, Associate Professor in the Truman School of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Missouri. Welcome to the show, Brian.
Brian Kisida: Alright, thank you for having me.
Juravich: And also with us, Daniel Rivers, Associate Professor of History at Ohio State University. Welcome to the show, Daniel.
Daniel Rivers: Thanks, Amy. Great to be here.
Juravich: And we also have David Steigerwald, professor of history at Ohio State University. Welcome to the show, David. Thanks so much for having me, I appreciate it. So we've assembled these three guests because you all study kind of different aspects of this. Brian studies teaching of civics and K-12 education policy. Daniel studies LGBTQ communities within the 20th century and Native American history. He's also an enrolled member of the Choctaw Nation in Oklahoma. And David teaches courses in 20th century America, ranging from World War I through the 1960s. So different perspectives, different ways of studying history, but also maybe different ways of discussing what it means to be patriotic. So I wanted to start off and hear what each of you think it means right now to be a patriot. Brian, can we start with you? Can you define what a patriot is right now?
Kisida: Yeah, I think I can, I mean, I, I think that there's a particular view of patriotism that is not particularly nationalistic, like, you know, just love of country because that's the place that you were born. And there's also a form of patriot ism that is not party-specific. And I think that that form of patriotism, at least with regards to the United States, means a belief that the values and the principles that we articulate, that we aspire to. Are superior to other ways of living. So that means democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, equal protection. These are things that we don't just think of as sort of like neutral and a relativist, you know, way of thinking about things, especially with regards to civics education. Those are, these are things that we think are inherent in our way of life. And I think believing in those things is the way that we would define sort of like Western democratic patriotism.
Juravich: Okay, David, what about you? How would you define being a patriot right now?
David Steigerwald: Well, let me cheat and just repeat what John Kennedy said in his famous inaugural address that patriotism is not asking your country to do something for you, but seeing what you can do for your country.
Juravich: Okay, all right. That's short, sweet, to the point, and very Kennedy-like. All right, I got it. And Daniel, what about you? Can you define a patriot?
Rivers: Sure. Thanks, Amy. I think I would echo some of what Brian had said in that, you know, many of the many of the groups I study, I think minority groups, groups that face some kind of disenfranchisement. I think for them, patriotism is often a sense of belonging. But it also is about sort of speaking the ideals of America as a work in progress, right? Sort of calling that forth. Brian talked about the founding principles of the nation and really a belief in them. And I think that you see that in the history of minority patriotisms a lot, that call to those ideals. Okay.
Juravich: And I, David, maybe we'll ask you, I'm not sure who could take this question, but is it something that's uniquely American or do you think that the sense of patriotism exists in every country?
Steigerwald: I'm not sure every country, but it's certainly not unique to the United States. Take the French, the English. Look at all the enthusiasm over soccer teams. There's an element of patriotism and all that. So I think it's a pretty universal sentiment, even though it's parochial at the same time.
Juravich: Yeah, Brian, you could weigh in on that because especially with the soccer reference, you know, I saw a meme on Instagram where someone who was really mad at the French government and was just like saying all these horrible things about the French Government and then the second the soccer team took the field, it was like, Viva la France and I love, you know, that kind of thing. So, Brian what do you make of that?
Kisida: Yeah, I mean, I look I actually think that sports and international competitions are a great way to build, you know, national pride and interest you know those of us who are watching the World Cup and going to watch parties can sense that I do think, like when you mentioned the idea of, is patriotism a uniquely... Know, American thing or Western thing. I mean, I would say absolutely not. I think that, you know, it's a key thing for any nation to exist and sustain itself. People have to believe in it. I think the key difference between free societies and societies like if you take like a China or a North Korea. You know, we tend to refer to those more as like a nationalist type of patriotism, and it's largely imposed by force. And I think, you know through the exertion of power over other people. And the real challenge with in free societies through maintaining patriotism is that we have open channels of dissent. It's part of our culture to criticize ourselves and be open to, you know, differing, differ in perspectives, often many of which are critical and negative, and Balancing that type of open forum while still maintaining some sort of love of country is the real challenge I think in free societies.
Juravich: And Daniel, you were smiling when we were making the soccer references, because are you, are you smiling because there's different types of patriotism? There's the sports patriotism versus the patriotism related to the government.
