# data[].attributes.headline
Revolutionary Nationalism: the desire for national advancement or independence. The policy of asserting the interests of one’s own nation

# data[].attributes.subject
Revolutionary Nationalism: the desire for national advancement or independence. The policy of asserting the interests of one’s own nation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Picture this: An alternate-reality, suspended-in-space American metropolis where steampunk contraptions - like propeller-driven dirigibles, squeaky trolley wires and clunky robotic creatures - operate against a backdrop of clanging liberty bells; red, white and blue powder kegs; and jingoistic posters warning: "Patriots! Arm Thyself Against the Foreigners and Anarchists!"

OK. So you can't quite picture it. No sweat. It's the surrealistic setting of Bioshock: Infinite, a video game - sequel to the critically acclaimed Bioshock - scheduled for release from Irrational Games in 2012.

The storyline is imaginative, assimilating eclectic influences. But one salient characteristic is unmistakable: The pro-Uncle Sam, protectionist feel of the game reflects the mood of many present-day American nationalists.

"The nationalism thrown throughout this is so overt," says video game critic Hilary Goldstein in a preview trailer.

Nationalism can contribute to human progress and freedom and education and economic vitality, or it can contribute to violence, fear, and international conflicts.

You don't need to fire up the Xbox 360 to know that there has been among many Americans a swell of nationalism in the years following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

* Go to a baseball game where fans often croon "God Bless America" during the seventh-inning stretch.

* Check out the American flag pins on the lapels or collars of nearly every politician.

* Listen to Toby Keith's current hit Made in America and read how it inspired a Michigan kindergarten class to create an " American-made show-and-tell."

Call it what you will - American nationalism or patriotism - it is covering the country like a Wi-Fi cloud - above the fruited plain from sea to shining sea.

Where does this rising nationalism spring from? And is it a positive or a negative trait for a country? That all depends ...
A Sense of Selfhood
Nationalism flows through our lives every day, observes Lloyd Kramer, author of the recent book Nationalism in Europe and America.

And, like most "isms," Kramer says, nationalism carries with it both good and bad characteristics. "When people feel committed to larger communities or interests or to ideas of human rights and political progress, for example, nationalism can contribute to a sense of hope about the future. It can build positive personal and collective identities and a sense of selfhood in the modern world "

On the other hand, he says, "nationalism often encourages fears of all kinds of other people: fears of other religions or races or cultures or ethnic groups or homosexuals. This fear can be mobilized for violence and scapegoating. It can lead people to feel aggrieved and constantly at risk."

In various ways, he adds, "nationalism can contribute to human progress and freedom and education and economic vitality, or it can contribute to violence, fear and international conflicts."

Nationalism, according to Kramer, is often in full flower on national holidays, during major sports events and at public memorials for deceased military troops. And nationalistic symbols, rituals and rhetoric are especially ramped up as the country moves toward a presidential election.
A Political Tool?
He's not kidding.

Patriotism permeates contemporary American politics. As do accusations of unpatriotic behavior. Of course, the word "patriot" is a subjective characterization, and most politicians use it as code for someone who shares their beliefs.

Americans "are a patriotic people," said Mitt Romney at the recent Republican presidential debate in Orlando. "We place our hand over our heart during the playing of the national anthem. No other people on Earth do that." So does that mean that people who don't place their hands over their hearts while the anthem is played are not patriots?

Speaking to a Tea Party gathering in New Hampshire on Labor Day weekend, possible presidential candidate Sarah Palin said, "We patriots should not focus on petty political squabbles and media game sound bites. The Tea Party has got to be focused on the broader, much more important goals of this movement - replace Obama." Does that mean that someone who supports the president of the United States is not a patriot?

From the Democratic angle, Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, speaking recently on the Tavis Smiley Show, suggested that members of the Tea Party should "stop being Tea Party people instead of patriots and Americans." Does that mean a Tea Partier cannot also be a patriot and an American?

And Rick Perry in a new Web ad intones, "We don't need a president who apologizes for America. I believe in America. I believe in her purpose and her promise. ... God bless the United States of America."

-- Linton Weeks

After watching that ad, CNN's Carol Costello asked: "Should patriotism be a political tool?" She then pointed out that "patriotism has worked for Democrats, too, during the 2008 campaign. Vice presidential candidate Joe Biden said wealthy Americans should pay more taxes because it's time to be patriotic."
The Patriotic Center
Patriotism, nationalism. Is there a difference?

Peter Rutland, a professor of government at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn., says that in the U.S., the word "nationalism" often has negative connotations. "So we talk instead about patriotism."

He says, "Other people are nationalists; we are patriots."

But for the sake of argument, the terms "nationalism" and "patriotism" are pretty much interchangeable, Rutland says. He studies this instinct on a global level and posts observations on his NationalismWatch blog.

Rutland, Kramer and others who track nationalism point out that U.S. nationalism has swelled since 2001. Countrywide concerns about a faltering economy and a flood of immigration only intensify the notion of nationalism.

Both liberal and conservative politicians have been adapting their language, Rutland says, "to try to appeal to the patriotic median voter."

Rutland says that in light of that quest for the patriotic center, Obama's language has been particularly striking. "If you read his speech announcing his candidacy in Springfield, Ill., or his inaugural address, you see a heavy emphasis on the common national narrative - the sacrifices of Gettysburg, the legacy of past generations, etc. - classic nationalist/patriotic imagery."
Shovels To Snowshoes
That nod toward nationalism served Obama well in the 2008 election.

It has also worked for a number of business people, such as Todd Lipscomb. Not too long ago, Lipscomb was an executive in a California tech company. He lived in and traveled through Asia and the Pacific Rim for seven years. As his American company's global business increased, Lipscomb began to worry about the folks - their jobs and financial futures - back in the U.S.

Four years ago, he resigned from his company, moved home to California and launched the website Made in USA Forever. He sells products - everything from shovels to snowshoes - that are domestically manufactured.

"Stand with us to protect America's ability to produce, create jobs, and remain a world leader," the website intones.

