Keeping America Exceptional: Patriotism, the Status Quo, and the Culture Wars A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science of the College of Arts and Sciences by Nate Ramsey B.S. Political Science, Oregon State University, 2004 August 2011 Committee Chair: Stephen T. Mockabee, PhD Abstract For over a decade, patriotism has been a subject of deep cultural resonance in America (Huntington 2004). Historians and philosophers regularly debate whether or not national affection demands critical analysis (e.g. Schatz, Staub, and Lavine 1999; Schweikart and Allen 2007), or whether it should even be geographically bounded at all (e.g. Nussbaum 1996; Primoratz 2002). Political leaders increasingly use patriotic rhetoric to advance arguments and garner support from the public (e.g. Palin 2010; Romney 2009). And prominent policies frequently imply some level of commitment to either the nation or its first principles (e.g. multiple wars, domestic wiretapping, restrictions on the writ of habeas corpus). Yet despite that patriotism has proven at times capable of structuring political judgments (Sullivan et al. 1992), few researchers have sought to systematically evaluate its role in American politics. In this dissertation, I assess the causes, consequences, and constraint surrounding contemporary patriotic belief. I examine the leading social, psychological, and political antecedents using a relatively new theoretical framework that emphasizes individuals’ differential tendencies to support the status quo and justify existing societal arrangements (Jost and Banaji 1994). Also, I challenge the extant culture war paradigm that explains political preferences on the basis of religious motivation (e.g. Hunter 1991; Layman and Green 2005). I argue instead that political opinions connected by cultural argumentation (Leege, Wald, Kreuger, and Mueller 2002) are best understood today according to patriotically orthodox and progressive worldviews. Finally, I adapt Peffley and Hurwitz’s (1985) hierarchical model of attitude constraint to evaluate ideological reasoning at three different levels of ideational abstraction: fundamental predispositions, general attitudinal postures, and specific political opinions. Results from multiple regression analysis and structural equation modeling largely confirm the core hypotheses of this research. Individuals anxious about changes in America’s status and its basic domestic institutions generally adopted orthodox attachments to the nation. Such was the case in terms of their national pride, their willingness to criticize the country, their symbolic affections, as well as other aspects of patriotism that were strongly correlated. Also, patriotic belief proved a more potent and consistent predictor of political opinions than did measures of religious belief, belonging, and behavior. And an evaluation of attitude constraint indicated that while Americans may not walk around with sophisticated ideologies preformed, they are capable of meaningful abstract political reasoning. In all, findings from this research suggest that patriotism is an increasingly important concept, likely to influence American politics in the years to come. ii iii Acknowledgements Successful completion of this project is due in large part to the role played by numerous people in my life. I owe great thanks to Steve Mockabee for both his big picture and small picture advice throughout the writing of this dissertation. Feedback from Barbara Bardes vastly improved the readability and overall quality of the work. And Jim Stever offered numerous valuable insights. I’m grateful for the training I received during my time at the Institute for Policy Research. Eric Rademacher, Kim Downing, Chuck Hulen, and others, helped me develop practical skills that I utilized throughout the dissertation-writing process. Also, I’m indebted to numerous fellow graduate students for their support and companionship. In particular, John Callaghan has generously shared with me a wealth of good advice, both academic and otherwise, since the day I met him. And Misook Gwon has been an ideal confidant, cheerleader, colleague, and friend. I’ll miss our meetings enormously. Support from family members, including grandparents, siblings, and in-laws, has been selfless and sincere throughout my long journey in higher education. I wish saying “thank you” could do justice to how I feel towards them. This is doubly true for my parents, Dave and Tara, for whom I am so incredibly lucky to have in my corner. Their love and complete support, regardless the circumstances, is what has always afforded me the privilege to pursue my goals. Even with all the assistance I’ve received from friends, family, and colleagues in recent years, it’s difficult to imagine where I’d be without Rae. My best friend and life partner since we were 17, she’s been a positive force in my life each and every day. I’ll be forever grateful to her for first convincing me this goal was achievable back when we were undergraduates at Oregon State, and for agreeing to move across the country with me to make it happen. She makes it all possible and worthwhile. iv Table of Contents Chapter 1: Of Politics and Patriotism 1 Tables and Figures 23 Chapter 2: America as ‘Higher Power’ 24 Tables and Figures 57 Chapter 3: Status and Status Quo 64 Tables and Figures 116 Chapter 4: Patriotism and Attitudinal Constraint 128 Tables and Figures 153 Chapter 5: Conclusion 157 Bibliography 165 Appendices Appendix A 186 Appendix B 190 Appendix C 192 v Chapter 1 Of Politics and Patriotism “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” - President Barack Obama, April 20091 “This President and his fellow traveler’s in Washington fundamentally don’t understand America. They don’t understand what it is that makes this nation so successful, so powerful, so good.” - Mitt Romney, January 20112 Patriotism: In Philosophy, Policy, and Politics Patriotic appeals are long familiar in American politics. Ritualistic usage among politicians include conspicuous displays of the flag and glorification of the nation’s achievements, principles, and the character its people. This custom generally accompanies an attempt to advance a political argument. At times however, due to the prominence of various issues impinging upon patriotic beliefs, such entreaties transcend the role of a background prop, becoming instead a foreground lens. The presidential election of 1988 illustrates this phenomenon. In their analysis of that year’s campaign, Sullivan, Fried, and Deitz (1992, 203) evaluated whether “the current era is characterized by significant disputes over issues of patriotism.” In their affirmative conclusion, they determined that varying forms of national attachment3 constituted the basis of many voters’ eventual choice; an impact that proved decisive in Bush’s election victory. What issues loomed large enough so as to propel patriotism to such status? According to the authors: disputes over mandating the Pledge of Allegiance in school 1 Obama’s comment was made on April 4, 2009 at a public gathering in Strasbourg, France. 2 Romney’s quote: Michael Scherer, “Election 2012: Mitt Romney Readies a Different Kind of Campaign”, Time Magazine, 24 January 2011. 3 Throughout this dissertation I will use the following terms interchangeably: patriotism, national attitudes, national attachment, national loyalty, national affect, and national identity. I do so with full knowledge that some authors make distinctions between some of these terms. However, my intent is to reference the totality of individuals’ sentiment in this regard. This matter is addressed in more detail in Chapter 2. 1 classrooms, Governor Dukakis’s membership in the ACLU, and the possibility that his wife participated in demonstrations during the Vietnam War where flag burning occurred. To even casual observers of politics today these matters are indeed likely to appear noteworthy; though not for any obvious provocation, but rather for their banality. Compared to heated debate in recent years over the pro- versus anti-American beliefs and behaviors associated with wars, dissent, disputed elections, mosque-building, birtherism, and many other issues, the context of 1988 appears mild. It also appears rather narrow; particularly when juxtaposed with the present-day wide-ranging application. This is not to say the definition of patriotism itself has changed. It is still generally understood as a collection of attitudes “that refers to individuals’ attachment and loyalty to their nation and country” (Kelman 1997, 166). But in principle, in practice, and as form of struggle over political ends, it is pervasive. To highlight one unremarkable example evidencing its reach, Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman recently accused Republicans who voted against cap-and-trade legislation of “rooting against the country.”4 Contemporary argumentation through and about patriotism is both purely political as well as policy-based, as was the case in 1988. Yet it also involves questions of philosophical import. Indeed, Johnston (2002, 286) argues that patriotism is presently “enjoying a renaissance” among political theorists. And far from being merely a product of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, discourse concerning preferred forms of national attachment