Rivers: Absolutely, and I think that sports is a great way for a kind of large body and population to be able to get involved and celebrate. I was actually thinking about how patriotism is kind of a right at different times in US history too, right? Certain groups have the right to be patriotic, whereas other groups have that right limited, right. They do not allow it to be patriotic. And so I don't think we always think of it that way, but actually historically it's operated that way a lot.
Juravich: When you say a group's not allowed to be patriotic, tell me more, what do you mean?
Rivers: If you look at July 4 celebrations, for example, in New York before the Civil War, African Americans, free black communities often had to celebrate on July 5, because when they celebrated on July 4, they were attacked by mobs, right? So it was considered offensive for them to celebrate patriotism, because that would mean they belonged, right.
Juravich: Oh, I see. Okay. David, what do you think that the, the meaning of being patriotic over the decades has changed? Or has it been the same since the country's founding? Since 1776 as a patriot, a patriot? Because you quoted Kennedy, but think, think bigger picture.
Steigerwald: I think it's, because it's something of an abstraction, it can change and not change at the same time. That's a lousy answer, I know. But my sense is that the particulars of patriotism have remained pretty stable.
Juravich: Yeah. Does anyone else want to add to that? Do you think since 1776 to, you know, 250 years as being a patriot basically been the same or has it changed?
Rivers: I think there's a lot of commonalities I was thinking about when I thought about patriotism but military service for example that's a that's a sort of pillar of patriotism all the way from the revolutionary era to you know the push for LGBT individuals to be allowed to serve in the military a lot of times you see the protests that lead us up to changes in those policies in the 90s happening on July 4th and being expressed as the right to serve in the military. So that would be one aspect of patriotism, I think, that's pretty consistent.
Juravich: And Brian, you study civics and the K-12 education. You've done some research on that. Do you think that every American is born with some innate sense of patriotism or is it something that is learned?
Kisida: No, I don't think that we're born with, well, sure, yes. I think we are born with some innate sense of like group of belonging and identity with a tribe. But I don't necessarily think that that's a good, you know, that. That might not be the best starting point. I think we actually have to sort of untrain ourselves out of, through education, you know, out of tribal thinking and into sort of a more open, inclusive, pluralistic mindset. And I think that that's really the sort of core challenge of civics education. I think, we're probably all sort of naturally built as sort of... I think in some ways, I think we're human beings are probably naturally authoritarian. The world should look like the place that I believe that it should look like and training and cultivating a sense of tolerance and mutual sense of pluralism for the wishes and rights and beliefs of others is where the work comes in.
You're listening to All Sides on 89.7 NPR News. We're talking about patriotism and what it means with Brian Casita, associate professor in the Truman School of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Missouri. Daniel Rivers, associate Professor of History at Ohio State. And David Stagerwald, Professor of history, also at Ohio state university. Brian, just back to you for a moment with that. Your research focuses on children and how they grapple with our country's history. What do you think about being patriotic today for children right now? Is it all, I guess it's World Cup related, right? The second, probably.
Kisida: Um, no, I mean, so we do have data on this and those data points are not encouraging currently. I mean I think that you mentioned in some of your opening that patriotism is at a low. So if we think about sort of like recent history, almost in terms of like recorded polling, September 12, 2001. Was the highest point in the last three decades of pride in America, pride of being an American. And so you mentioned having some external threats being something that can bond a country together, whether it was World War II or the Soviet Union during the Cold War. And I think that that's probably part of the reason that we've come from that high point to much lower levels, dropped 20 or 30 points. But a lot of those declines have really among young people. And there's recent data, for example, the more in common organization recently looked at the question, is democracy the best form of government? And that's opinion is held by 80% of Americans on average, but among Generation Z only 47% think that democracy is definitely the best from of government. So the young people today are growing up far more disillusioned with the idea of America and American democracy. And we could get into the weeds of maybe why we think that might be the case. There's a lot of speculation involved there.
Juravich: Okay, well, we'll get there. But, David, let's talk with you about that having something to unite around. Brian mentioned September 11, 2001. You could also think back to World War II. I feel like in that time, there was a lot of patriotism or that, you know, everyone rallying together against a common enemy. How do you see that in what you study? Because you focus on World one through the 60s. What do we need to be able to rally around to feel patriotic?