From his home in San Clemente, Lipscomb says "sales are surging. Conversely to the economic trends, the bad news has energized my customer base."

Customers know "they are doing something real for our economy," Lipscomb says. "Every item is made here from U.S.A. components, so from the farmer that grows the cotton through every step of the way it helps our economy and creates jobs in a virtuous circle."

There are many similar sites for domestically manufactured products, including Made in USA and the Made in America store.

Lipscomb's website offers more than 2,800 products from over 480 "mostly small, family-owned business," Lipscomb says. But he adds, "Where we are weak is in electronics."

Lipscomb has written a couple of books about his experience, including Re-Made in America: How We Can Restore Jobs, Retool Manufacturing and Compete with the World. The issue of nationalism or patriotism is not a partisan concern, he says. He has been asked to appear on Ed Shultz's progressive radio show as well as the conservative Fox & Friends national TV program.

He says his website attracts people of all stripes. "Conservatives, progressives, outdoorsmen, union members, immigrants, and many, many other groups come together on the website as Americans."

In the end, he says, "this is not a red state or blue state issue, but truly a red, white and blue one."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In recent years, Americans have become more nationalistic in their politics, shopping habits, tattoos and even video games. What's behind the rise in patriotic fervor? And is it a good thing?

# data[].attributes.body
The Paradoxes of American Nationalism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nearly two years after the horrific terrorist attacks on the United States, international public opinion has shifted from heartfelt sympathy for Americans and their country to undisguised antipathy. The immediate catalyst for this shift is the United States' hard-line policy toward and subsequent war with Iraq. Yet today's strident anti-Americanism represents much more than a wimpy reaction to U.S. resolve or generic fears of a hegemon running amok. Rather, the growing unease with the United States should be seen as a powerful global backlash against the spirit of American nationalism that shapes and animates U.S. foreign policy.

Any examination of the deeper sources of anti-Americanism should start with an introspective look at American nationalism. But in the United States, this exercise, which hints at serious flaws in the nation's character, generates little enthusiasm. Moreover, coming to terms with today's growing animosity toward the United States is intellectually contentious because of the two paradoxes of American nationalism: First, although the United States is a highly nationalistic country, it genuinely does not see itself as such. Second, despite the high level of nationalism in American society, U.S. policymakers have a remarkably poor appreciation of the power of nationalism in other societies and have demonstrated neither skill nor sensitivity in dealing with its manifestations abroad.

BLIND TO ONE'S VIRTUE
Nationalism is a dirty word in the United States, viewed with disdain and associated with Old World parochialism and imagined supremacy. Yet those who discount the idea of American nationalism may readily admit that Americans, as a whole, are extremely patriotic. When pushed to explain the difference between patriotism and nationalism, those same skeptics might concede, reluctantly, that there is a distinction, but no real difference. Political scientists have labored to prove such a difference, equating patriotism with allegiance to one's country and defining nationalism as sentiments of ethno-national superiority. In reality, however, the psychological and behavioral manifestations of nationalism and patriotism are indistinguishable, as is the impact of such sentiments on policy.

Polling organizations routinely find that Americans display the highest degree of national pride among Western democracies. Researchers at the University of Chicago reported that before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, 90 percent of the Americans surveyed agreed with the statement "I would rather be a citizen of America than of any other country in the world"; 38 percent endorsed the view that "The world would be a better place if people from other countries were more like the Americans." (After the terrorist attacks, 97 and 49 percent, respectively, agreed with the same statements.) The World Values Survey reported similar results, with more than 70 percent of those surveyed declaring themselves "very proud" to be Americans. By comparison, the same survey revealed that less than half of the people in other Western democracies - including France, Italy, Denmark, Great Britain, and the Netherlands - felt "very proud" of their nationalities.

Americans not only take enormous pride in their values but also regard them as universally applicable. According to the Pew Global Attitudes survey, 79 percent of the Americans polled agreed that "It's good that American ideas and customs are spreading around the world"; 70 percent said they "like American ideas about democracy." These views, however, are not widely shared, even in Western Europe, another bastion of liberalism and democracy. Pew found that, among the Western European countries surveyed, less than 40 percent endorse the spread of American ideas and customs, and less than 50 percent like American ideas about democracy.

Such firmly held beliefs in the superiority of American political values and institutions readily find expression in American social, cultural, and political practices. It is almost impossible to miss them: the daily ritual of the Pledge of Allegiance in the nation's schools, the customary performance of the national anthem before sporting events, and the ubiquitous American flags. And in the United States, as in other countries, nationalist sentiments inevitably infuse politics. Candidates rely on hot-button issues such as flag burning and national security to attack their opponents as unpatriotic and worse.

Why does a highly nationalistic society consistently view itself as anything but? The source of this paradox lies in the forces that sustain nationalism in the United States. Achievements in science and technology, military strength, economic wealth, and unrivaled global political influence can no doubt generate strong national pride. But what makes American nationalism truly exceptional are the many ways in which it is naturally expressed in daily life.

One of the most powerful wellsprings of American nationalism is civic voluntarism - the willingness of ordinary citizens to contribute to the public good, either through individual initiatives or civic associations. Outside observers, starting with the French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville in the early 19th century, have never ceased to be amazed by this font of American dynamism. "Americans of all ages, all stations in life, and all types of dispositions are forever forming associations," noted Tocqueville, who credited Americans for relying on themselves, instead of government, to solve society's problems.

The same grass-roots activism that animates the country's social life also makes American nationalism vibrant and alluring, for most of the institutions and practices that promote and sustain American nationalism are civic, not political; the rituals are voluntary rather than imposed; and the values inculcated are willingly embraced, not artificially indoctrinated. Elsewhere in the world, the state plays an indispensable role in promoting nationalism, which is frequently a product of political manipulation by elites and consequently has a manufactured quality to it. But in the United States, although individual politicians often try to exploit nationalism for political gains, the state is conspicuously absent. For instance, no U.S. federal laws mandate reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, require singing the national anthem at sporting events, or enforce flying the flag on private buildings.

