Constituting "The People": National Identity Under William H. Taft and Richard M. Nixon

God and Country: The Partisan Psychology of the Presidency, Religion, and Nation

“…Scholarship has shown that what it means to be “American” is contentious and differs widely within the population (see Huddy, 2001), and the public incorporates multiple, often conflicting creedal notions of American‐ness (Schildkraut, 2007). But if the political climate privileges candidates who are particularly American, that necessitates that they define what being “American” means—a move with severely divisive potential (Stuckey & Hoffman, 2006). If war records and flag pins are taken to be indications of love of country, of true “American‐ness,” and if that definition of the trait is privileged in politics, what happens to other conceptions of American‐ness and patriotism that may not fit the mold: are citizens who have not served in war necessarily less patriotic?…”

“…To be clear, such a daily process is not ipso facto positive: however seemingly banal one's motivations or tactics, messages emphasizing national identity exclude and denigrate some in order to bolster the national group (Billig, 1995). Put differently, to define who is “more American” than someone else—or even to suggest that there can be one definition of who is “American”—impacts vast groups of current and future citizens (Stuckey & Hoffman, 2006). This means that, in the end, understanding the psychology of national identity in elections means understanding how national unity, disunity, and international affairs develop—and not always with ultimately humane outcomes.…”