Steigerwald: Well, war is a historically important element, right? And If you look at the invocation or the deployment of patriotic sentiment and rhetoric, it wasn't World War II that was the peak, but World War I, and there were very specific reasons that actually didn't necessarily have to do with fighting the war itself. The first reason why patriotic sediment was so high in the mid-second decade of 20th century was that it corresponded with the Americanization movement. Kind of diffuse movement designed to cajole new immigrants to become American, to adopt English, to adapt American forms of hygiene, other elements that supposedly define what the American was. And that dovetailed with the war because there was a drive among WASP elites, I'm universal military training, UMT they called it, which they saw as an instrument of forced assimilation, bringing the immigrants into military camps and teach them how to be good Americans. As General Leonard Wood put it in a famous essay, this would heat up the melting pot. So that was going on even before the United States entered the war. I think the second reason why patriotic sentiment peaked at that point was that World War I was the first conflict in which The federal government created a propaganda bureau in order to gin up support. World War I was not a particularly popular endeavor until they made it one, right? And so the Wilson administration created the Committee on Public Information to literally to gin-up support for the war. And how did they do that? Well, by appealing to patriotic motives, by denouncing especially the so-called alien Radicals, the Bolsheviks among us, as un-American. And so both of those things dovetailed together, I think, to intensify patriotic sentiment.
Juravich: Hmm. And yeah, Brian, I wanted to ask you about that, that that propaganda element, because I'm not sure that like, I understand now the propaganda element in World War One, I was I was thinking World War Two, but I think that I maybe I had a better civics class in World War Two history than World War one history, probably. So but there there wasn't was there the propaganda on September 12 2001, or we didn't need that because we were rallying as a country. You know, just because of what happened.
Kisida: Oh, I'm not sure. I could get into, I think we could probably spend the rest of the hour defining what propaganda is, right? I'm sure, because I'm like, I do think there's some element, right. I mean, if governments, which are regularly, right, I mean how many governments, state, local, federal governments spent money on 4th of July celebrations last weekend, and I suppose I could define that as propaganda, but I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. So there's some line of like sort of, I think, good investment in maybe like good propaganda of that might have some like cohesive nation building type of qualities and then some of the bad things that maybe David's referring to that gets more into like half-truths and lying and outright, you know, just sort of like appealing to our worst elements.
Juravich: Yeah, Daniel, do you want to add in there on you don't have to define propaganda either, but
Rivers: Thanks. I was thinking, as David was talking, Theodore Roosevelt talked against what he called hyphenated Americans. He said that if European immigrants to America were going to come, they were welcome, but assimilation was required. I guess that really points to a couple of different kinds of patriotism. I'd be interested if Brian has something to say about the distinction. I mean, there's patriotism that demands. Cultural assimilation and then there's a patriotism that again returns to the founding documents and says that one of the beautiful things about the United States is actually its diversity and its ability to contain different cultural frameworks and those are a little bit in competition it would seem What do you think about that, Brian?
Kisida: Yeah, I think it's hard to unravel that. I think that the, there's one, I think. I teach this class, you know, obviously, I think we're all professors here, but one of my classes gets into the idea of cultural assimilation. And one of the things that we make clear at the beginning of that talk, this is a very discussion based classes, we're not talking about cuisine or something right we're now talking about right if you come here, you must enjoy hot dogs and hamburgers. But there is sort of another sort of like political assimilation, which is, if you're an immigrant to the United States, we hope, and we expect that you come in. Respecting our legal system and our principles and our aspirations are our way of life. And that is, I think the thing from a very sort of like higher level political issue that nation states are dealing with across the globe. So I just did a study abroad with students over in Europe and obviously immigration has been a big issue there. But when it comes to some of the serious policy conversations regarding that, it is essential that. There is some assimilation from if you're coming to a free society that you respect that this is a free society and it's not a place where we impose one religion versus another or that we see some people having more rights than others. When you're taking in people from all over the world, those are things and skills and habits that I think you do have to be proactive about articulating. Maybe not in the way that Roosevelt was, I'm not sure, but there's something to that, right?
