To Transmit or Transform the Republic? Citizenship, Civic Education, and the “cords of [constitutional] Affection”

Key Point

• Although US public opinion about America and the principles for which it stands are mixed, this seemingly schizophrenic attitude is probably not that surprising given the large, diverse, and liberal character of the republic today.
• This state of affairs calls for some clarifying reexaminations of how an education in citizenship is thought to benefit and perpetuate the American regime.
• Understanding civic education as transmitting or transforming the regime changes the purpose, shape, and content of a civics curriculum.
• Ultimately, even in a rights-based social compact order informed by “reflection and choice,” a robust citizenship involves not only a set of intellectual principles but also emotions or passions that are not readily quantifiable.

Read the PDF. 



Introduction 

Americans tend toward ritualistic displays of patriotism. Flags and Americana adorn homes, cars, and perishable products as a matter of course during the Olympics and on the Fourth of July. Despite the swag, Americans do not necessarily trust that their fellow citizens are sufficiently patriotic—that they are deeply committed to the American way of life and the democratic principles that inform it. And while the effort to measure such attachment seems to underlie much of the repeated questioning about Americans’ levels of civic knowledge and engagement, the more enduring questions are why a robust patriotism among self-governing citizens matters, what engenders it, and why it is not generationally guaranteed.

While flag-waving patriotism is ubiquitous, is it an extension of informed attachment to the nation, or mere lip-service camouflage? Arguably, there is more to the breezy spectacle than meets the eye, but understanding its meaning is far from obvious. High levels of voter participation in elections accompanied the proliferation of community-level patriotic festivals in the mid- and latter half of the 19th century, during the era of the “American political nation.”¹ Over the past several decades, Americans have been less enthusiastic about voting. Nationwide, only 27 percent of eligible voters vote in the typical municipal election, and rarely do more than 60 percent vote in presidential elections anymore.²

Beyond voter participation rates, perhaps more meaningful to examine are the occasions when America is attacked or some great national disaster occurs. Then, deeper expressions of patriotism accompany the unfurling of the flag, which bear witness to an enduring cultivation of principles if not affection.

So many men and women continued to serve the nation in the years after the 1941 Pearl Harbor attack that TV commentator Tom Brokaw bestowed on them the sobriquet “Greatest Generation.”³ Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam has called them the “long civic generation.”⁴ A similar movement occurred across America after the September 11, 2001, attacks, even if less extensively than during World War II. It prompted a handful of prominent conservatives to speculate that despite the past flag burnings, negative elite opinion about patriotism, and university curricula that seemed to discourage American exceptionalism, perhaps it was less that contemporary Americans were taught to shun patriotism outright than that they would rather come to store such thoughts and emotions in the “attic of the heart.”⁵ A decade after 9/11, Gen. John Allen (ret.) was dubbing millennials “the new ‘greatest generation’” for their service and sacrifice.⁶

Here are clear cycles of action and behavior that support the picture of a robust American patriotism. But even a topographical exploration of surveys on current attitudes considerably muddies the picture of that patriotism and instigates the question of whether attitudes or behavior have a weightier bearing. Nearly 20 years after 9/11, it appears that despite their demonstrated respect for military service, something has fundamentally shifted in Americans’ opinions about America and the principles for which it stands. But as the popular patriotic rituals attest, there is also evidence to the contrary of this thesis, which, if anything, seems rather to confirm an American tradition of seemingly schizophrenic patriotism that is endemic to the large, diverse, and liberal republic.

This state of affairs—whether Americans are patriotic or not, how to tell, and what to do in support of it—calls for some clarifying reexaminations of how an education in citizenship is thought to benefit and perpetuate the American regime. From the standpoint of citizens and the regime, what is patriotism for? How one defines the purpose of patriotism in a constitutional regime emphasizing the individual rights of citizens directly relates to one’s understanding of the purpose, content, and form of a civic education. It also highlights what inherent tensions may endure in teaching civics in a liberal democracy. Such tensions are arguably reflected in the apparent dichotomies among Americans’ contemporary civic behavior, civic attitudes, and civic knowledge.

Ultimately, together these reveal how even in a rights-based social compact order informed by “reflection and choice,”⁷ a robust citizenship involves not only a set of intellectual principles but also emotions or passions that are not readily quantifiable. These move citizenship beyond the realm of merely legalistic formulations or quantitative data to one in which, in the language of the Declaration of Independence, lives, fortunes, and “sacred Honor” are mutually pledged.⁸

Read the full report. 

Notes

1. The late political historian Joel Silbey of Columbia University argued that we should understand American political history in terms of different eras of the “American political nation.” In particular, in his monograph The American Political Nation, 1838–1893, Silbey argued that this particular half century represented a “populist oriented, institutionally organized political nation dominated by a system of two-party politics ‘unique in its power and in its depth of social penetration.’” This was such that the phrase “American political nation” could be used to mean this particular 19th-century era. See Joel H. Silbey, The American Political Nation, 1838–1893 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1991).
2. Zoltan L. Hajnal, “Why Does No One Vote in Local Elections?,” New York Times, October 22, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/opinion/why-does-no-one-vote-in-local-elections.html. For a comparison of voting turnout, see Michael McDonald, “National General Election VEP Turnout Rates, 1789–Present,” US Elections Project, http://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present.
3. Tom Brokaw, The Greatest Generation (New York: Random House, 1998).
4. Robert Putnam, “Who Killed Civic America?,” Prospect, March 20, 1996, https://www.prospectmagazine.co. uk/magazine/whokilledcivicamerica.
5. For a discussion about perceived declines in patriotism in the 1970s–90s, see Kenneth Jost, “Patriotism in America,” CQ Researcher 9, no. 24 (June 25, 1999), https://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1999062500. See also Walter Berns, “Flag Burning and Other Modes of Expression,” Commentary Magazine, October 1989, https://www. commentarymagazine.com/articles/flag-burning-other-modes-of-expression/. For “attics of the heart” discussion, see David Brooks, “Is Patriotism Dead? Walter Berns on the American Creed,” Weekly Standard, May 21, 2001, https://www.weeklystandard.com/william-kristol/david-brooks-on-walter-bernss-i-making-patriots-i.
6. Leon R. Kass and Gary J. Schmitt, “‘Brothers Forever’: A Book Forum and Memorial Day Discussion Featuring Gen. John Allen (Ret.),” American Enterprise Institute, May 22, 2014, http://www.aei.org/events/brothers-forever-a-book-forum-and-memorial-day-discussion-featuring-general-john-allen-ret/.
7. Alexander Hamilton, “Federalist No. 1,” in Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter (New York: Signet Classic Printing, 2003), 27.
8. The Declaration of Independence ends on this note: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”