The history of the pledge is an exquisite example of the United States' unique take on nationalism. Francis Bellamy, a socialist Baptist minister, wrote the original text in 1892; three major American civic associations (the National Education Association, the American Legion, and the Daughters of the American Revolution) instituted, refined, and expanded the ceremony of reciting it. The federal government was late getting into the game. Congress didn't officially endorse the pledge until 1942, and it didn't tamper with the language until 1954, when Congress inserted the phrase "under God" after being pressured by a religious organization, the Knights of Columbus.

Indeed, any blunt attempt to use the power of the state to institutionalize U.S. nationalism has been met with strong resistance because of popular suspicion that the government may be encroaching on Americans' individual liberties. In the 1930s, the Jehovah's Witnesses mounted a legal challenge when some school boards tried to make the Pledge of Allegiance mandatory, arguing that the pledge compelled children to worship graven images. The flag-burning amendment has failed twice in the U.S. Congress during the last eight years.

In the United States, promoting nationalism is a private enterprise. In other societies, especially those ruled by authoritarian regimes, the state deploys its resources, from government-controlled media to the police, to propagate "patriotic values." The celebration of national days in such countries features huge government-orchestrated parades that showcase crack troops and the latest weaponry. (The huge military parade held in Beijing in 1999 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of China allegedly cost hundreds of millions of dollars.) Yet despite its awesome high-tech arsenal, such orgiastic displays of state-sponsored nationalism are notably absent on Independence Day in the United States. Of course, Americans hold parades and watch fireworks on the Fourth of July, but those events are largely organized by civic associations and partly paid for by local business groups.

Herein lies the secret of the vitality and durability of American nationalism: The dominance of civic voluntarism - and not state coercion - has made nationalist sentiments more genuine, attractive, and legitimate to the general public. These expressions of American nationalism have become so commonplace that they are virtually imperceptible, except to outsiders.

A POLITICAL CREED
American nationalism is hidden in plain sight. But even if Americans saw it, they wouldn't recognize it as nationalism. That's because American nationalism is a different breed from its foreign cousins and exhibits three unique characteristics.

First, American nationalism is based on political ideals, not those of cultural or ethnic superiority. That conception is entirely fitting for a society that still sees itself as a cultural and ethnic melting pot. As President George W. Bush said in his Fourth of July speech last year: "There is no American race; there's only an American creed." And in American eyes, the superiority of that creed is self-evident. American political institutions and ideals, coupled with the practical achievements attributed to them, have firmly convinced Americans that their values ought to be universal. Conversely, when Americans are threatened, they see attacks on them as primarily attacks on their values. Consider how American elites and the public interpreted the September 11 terrorist attacks. Most readily embraced the notion that the attacks embodied an assault on U.S. democratic freedoms and institutions.

Second, American nationalism is triumphant rather than aggrieved. In most societies, nationalism is fueled by past grievances caused by external powers. Countries once subjected to colonial rule, such as India and Egypt, are among the most nationalistic societies. But American nationalism is the polar opposite of such aggrieved nationalism. American nationalism derives its meaning from victories in peace and war since the country's founding. Triumphant nationalists celebrate the positive and have little empathy for the whining of aggrieved nationalists whose formative experience consisted of a succession of national humiliations and defeats.

Finally, American nationalism is forward looking, while nationalism in most other countries is the reverse. Those who believe in the superiority of American values and institutions do not dwell on their historical glories (though such glories constitute the core of American national identity). Instead, they look forward to even better times ahead, not just at home but also abroad. This dynamism imbues American nationalism with a missionary spirit and a short collective memory. Unavoidably, such forward-looking and universalistic perspectives clash with the backward-looking and particularistic perspectives of ethno-nationalism in other countries. Haunted by memories of Western military invasions since the time of the Crusades, the Middle East cannot help but look with suspicion upon U.S. plans to "liberate" the Iraqi people. In the case of China, U.S. support for Taiwan, which the Chinese government and people alike regard as a breakaway province, is the most contentious issue in bilateral relations. The loss of Taiwan - whether to the Japanese in 1895 or to the nationalists in 1949 - has long symbolized national weakness and humiliation.

INNOCENTS ABROAD
The unique characteristics of American nationalism explain why one of the most nationalist countries in the world is so inept at dealing with nationalism abroad. The best example of this second paradox of American nationalism is the Vietnam War. The combination of the United States' universalistic political values (in this case, anticommunism), triumphalist beliefs in U.S. power, and short national memory led to a disastrous policy that clashed with the nationalism of the Vietnamese, a people whose national experience was defined by resistance against foreign domination (the Chinese and the French) and whose overriding goal was independence and unity, not the spread of communism in Southeast Asia.

In its dealings with several other highly nationalistic societies, the United States has paid little attention to the role nationalism played in legitimizing and sustaining those regimes the country regarded as hostile. U.S. policy toward these nations has either disregarded strong nationalist sentiments (as in the Philippines and Mexico) or consistently allowed the ideological, free-market bias of American nationalism to exaggerate the antagonism of communist ideologies championed by rival governments (as in China and Cuba). Former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser's brand of postcolonial Arab nationalism, which rejected a strategic alliance with either the U.S.-led West or the Soviet camp, baffled Washington officials, who could not conceive of any country remaining neutral in the struggle against communist expansionism. Echoes of that mind-set are heard today in the United States' "you're either with us or against us" ultimatum in the war against terrorism.

This ongoing inability to deal with nationalism abroad has three immediate consequences. The first, and relatively minor, is the high level of resentment that U.S. insensitivity generates, both among foreign governments and their people. The second, and definitely more serious, is that such insensitive policies tend to backfire on the United States, especially when it tries to undermine hostile regimes abroad. After all, nationalism is one of the few crude ideologies that can rival the power of democratic liberalism. Look, for example, at the unfolding nuclear drama on the Korean peninsula. The rising nationalism of South Korea's younger generation - which sees its troublesome neighbor to the north as kin, not monsters - hasn't yet figured in Washington's calculations concerning Pyongyang's brinkmanship. In these cases, as in previous similar instances, U.S. policies frequently have the perverse effects of alienating people in allied countries and driving them to support the very regimes targeted by U.S. policy.