Juravich: Staying with us after the break, we have Brian Casita, associate professor at the University of Missouri, Daniel Rivers, associate professor at Ohio State and David Stagerwald, professor at Ohio state as well. Coming up, we're gonna talk about how, we're going to talk more about how patriotism has changed over time. That is when All Sides continues on 89.7 NPR News.
You're listening to All Sides. I'm your host, Amy Juravich. Patriotism and pride for our country is something that has been a core of American life since the founding fathers. However, patriotism and what it means to be patriotic has gone through many changes over time, just as America has. How have pivotal moments in our history from 9-11 to the Vietnam War affected how Americans felt about their country at the time and what are their lasting legacies? And as we celebrate America's 250th birthday, what have past celebrations shown us about being patriotic? Still with us, we have Daniel Rivers, Associate Professor of History at Ohio State University. Daniel studies LGBT communities in the 20th century and Native American history, and he is an enrolled member of the Choctaw Nation in Oklahoma. Thanks for being here, Daniel.
Rivers: Oh, thank you, Amy.
Juravich: And also with us, we have David Stagerwald, professor of history at Ohio State University. And David teaches courses in 20th century America, ranging from World War I through the 60s. Thanks for being here, David.
Steigerwald: Thank you for having me.
Juravich: And we also have Brian Casita, Associate Professor in the Truman School of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Missouri. Brian teaches courses on civics and K-12 education policy as well. Thanks for being here, Brian.
Kisida: Thank you, Amy.
Juravich: All right, so for America's 4th of July celebrations and the country's 250th birthday, President Trump spoke and he gave a speech about pride in our country. But he also used that platform to campaign for his own party ahead of the midterm elections. One of the biggest focuses of his July 4th speech was on our defeat of communism and how the ideology has returned to America. So, David, let's go with you. Do you think that this was a good through line for that speech? You've studied 20th century America. I don't know if you listened to the speech or if you were surprised to hear President Trump bring up communism several times.
Steigerwald: Neither I didn't listen to it and I'm not surprised There's there's no real drive Among communists in the United States today. I think it's just fiction I mean if Marymandami in New York is a communist and the word doesn't mean much
Juravich: Do you think that he is trying, though, to recreate a sense of patriotism from the time when we were rallying against communism?
Steigerwald: No, I think he's just using inflammatory language. That's his thing. Okay.
Juravich: Well, tell me about the time he's referring to that, where he's saying that we are trying to defeat communism. I mean, he's referring back to a very significant time in American history. Tell me about how people rallied around that at the time.
Steigerwald: Well, yeah, there's no doubt that the Cold War was a prolonged period in which the values of patriotism were constantly invoked, and to be anti-communist was to be patriotic and to a patriot was to anti-Communist, right? But even that ranged from liberals who were among the most anti-Comunists in American politics. To southern segregationists who believe that the civil rights movement was a communist movement and they believed that firmly. It was one of their go-to defenses of segregation that to dismantle the racial order in the south was to essentially give the country to the communists of the Soviet Union. That worked two different ways. They they always imputed and sometimes accused the civil rights movement of accepting tangible support, money support from Soviet sources. But more important, they believed that anybody who committed to equality was inherently a communist. That's what communists were. They believed in equality. And so, they would have called themselves patriots. They certainly believed they were. What do you do with that?
Juravich: Brian, let me turn to you. What about the idea of being patriotic is rallying against something instead of for something in that aspect?
Kisida: Well, yeah, I mean, like we've mentioned, I mean it had, people need a purpose and people need to cause, right? People need something to believe in. And you kind of mentioned, I think in your sort of opening remarks that without external and foreign threats that we've started to fight amongst ourselves more. And this is reflected in lots of data points that political polarization is at an all time high. And that doesn't just mean, you know, It's not just a way that the elections have worked, but in lots of opinion polls, the way that we view each other's so high proportions of Democrats think Republicans are increasingly bad and evil and just not good people. And the same is true in the opposite direction. So we're intensely divided and you know, to return to your comments about Trump's speech. Yeah. I mean, he's, I don't, I, don't know that any of the particular substance of any of it matters. You know, one bit in terms of taking any of it seriously, but it clearly is divisive and partisan in terms the enemy here is within, right? We've actually heard that phrase come up a few times. And so pointing at some of the excesses that the left kind of serves up on a silver platter, you know quite often, at least in terms of like media appearances and sound bites. Mentions Mumdani earlier, but like one of the people that won the primary, you know, recently had to walk back favorable comments about that of Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, right? That came up in social media, right? So there's these gifts and these nuggets that partisans can take and amplify and illuminate to try to paint the other side as evil or damaging to what the American, you, know, fabric and society should be. But Primarily, this does not reflect reality. The vast majority of Americans are fairly moderate for fairly committed to even bipartisanship. If you look at the opinion polls, there's really about 10 to 15% on either side that really is massively online and wants to continually live in this sort of mission purpose-driven fuel of you know, finding, you know who they're against and focusing on that intensely.
Juravich: Yeah, but unfortunately, our algorithms show them show that way. Probably way too much. That's another show. Daniel, let's let's talk to let's talk about this America 250th anniversary celebrations. I want to get a thought, I guess, from each of you on how you think that they were handled, both as individual states and at a national level. Because I did a show about with the executive director of the America 250 Ohio Commission. And I mean, he really was like separating what Ohio was doing from what was happening in Washington, D.C. He said he said he didn't even the governor's office was handling the booth in Washington, DC, because he didn't even have time to do that. He was worried he was doing all of the Ohio events because that was what his commission was supposed to do celebrate Ohio's contribution to 250 years of America. So, Daniel, what do you think of this? 250Th moment, the celebrations at the state and national level.
Rivers: I think at the national level, just as my co-participants have talked about, if you listen to the president's speech, the enemy was definitely within, I think that that's sort of the way that it was spoken at the federal level was that America is in a particular moment of greatness. But then also at the same time has to be guarded and the guardedness has to directed within, right? So I think that drives the feelings of divisiveness that Brian is talking about. It's a particular moment, as David said, the enemy within and the enemy without can occur at the time. The Cold War, we saw both of those things happening. So I that that really marks this 250th anniversary at the federal level. At the state level, it seems like we've had spotty participation, right, in the federal activities. And so what we're seeing is a lot of regional differences in terms of sort of feeling on the spirit of this.
Juravich: Yeah. Okay. David, do you want to weigh in on how do you feel the 250th anniversary celebrations were handled at the state and national level? How are people feeling about 250 years?
Steigerwald: I have to confess that I have just a very abstract sense of this, but I have more hope and confidence in local and state efforts than in what we're seeing in Washington, D.C. In our department, our colleague Chris Nichols has undertaken to ... Project a historically accurate understanding of America at 250, and these kinds of efforts on the ground, I think, are more likely to be fruitful than what we're seeing in Washington.
Juravich: Brian, what about you? You want to weigh in on how it was handled at a, you're in a different state than us, but how it is handled at the state level versus the national level celebrating 250 years of America.
Kisida: Yeah, I mean, I think David's right. I mean state and local governments are just a lot less divisive. And so everything that I saw was not only positive, like it actually kind of like, I'm amazed, right? Like I'm actually kind, it's really hot outside. I think I might just stay in the AC, but so many people, you know, wanted to get out and celebrate America. And so it's great to see that I think.
Juravich: Well, an American loves a fireworks display, right? Above all, I don't, I don't. You don't? OK, most do. Most do. Just not Brian, apparently. OK. OK. Well, can we talk about 200, the bicentennial, the 200 celebrations versus this 250th? Because that was another thing I talked about on the show with the executive director of the Ohio Commission. I was not around for the 200 celebration, but. I've been told that there was, it was more patriotic, more like everyone was like, yay, we're 200 years old, as opposed to the 250th right now where we're feeling a little disjointed. Do you want to weigh in on that David?
Steigerwald: Yeah, sure, it was less divisive, it's less partisan.
Juravich: But it was right after Vietnam War.
Steigerwald: Right. Well, and Watergate, you have to keep that in mind. And at that point, Ford and Carter, the national leadership was undertaking an active and quite purposeful effort to heal wounds that I don't really see at the top today.
Juravich: Okay. Brian or Daniel, do you want to weigh in on 200 versus 250? The vibes?
Rivers: Just that, just that I was five years old and skipped down to the Bay in New York City to watch the tall ships come in. It was a great day that I still remember. You know, I was growing up in a radical lesbian feminist household and we were living in New york for about six months. And so I remember that was one of the first times I actually felt like I was part of the country. It was, it was a powerful moment.