Finally, given the nationalism that animates U.S. policies, American behavior abroad inevitably appears hypocritical to others. This hypocrisy is especially glaring when the United States undermines global institutions in the name of defending American sovereignty (such as in the cases of the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court, and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty). The rejection of such multilateral agreements may score points at home, but non-Americans have difficulty reconciling the universalistic rhetoric and ideals Americans espouse with the parochial national interests the U.S. government appears determined to pursue abroad. Over time, such behavior can erode the United States' international credibility and legitimacy.

If American society had been less insulated from the rest of the world by geography and distance, these conflicting perspectives on nationalism might be less severe. To be sure, physical insularity has not diminished Americans' belief in the universalistic appeals of their political ideas. The nation was founded on the principle that all people (not just Americans) are endowed with "certain inalienable rights." That sentiment has been passed down through successive generations - from former President Franklin D. Roosevelt's vision of a world based upon "four freedoms" to President George W. Bush's "non-negotiable demands of human dignity."

But the United States' relative isolation, which unavoidably leads to inadequate knowledge about other countries, has created a huge communications barrier between Americans and other societies. According to a recent survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, only 22 percent of Americans have traveled to another country in the last five years, compared with 66 percent of Canadians, 73 percent of Britons, 60 percent of the French, and 77 percent of Germans. Lack of direct contact with foreign societies has not been offset by the information revolution. In the years leading up to September 11, 2001, only 30 percent of Americans claimed to be "very interested" in "news about other countries." Even after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, average Americans did not sustain a strong interest in international affairs. According to polls conducted by the Pew Research Center in early 2002, only about 26 percent of the Americans surveyed said they were following foreign news "very closely," and 45 percent of Americans said that international events did not affect them.

An amalgam of political idealism, national pride, and relative insularity, American nationalism evokes mixed feelings abroad. Many admire its idealism, universalism, and optimism and recognize the indispensability of American power and leadership to peace and prosperity around the world. Others reject American nationalism as merely the expression of an overbearing, self-righteous, and misguided bully. In ordinary times, such international ambivalence produces little more than idle chatter. But when American nationalism drives the country's foreign policy, it galvanizes broad-based anti-Americanism. And at such times, it becomes impossible to ignore the inconsistencies and tensions within American nationalism - or the harm they inflict on the United States' legitimacy abroad.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nearly two years after the horrific terrorist attacks on the United States, international public opinion has shifted from heartfelt sympathy for Americans and their country to undisguised antipathy. The immediate catalyst for this shift is the United States' hard-line policy toward and subsequent war with Iraq.

# data[].attributes.body
The American Nationalism Problem

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
America has a nationalism problem. The U.S. has been described as the melting pot, a nation of immigrants and the Land of Opportunity. Indeed, the story we tell ourselves is that the American identity is rooted not in place, but in the acceptance of a common set of ideals, irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity. The politics of the last decade, however, have strained the notion of e pluribus unum, revealing among whites three definitions of the American nation that are exclusive rather than inclusive.

First come the "Unhyphenated Americans". For decades, the Census Bureau has asked Americans "to what country does this person draw their heritage?" Among whites, German (17 percent), Irish (16 percent), and English (14 percent) are the most common responses. But about one in twelve whites Americans indicated they are just "Americans," indicating an indigenous white identity unconnected to any particular European ethnicity. These Unhyphenated Americans are distinct. They are more likely to be fundamentalist Protestants. Nearly two thirds of them live in the Census South, and especially in Greater Appalachia.

The highest rate of "American" identity is among young rural whites with limited education. Recent surveys find that whites with an "unhyphenated" identity are increasingly voting very conservative and perceive a cultural threat from foreign influences. They also call themselves ethnic "Americans" for patriotic reasons. They favor a stronger national defense. And, they are more likely to think that an individual's life chances are tied to their racial identity (what Michael Dawson called " linked fate").

Historic data from the General Social Survey shows that Unhyphenated Americans are no more racially conservative than other Americans. The exception is that they are consistently less likely to vote for a hypothetical black candidate for president, or, since 2008, an actual one. They are also increasingly less likely to vote for Democrats in general.

Then there are the Christian Nationalists. The most visible religious tension in American politics is between the Establishment Clause and the long tradition of Protestant ownership of the moral nation. Christian Nationalists have the highest agreement with four statements about America: that is "holds a special place in God's plan;" that "God has chosen [America] to lead the world;" that the United States "was founded as a Christian nation;" and "it is important to preserve the nation's religious heritage." According to a poll conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute in June of this year, 62% of Americans either completely agree or mostly agree that "God has granted America a special role in human history." 52% said "believing in God" and 33% percent said "being a Christian" was very important for "being truly American." Similar distributions have been found in other surveys of the public since 2010. They are also heavily invested in Biblical literalism. Agreement with these statements is strongly correlated with anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment among white Americans. Politics and the course of America are therefore a question of the degree and intensity of Christianization. Christian Nationalists are often found among Unhyphenated Americans (or vice-versa).

Finally there are the New Nationalists. New Nationalism was coined in the 1990s by journalist Michael Lind, who describes it as an elite white regime. Under New Nationalism, the white elite (or "overclass") withdraws into a private realm -- private neighborhoods, private schools, private health care and private security. Working class whites are abandoned to a broad, publicly dependent underclass along with most people of color. The New Nationalism is deeply invested in a "bootstrap ideology" of America, built on private property rights and individual responsibility. The New Nationalists overlap with Christian Nationalists on some beliefs, but have little in common with Unhyphenated Americans. Communities broadly exhibiting these inequalities are most common in the Corridor from New York to northern Virginia , though they occur as suburban counties of nearly every major metropolitan area in the U.S.