Juravich: Okay, so 200. Brian, what about you? Do you have any thoughts on 200 versus 250?
Kisida: I wasn't old enough to witness it. And I think it's really kind of important to be able to live through something to truly judge it. You know, whatever historical picture that we get from, you know, the media, right? I mean, "Forrest Gump" gives me a particular narrative of like what it's like to live through the sixties or the seventies, but I don't know what it is really like to live in a small town in Missouri and you know experience those things. So. I don't know. It's difficult to compare. Things definitely do feel different, yes.
Juravich: Well, and, and Brian, we talked about when I did that America 250 Ohio show, we talked about it being a once in a lifetime celebration, because as I said, I missed the 200 and I'd have to be really lucky to make it to the 300. So this was mine, the 250 and I felt I loved going to my local fireworks display, Brian, I'm sorry, I love fireworks. It's just the heart, it's just... It's just hot. Okay, I know. I had a personal fan, so I loved it, but I felt different about what was happening in Washington, DC. I had no desire to go to Washington, D.C. I was going to stay in my local community and celebrate my local July 4th for the 250. Talk to me about it being a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Do you think, Brian, what do you think of that, that people right now won't remember the 200 and will miss the 300?
Kisida: Um, I don't know. I mean, I don't have a good sense of, you know, what the pulse is. You know, to me, it seems like it's not being made of, it seems it's like it not as big a deal as it was back, you know, during the 200s. I think a big part of that is that we just have such a more fragmented life these days. You know there was a very different thing happening when there was basically three or four television stations that could all broadcast kind of the same central message and theme and Americans were. A lot more likely to be on the same page and having the same conversations. I think versus today where there's so many different pockets of interest and ways of accessing different material. I'm sure that there's far more different ways of celebrating America's 250th than there were for the 200th. It's just very hard to catalog what all of those are.
Juravich: Yeah, David, do you think that, you know, the 200th was felt to be more patriotic because there wasn't social media than if you, you could just watch your favorite TV station and they were talking about America's 200 history. And that was the focus.
Steigerwald: I think that's a really good point, Brian makes, and I'll leave it at that, actually.
Juravich: All right, we'll leave it at that. Well, staying with us after the break, we have Brian Casita from the University of Missouri and Daniel Rivers from Ohio State and also David Stagerwald from Ohio state. Coming up, we're gonna talk about, and I might get some historians to predict what the future of patriotism might look like. That is when All Sides continues on 89.7 NPR News.
You're listening to All Sides. I'm your host, Amy Juravich. No matter what side you're on, patriotism, especially more recently, has become linked to one side of the political aisle or the other. Loyalty to country always, loyalty to government when it deserves it. That's a famous quote from Mark Twain. And many believe the government overwhelmingly deserves it, while others think the complete opposite. So how does this way of thinking affect the patriotism of the whole country? And what might the future of patriotism look like? Still with us, we have David Stagerwald, professor of history at Ohio State University. David teaches courses in 20th century America ranging from World War I through the 1960s. Thanks for being here, David.
Steigerwald: Thank you.
Juravich: And also with us Daniel Rivers, associate professor of History at Ohio state. Daniel studies LGBT communities in the 20th Century and Native American history. And he's an enrolled member of the Choctaw Nation in Oklahoma. Thanks for being here, Daniel.
Rivers: Thanks for having me.
Juravich: And also with us, we have Brian Casita, Associate Professor in the Truman School of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Missouri. Brian teaches courses on civics and K-12 education policy. Thanks for staying with us Brian. Terrific. So, I wanted to talk a little bit about that Mark Twain quote that I just said, loyalty to the country always, loyalty to the government when it deserves it. Brian, you were talking about some recent polling. Do Americans right now feel like the government deserves it?
Kisida: No, I mean, the, you know, and we started talking about earlier the aspect of sort of young people in particular and their lack of sort of pride and belief in American democracy. And yeah, you really can't point fingers at the youth and say what's wrong with you because the adults are behaving so poorly. I mean they are not modeling. Good citizenship and good behavior in Washington and in lots of state governments either. And so I think that the disillusionment that is affecting people is a reaction and possibly a rational reaction to our broken political system.