What it Means for Others. These three concepts of American nationalism share several features. They introduce an identity component -- wealth, or ethnicity or religious identity. They overlap with each other, largely through Protestant evangelical identity. And, they contrast against "out groups" that are growing in the U.S. -- the secularists, immigrants, non-Caucasian ethnics and Muslims. Conflict in the GOP arises from the growing voices of white identity and Christian identity, versus efforts by the economic conservatives who populate the New Nationalism who seek to co-opt elites from non-white ethnic and racial groups.

The major victim of this new politics of competing forms of American nationalism a national consensus most recently observed by social scientist Alan Wolfe. At the end of the Clinton Administration, when political polarization had exploded into full flower, Wolfe wrote in his book One Nation After All that there was a broad-based consensus of tolerant belief across seemingly different American communities. This consensus has not survived the downward mobility of the white working class. The white working class is heavily populated with Christian Nationalists and Unhyphenated Americans. Its members are upset at the loss of an American Dream that was taken for granted by their grandparents and are threatened by future in which they will be an ethnic minority.

It is in this sense of loss that Donald Trump's call to "Make America Great Again" finds its resonance (see also here). More to the point, the question of the American nationalism will lurk just beneath the surface during the 2016 presidential campaign.
(We've included a figure showing the overlap of these groups, and also a highly subjective placement of the major remaining GOP candidates in respect to those groups, so that as you listen to the candidates, you can think about the rhetorical and attitudinal territory each player has to cross to attract and accommodate different types of nationalists.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
America has a nationalism problem. The U.S. has been described as the melting pot, a nation of immigrants and the Land of Opportunity. Indeed, the story we tell ourselves is that the American identity is rooted not in place, but in the acceptance of a common set of ideals, irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity.

# data[].attributes.body
The Birth of American Nationalism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An American picks up a newspaper and reads of a new national crisis: Is it a foreign plot against America? Domestic unrest or violence in the streets of the capital? Is Congress stymied by party politics? Perhaps it's the threat of involvement in another world war?

This is, of course, daily news in 2017; but it was also the daily fare in the 1790s. And in those fraught years, the United States was not a world power; it was a fledgling nation whose survival was in doubt.

It was the task of that decade's two Federalist presidents, George Washington and John Adams, both to win the loyalty of Americans to the new national government and to gain an acknowledgment from European powers that the United States was indeed an independent, sovereign nation.

During his first administration, Washington faced a rebellion of angry western farmers who denied the federal Congress any right to tax them. He had to engage in a delicate negotiation with Great Britain to prevent a second war between the former Mother Country and its colonies. And he had to deal with a French minister who ran amok, ignoring Washington's explicit declaration of neutrality in the war raging in Europe.

As Washington's successor, Adams faced equally dire crises, including threats of secession that came as a response to his administration's repressive laws intended to silence newspaper opposition to federal policies and deliver a crushing blow to Thomas Jefferson's opposition party.

If unanswered, any of these challenges might have been fatal to an untested and still highly contested new Constitution and to the experiment in a national representative government that it established. Yet a mishandling of the response could be equally disastrous. For example, a failure to put down the western farmers' "whiskey rebellion" could lead other citizens to resist - or ignore - congressional laws they disliked.

But too abrupt a suppression of the rebellion was certain to conjure up images of a central government as tyrannical and abusive as the government of George III. Washington had to move cautiously and exhaust all legal, judicial, and political means to enforce the law before ordering military action. Adams moved with equal delicacy when he found himself confronting new existential threats to his young nation.

The Federalists made many mistakes and they frequently acted in bald self-interest. Yet during the 11 years they dominated the federal government they managed not only to sustain a fragile experiment in representative government but also to nurture a critically important sense of national identity in American citizens.

The arc of this essential and positive nationalism can be followed with each crisis. American support for Washington's military action against the whiskey rebels was based on the people's love and respect for a single man, George Washington. But by the time Edmund Genet was recalled to France, that support had been institutionalized; it was the office of the Executive, not the man who held it, that Americans would henceforth rely on to direct the nation's foreign policies.

Under Adams, the attachment to the nation's government grew. The French insults to American sovereignty during the XYZ Affair made Americans more firmly conscious that they were not simply Virginians, or Pennsylvanians, or New Yorkers; they were united as Americans.

Finally in their response to the repressive Alien and Sedition Acts, the legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky forced an examination of the relative sovereignty of the federal government and the state governments. Yet where once any legitimacy of a national government was challenged, these Southern legislators only challenged the extent of the federal government's power, not its source. They defended the rights of the states, but they did not deny the authority of the Constitution or its government. When Jefferson and his Republican Party unseated the Federalists in the election of 1800, the work of the Federalists was done: the American nationalism they had fostered would survive until it was threatened by Civil War.

In the 1790s, the Federalists nurtured a nationalism based on the people's commitment to their government and their sense of shared responsibility for its actions and its reputation in the wider world. Today, nationalism has taken on a more restrictive and negative character and it divides us rather than unites us. We can only hope that, like Washington and Adams, the men and women we elect will appreciate the complexities of governance and the value of a shared pride in the policies our nation embraces and the paths it pursues.

Carol Berkin, professor of history at City University of New York, will discuss her new book, "A Sovereign People," on Thursday at noon at the National Constitution Center. For information, visit www.constitutioncenter.org/debate or call 215-409-6700.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the 1790s, the Federalists nurtured a nationalism based on the peoples' commitment to their government and their sense of shared responsibility for its actions. Today, nationalism has taken on a more negative character and it divides us rather than unites us.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, the US has experienced revolutionary nationalism because in the 20th century, the African American community started a revolution in a quest for equal treatment for all people despite skin color.

# data[].attributes.body
The US has not experienced nationalism because the US believed Nationalism was similar to Patriotism and US is a very diverse country.

# data[].attributes.body
The United States has not experienced revolutionary nationalism because there have been not that many conflicts throughout the United States. Also, everyone seems to be very diverse and at peace with one another.

# data[].attributes.headline
I believe the United States has not experienced revolutionary nationalism because when I think of revolutionary nationalism I think of Germany 1939 where as Germany did everything to make their empire as powerful as possible. The United States has patriotism which is love for its country, and didnt think about themselves as if they were the only country that existed.

# data[].attributes.subject
I believe the United States has not experienced revolutionary nationalism because when I think of revolutionary nationalism I think of Germany 1939 where as Germany did everything to make their empire as powerful as possible. The United States has patriotism which is love for its country, and didnt think about themselves as if they were the only country that existed.

# data[].attributes.body
The 9/11 attacks, recent wars and conflicts in other countries, major patriotic holidays, and elections all bring out nationalistic feelings among some Americans.

# data[].attributes.headline
The United States has experienced nationalism. A couple decades after the country's birth, the United States sought for more land especially under the presidency of Andrew Jackson. In his time in office,    he drove the Natives out of their land and pushed them further west using tactics of intimidation and fear. The Trail of Tears was also known for bloodshed as many of the Natives were killed if they did not comply.

# data[].attributes.subject
The United States has experienced nationalism. A couple decades after the country's birth, the United States sought for more land especially under the presidency of Andrew Jackson. In his time in office,    he drove the Natives out of their land and pushed them further west using tactics of intimidation and fear. The Trail of Tears was also known for bloodshed as many of the Natives were killed if they did not comply.

# data[].attributes.body
There have been lots of events in American history that caused a rise in the American people and caused a nationalistic feeling among the American people such as the attacks on the twin towers during 9/11.

# data[].attributes.body
From the terrible event of 9/11 all citizens of the United States have all brought out their nationalistic feelings due to a lot of lives being lost from this event.

# data[].attributes.body
Nationalism has served as a constructive force for America because it can bring the country together. An example of nationalism being constructive is after the attacks in 9/11, the American people were brought together in support of our country in a time of need.

# data[].attributes.body
There were a whole lot of events which brought out nationalistic feelings. One example is the 9/11 attacks in 2001, where foreigners attacked NY. Other events include wars and rivalries with other nations, such as Germany & Japan. Assassinations of presidents also contributed to nationalistic feelings.

# data[].attributes.headline
Nationalism serving as constructive force

# data[].attributes.subject
Nationalism serving as constructive force

# data[].attributes.body
Nationalism has truly served as a constructive force. From all of the events that have occurred such as 9/11, it's able to bring the entire country back together from the suffering that has happened over the years.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe the US experienced revolutionary nationalism in 1776 with the revolutionary war. It was almost identical to the separationalist nationalist movements in the Balkins. We have always been nationalist and patriotic, but it has been positive forward thinking nationalism, not the destructive nationalism that occurred in 20th century Europe.

# data[].attributes.body
Events such as the assassinations of our presidents, osama bin laden, execution of Saddam Hussein, events such as 9/11. And when our boys came from Iraq! Are all events which brought out nationalistic feelings.

# data[].attributes.body
It doesn't take long to drive around and find an American flag flying somewhere around. The American people are a very nationalistic feel. As Mitt Romney said in a Orlando debate Americans "are a patriotic people." also  he claims "We place our hand over our heart during the playing of the national anthem. No other people on Earth do that." there are other events such as holidays like 4th of July sports games or memorials that bring out sense of nationalism among the American people.

# data[].attributes.body
Nationalism served as a constructive force because it helped unite the country during hard times, such as war.

# data[].attributes.body
Nationalism serving as a constructive force has benefited us when catastrophic events such as natural disasters, attacks, and situations where our country had to band together to help all of us in need who were affected by these events.

# data[].attributes.body
While in some cases nationalism has served as a positive force, there are still many cases where nationalism has been destructive. In some cases nationalism can cause major political discord and lead to wars. An example of this is when the states under the ottoman empire fought for their independence which eventually led to the start of WW1

# data[].attributes.body
I think that it has experienced nationalism. The United States was of course established by our Founding fathers but also by ethnic nationalism that promoted the civil rights movement. Without revolutionary nationalism who knows how different our country would have been, in terms of liberty.

# data[].attributes.headline
nationalism serving as a destructive force

# data[].attributes.subject
nationalism serving as a destructive force

# data[].attributes.body
The reason why nationalism has served as a destructive force because their have been conflict between political parties. Another reason is that there has also been conflicts about ethnic/religions in the United States from the GOP.

# data[].attributes.headline
Events of natural disasters like Katrina, death of foreign leaders like JFK, or any other forms of tragedy have typically brought out nationalistic feelings among the American People

# data[].attributes.subject
Events of natural disasters like Katrina, death of foreign leaders like JFK, or any other forms of tragedy have typically brought out nationalistic feelings among the American People

# data[].attributes.body
In the way the modern world looks at revolutionary nationalism what would come to mind the Germany or Italy, however the US has never experienced something to this extent.

# data[].attributes.body
Nationalism has served as a force for good in the US after events such as 9/11, where nationalistic feelings helped bring people together. Many destructive events like 9/11 have brought out these feelngs and connected people

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion Americans have gone through revolutionary nationalism. This is because our country was founded on those ideas and the ideas that if you do not like some thing than go out and change it. This is also why our government is set up like the way it is. We have a set of checks and balances that insure one branch is not too powerful and has all the control. We also see this in examples like the civil rights movement of the 60's people fought for equal rights for all people regardless of skin color.

# data[].attributes.body
Germany from 1914-1945s was a destructive force of nationalism due to Adolf Hitler.

# data[].attributes.body
Most US victories throughout history cause the extremely high levels of nationalism and patriotism. Everything from our winning the world wars, 9/11, and even back to the revolutionary war.

# data[].attributes.body
The biggest I'd say is probably 9/11 afterwards everyone in the US came together in sadness. This isn't the only one though there have been riots and school shootings that have brought many nationalist feelings out. People celebrated our nation a lot when Osamu Bin Laden was shot.

# data[].attributes.body
Nationalism served as a destructive force because it had various conflicts, such as Germany during the World Wars, where Germany was split by the Berlin Wall.