Juravich: Daniel, let's talk about how President Trump has linked being patriotic to his Make America Great messaging. Do you think Democrats in this country are having a hard time showing patriotism because patriotism has been linked to a Republican message?
Rivers: Yeah, I think definitely that that's true to some degree. I think the Democrats are a big tent party and they have been, and David could speak to this more, but they've been that way since the the Roosevelt coalition was forged in the period of the New Deal. And I think that they struggle with having a whole lot of different definitions of what the country is and what patriotism means, right? So that's an ongoing issue for the party. When Brian was talking about the youth, I find myself thinking about the difference between a disenchantment with American democracy as it's being expressed now. That happens cyclically in the United States, of course, and a disenchantment with the principles of democratic rule themselves. And I wanted to ask Brian whether those studies he's citing show that. That of course would be really different, actually.
Kisida: The studies do show that actually. So the other polling questions might be about whether or not leaders taking authoritarian tactics. So like sort of, you know, suspending, you know, freedom of speech or freedom of expression or other things in order to get things done. And there are troubling numbers among young people with regards to that. Younger generations are far less respectful of the First Amendment and free expression than older generations. So we seem to have not done a good job of selling the virtues of those particular principles. This could be just, you know, a particular moment in time, a particular generation, but if you believe sort of in the idea of self-government and checks on government authority and protecting free expression, polling data among young people does not look
Rivers: That's so interesting. That seems really different. Yeah, pleasing.
Juravich: No, go ahead, Daniel. That's okay. Yeah.
Rivers: Well, I wanted to ask David. I mean, I know as a US historian that there's times when what people say is democracy, we might not agree with, whatever they're claiming to be democratic principles. But David, can you recall a period in US history when there was a sharp decline in support for democracy itself, as defined broadly?
Steigerwald: Not off the top of my head, Daniel. I mean, that seems really different. It really is, it really is. And it's worrisome.
Kisida: It's also global. So, I mean, there's great reports from, you know, the international organization, VDEM, which monitors democracy and issues an annual report every year. And there are fewer people living in democracy today than there were 10 years ago, or even 15 years ago. And support has increasingly shifted towards both left-wing populists and right-wing populous. And that's kind of an hallmark of populism is that it's a little bit more about majority rule versus what are the principles that sustain a democracy. And so this has been an American problem. It's also been a European problem. And if you read the VDEM reports, it's kind of like the canary in the coal mine is not doing well, and they're sounding a lot of alarm on that. And, you know, to be fair, I think universities and K-12 education is responding. There's an intense renewed focus on civic education in this country right now.
Juravich: Well, when you say that there's an intense renewed focus on civic education, but there's also a try by the current administration to rewrite history or change the history books or to change, to kind of glaze over certain parts of American history and focus on the positives. Um, are, are you saying that there is pushback on that? Is that what you mean?
Kisida: I think that we're working through it the way that we work through things, trying to find out what the sweet spot is, right? And there has to be some sweet spot between... Focusing on both the positives and the negatives. It's surely the case that I can look at things that some states or the federal government has done that looks like they're trying to sort of like whitewash over the uglier parts of American history. I can also go to, I can find a school district in San Francisco that is only intensely focused on how bad can we make America look. Right? And those things, you know, both of those stories go viral. And the truth is, I think most the vast majority of teachers, educators and schools are probably doing this exactly right. But there's bad actors out there.
Juravich: Related back to what you were just saying about democracy though. Do you do you need to live in a democracy to be? Patriotic Anyone? I don't know.
Kisida: I think you have to believe in democracy to be a patriot in the United States.
Steigerwald: States, okay? Yeah, but certainly not everywhere. I mean, I'm thinking just immediately there are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people in the streets in Iran right now, proclaiming their patriotism. That's not a democracy.
Juravich: Right. Do they want a democracy though? Right. Some do clearly. Yes. Well, let's pivot back to President Trump and the Make America Great messaging because I asked about if Democrats have a hard time showing patriotism because it's linked to Republican messaging. But what about the reverse? David, do you think that Republicans are being more patriotic now because of the
Steigerwald: No. I'm not even sure how to answer that. No.
Juravich: Okay, does anyone else have a thought on that? If the Republican Party is more patriotic now because of the Make America Great messaging?
Rivers: I think what we're seeing right now is an intensified struggle over what the principles that mark America are, right? And so the definition of patriotic that you're employing would answer the question as to whether the Democrats or the Republicans are being more patriotic. But it's a fight over what the principles that identify America are.
Juravich: Well, and Daniel, we've gone this far into the conversation, but we haven't really asked you. You study Native American groups as well. Do Native American group feel patriotic considering the way the nation was founded?
Rivers: It's a really interesting history, actually. I find myself, as I was thinking about this before coming on the show, I found myself thinking about the Seneca and the Seneca, if folks don't know, are one of the Haudenosaunee tribes, known as the Iroquois tribes of the Northeast of the United States, up in upstate New York and in that region. And the Senneca, actually, when the draft was passed in 1940, The Seneca resisted saying that we're a sovereign nation and should not be forced into this draft, this federal draft. But then just to make sure that everyone knew where they stood in 1942, they declare war on Hitler themselves. So what the Seneca are saying is they're saying we're sovereign nation, right? By the decisions of the Supreme Court reading the constitution in the 1830s. And yet. Native Americans, if we can speak of Native Americans is a very tribally specific, right? One of the first things that us tribal members speak to non-Native people is it's important to be tribally-specific. But we do see large similarities across Native American cultures in terms of pride and military service. Native Americans are five times more likely to have militarily served than any other population in the United States. And so there is that and a patriotism expressed through that. But then also Winona LaDuke, the great Anishinaabe environmental activist, has said that Native American communities practice patriotism for the land. And that's a really specific indigenous concept that's place-based, and it's a way of thinking about the earth and the land and the environment as alive and part of our community, and that patriotism, for the the land itself and for our environment is necessary.
Juravich: Well, that's a whole new definition of patriotism now with only three minutes left in the show. Okay. So with that said that we're running out of time, I want to finish off with making people who study history think about the future. So what does the future of patriot ism look like in this country, David? Um, too hard to tell.
Steigerwald: Yeah, I'm not one for predictions. I don't believe history gives us that kind of roadmap. I think it would depend on what kinds of huge challenges emerge. Will there be a general war? I'm thinking climate change might be one of those things around which people can gather. At the same time, they diminish their self-interest and gather in a common cause.
Juravich: Yeah, and the climate change ties back to what Daniel was just saying about the land. That's very interesting. OK, Daniel, what about you? Do you what do you think about the future of patriotism looking like in this country?
Rivers: Well, like David, as a historian, I'm a little loathe to talk about the future, but I'll give it a shot. I really have to celebrate the importance of what Brian said earlier about the changes in media away from the three networks and what a big impact that will have. I think looking forward, any kind of massive cultural way of thinking like patriotism will be affected by the splintering of public communication by the digital revolution and social media.
Juravich: Brian, your turn. So you are not necessarily a historian. You're in government and public affairs. So what do you think the future of patriotism looks like in this country?
Kisida: Um, I mean, I have to pick up with what Daniel's saying about technology to, um, the hardest thing about predicting, you know, the future right now is that we're, you know, we're in the middle of a massive shift and it feels so cliche to even mention AI, but you have to, you have, it is, it is so big and it is so huge. I'm actually slightly optimistic because I think that one of the things that, um AI will be able to do is. In some ways probably moderate content and maybe not in a way that is perfect but is better than the sort of like wild west you know everything goes every truth goes unchecked the environment that we've lived in for the last 10 or 15 years um you know there is a there's a new robot you know, participating now has entered the chat and it's better than average.
Juravich: I love this idea of thinking of AI helping us because I was just about to say that's how we'll we'll unite as Americans is when the robots come after us and then we have to. But Brian is going to say the AI is going to help us. So I'm going to leave it at that. All right, I'll leave it at that Brian Kisida, associate professor in the Truman School of Government and Public Affairs at University of Missouri. Brian, thanks for your time today.
Kisida: Thank you so much.
Juravich: Daniel Rivers, associate professor of history at Ohio State University. Thank you, Daniel.
Rivers: Thank you, Amy.
Juravich: And David Steigerwald, professor of history at Ohio State University. Thanks for your time today, David.
Steigerwald: Thank you so much.
Juravich: This has been All Sides on 89.7 NPR News. I'm Amy Juravich. Thanks for listening.