# data[].attributes.body
Nationalism can serve as a sense of hope for the future, for that nation or belonging to a group.

# data[].attributes.headline
Because of tragedies like 9/11, nationalism brought out change. For example, security has gotten stronger in places like air ports and law making buildings.

# data[].attributes.subject
Because of tragedies like 9/11, nationalism brought out change. For example, security has gotten stronger in places like air ports and law making buildings.

# data[].attributes.body
Strong nationalistic feelings in the past and present have caused fear in many different races, cultures, and ethnic groups, as nationalism tends to ostracize those who feel they are different from people who exhibit these feelings of nationalism. Strong feelings of nationalism around elections can also be destructive because as it said in the NPR article, being a "patriot" to most politicians nowadays is agreeing with their opinion, so people disagreeing on politics causes very strong divides.

# data[].attributes.body
Nationalism can be a constructive force if it comes from the right ideals. Nationalism based on positive aspects of the country's history leads to a forward thinking nationalism which can be used to help other countries struggling with the same thing. It is also important for a country to stay unified. If people move to a country and keep their ideals, it can cause differences in ideas which could lead to revolution and disharmony, while assimilation into the culture while still spreading new ideas leads to a more stable country.

# data[].attributes.body
Nationalism on a small level can be helpful we have seen this in things as small as the Olympics and as large as working to rebuilt whole states/countries destroyed by natural disasters.

# data[].attributes.body
Yea, Germany did the thing were they killed a lot of Jews for nationalism. I'd say that was pretty destructive.

# data[].attributes.headline
Nationalism can also serve as a destructive force as extra security isn't always good. Because of deportation groups like ICE, many families have been torn apart as the government is cracking down on illegal  immigrants not living in the country.

# data[].attributes.subject
Nationalism can also serve as a destructive force as extra security isn't always good. Because of deportation groups like ICE, many families have been torn apart as the government is cracking down on illegal  immigrants not living in the country.

# data[].attributes.body
We see examples of constructive nationalism mainly after terrorist attacks like the September 11th attack or tragedies like the flood in Houston Texas last spring. It is during times like this that bring out a sense of community and in most cases people rally behind the place that was effected. for example Texan's defensive lineman JJ Watt raised a total of 37 million dollars in relief funds in less than 3 weeks. This kind of response and sense of nationalism would not be possible if people did not come together during times of need. However there are also times like presidential elections that bring out this nationalism.

# data[].attributes.body
America has experienced many groups of people fighting for their rights and freedom etc. but even then the changes happened slowly and aren't as extreme as the unification of Italy and Germany.

# data[].attributes.body
Different tragic events like 9/11, school shootings, marathon bombings... brought out nationalistic feelings in Americans that changed the country, or are still changing the country. For example after 9/11 the United States took security more into consideration and the outcome was reinforced national security. Nationalism can bring people together in order to make a change for the better and safety of this country.

# data[].attributes.body
Nationalism can be a negative or even destructive force, as seen in 20th century Italy, Germany and Japan during World War II. The USA and USSR are also good examples of this during the cold war, causing widespread war all over political nationalism and fear of the other country

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that post 9/11 the US experienced a large scale nationalistic movement.

# data[].attributes.headline
Events like the recent school shootings have brought out nationalistic feelings among Americans. After the shooting Americans came together demanding change. Students across the nation protested together through a walkout during school. There were also rallys and marches with thousands of people.  This shows how different people spread throughout the nation are uniting to fight for a single cause. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Events like the recent school shootings have brought out nationalistic feelings among Americans. After the shooting Americans came together demanding change. Students across the nation protested together through a walkout during school. There were also rallys and marches with thousands of people.  This shows how different people spread throughout the nation are uniting to fight for a single cause. 

# data[].attributes.body
The combination of recent school school shootings and killings in underdeveloped areas has triggered a large scale nationalistic movement

# data[].attributes.body
I believe our country has definitely experienced periods of extreme nationalism amongst its people. However, Nationalism is a natural consequence for any nation that has been in the midst of international conflict, as it is a naturally defensive reaction for a society.

# data[].attributes.body
I do believe that America has experienced revolutionary nationalism. Throughout history multiple groups including religious, race, cultural, and ethnic groups have fought for their freedom and have succeeded. For example during presidential elections the candidates promote nationalism through their speeches, and campaign slogans.

# data[].attributes.body
The US has not experienced revolutionary nationalism to the extent of Germany and Italy however there was ethnic nationalism that has been achieved.

# data[].attributes.body
9/11, black president, ya girl DJT, also the superbowl and nascar races are pretty murica

# data[].attributes.body
Nationalism can be positive when a problem brings people together to find a common cause.

# data[].attributes.body
examples are 9/11, trump, and natural disasters

# data[].attributes.body
American nationalism has come to a head on multiple occasions. 3 years ago, this great nation came together to solve the issue of whether the dress was black and blue or white and gold, and now we are coming together once again to determine the true nature of "laurel or yanny" and so help me god Linda it's laurel I can hear thank you

# data[].attributes.body
9/11 and other conflicts of that nature have brought out strong nationalistic feelings

# data[].attributes.body
The aftermath of hurricane sandy brought people together.

# data[].attributes.headline
World trade center attacks. It got Americans to rally together to help each other in a time of need.

# data[].attributes.subject
World trade center attacks. It got Americans to rally together to help each other in a time of need.

# data[].attributes.body
The most influencial event that comes to mind is the 2nd world war. Both axis and ally nations targeted and persecuted citizens of specific ethnicity and religion similar to those found in their enemies. The U.S in this case was responsible for the detainment of tens of thousands of Japanese-American citizens out of fear of espionage. Another instance would include the height of McCarthy Era which led to thousands of arrests against Russo-Americans, once again, out  of the fear of espionage.

# data[].attributes.body
People come together in times of need due to strong mutual nationalistic feelings

# data[].attributes.body
The US has experienced nationalism especially really early in its history when they wanted independence from England, and they joined together and demanded independence and won a war for it.

# data[].attributes.body
One historic event that has brought out nationalistic feelings amoung Americans include the 9/11 terrorist attack.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe the United States has experienced on and off periods of nationalism. We usually display nationalism after something bad happens that sparks heartfelt emotions. However, it usually dies down for a while until something catastrophic happens again.

# data[].attributes.body
Nationalism currently encourages xenophobia, as the people most likely to be nationalist are those who consider themselves (and America) better due to being white, christian, or rich. This, in turn, leads to those who aren't white, christian, or rich getting the very short end of the stick.

# data[].attributes.body
People have ethnic nationalism, this creates a divisiveness between different cultures living in similar areas

# data[].attributes.body
Based on what I have learned, nationalism has served as a constructive force by helping to bring citizens and communities together.

# data[].attributes.body
Nationalisa constructive force when the main focus is benefiting ones own country without the need of violent actions against foreign territories. When people are unified together under similar goals and ideals, it can make legislative processes faster and allow for faster production on unanimously agreed upon productions and goals.

# data[].attributes.body
Nationalism has served as a constructive force by uniting large groups of people usually demanding some type of change. When we unite as a nation as a whole, we form a very forceful group.

# data[].attributes.body
Based on what I have learned, nationalism has served as a destructive force because some people took the idea of nationalism a little too far. For example the holocaust.

# data[].attributes.body
9/11 brought out strong nationalism among Americans and that is what allowed the country to bounce back stronger than before after the attacks.

# data[].attributes.body
Nationalism is a destructive force, an example was, the Germans.

# data[].attributes.body
The citizens of the United States in the 19th century were really nationalistic when the believed it was their god-given duty to take territory to the west, so this was a nationalistic sentiment that changed the course of history.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't think American nationalism can really be seen as revolutionary in the contemporary sense, since our current nationalism is essentially blindly following the US. In the past, there was obviously the revolution, and for that to come about there had to be some sort of nationalism which may have been closer to revolutionary, but the colonies revolted because they wanted to stay as they were, a pattern that follows through the rest of US history, for the most part.

# data[].attributes.body
Nationalism becomes dangerous when the countries are united by autocratarian ideals and goals of harming other nations. This hostile ideology is what leads to genocides, aaginst specfic populaces and World wars

# data[].attributes.body
Nationalism can serve as a destructive force when the nation demands something but in the end does not get what it wants.

# data[].attributes.body
The united states has experience nationalism in the past cause everyone thought they needed to fight for more land, but in the present, there is no nationalism

# data[].attributes.body
For example in the balkans, the rise of nationalism was positive in a way because countries recheived independence which was fair... people were free from Austrian rule which did not take the well-being of the native people into consideration.

# data[].attributes.body
Because new borders were established in the Balkans, small groups of one ethnicity was mixed in with a larger groups of another ethnicity, and the nationalists who were proud and finally free from the Austrians wanted their land to be for their own kind/people... this then led to constant quarrels and the start of WWI.

# data[].attributes.body
With the issue of gun control many people feel that by reforming the gun laws they will lose freedoms. It's brought out strong nationalist ideas.

# data[].attributes.body
Germany during World War 2. they did awful things like try to erase jews from history in the name of nationalism

# data[].attributes.body
there has been no event that caused the us to experience revolutionary nationalism. Simply because our country is too young and has only been around for about 200 years

# data[].attributes.body
Nationalism kind f goes with manifest destiny. People feel a strong pride in their country and believe they should have more land or more freedoms to make it better for itself and the people in it.

# data[].attributes.body
There have been moments that the United States has truly experienced revolutionary nationalism but this usually tends to be right after a big traumatic event that causes people to come together and unite for a greater cause.

# data[].attributes.body
The greatest nationalist feelings among Americans came after 9/11. This traumatic event caused people to come together as one to support those who have lost. Along the lines of recent traumatic events that pull people closer togther, we are starting to see this with school shootings and mainly students are coming together with nationalistic feelings to fight for what they believe in.

# data[].attributes.body
Nationalism has served as a constructive force. we live in a democratic country so when the people come together, their voices are meant to be heard which benefits the nation. We have seen how 9/11 has caused there to be more security checks before entering an airplane due to people coming together to fight for their safety and today, we see students coming together to fight for their safety and this force can possibly cause another strong outcome.

# data[].attributes.body
Nationalism can be a destructive force as well. If we look at the Balkans, each of the nations had their own nationalism, but as an empire, they were driving each other apart. Each nation wanted what was best for their people and many of them wanted to expand and become revolutionary. This drove the empire apart showing that nationalism can also be destructive
.

# data[].attributes.body
Some events that trigger(ed) nationalistic feeling throughout the United States were 9/11 and any school shootings.

# data[].attributes.body
The United States of America had experienced revolutionary nationalism early in American history when the U.S. wanted its own freedom.

# data[].attributes.body
Nationalism has served as a constructive force in the United States. For example after the school shooting in Sandy Hook citizens came together to support each other during the unfortunate time, and might have brought society closer in general.

# data[].attributes.body
An example of nationalism serving as destructive force is that it already creates disagreements within different political parties.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't think that the US has experienced revolutionary nationalism, as there hasn't been a revolt caused primarily by nationalistic feelings in US history, including the revolutionary war.

# data[].attributes.body
we have not experienced revolutionary nationalism, although we do have some nationalism it was not revolutionary.

# data[].attributes.body
Many things  have brought out nationalistic feelings in Americans like 9/11, various protests, shootings have spurred nationalism in americans.

# data[].attributes.body
it was probably the 9/11 attack that brought nationalistic feelings

# data[].attributes.body
nationalism is not constructive, it would lead to war

# data[].attributes.body
Nationalism can cause nations to fight among each other in efforts to get ahead

# data[].attributes.body
the united states has not experienced total nationalism like Italy and Germany but with some tragic  events have spurred nationalism in america

# data[].attributes.body
In protests like black lives matter and taking a knee during the pledge of alliegence those people protesting are protesting the bad in america because they love amaerica not because they hate it