Not feeling national pride this 4th of July? You're not alone
Only 36 percent of Democrats say they're "extremely" or "very" proud to be American, while 53 percent of independents said they were, according to the poll conducted just before the Independence Day holiday weekend.
The findings are a stark illustration of how many, but not all, Americans have felt less of a sense of pride in their country over the past decade.
Meanwhile, Republicans reported a higher level of pride in the country, with 92 percent saying they are extremely or very proud to be American.
The split between Democrats and Republicans, at 56 percentage points, is at its widest since 2001. That includes all four years of President Donald Trump 's first term.
While Republicans' pride in the country is on the rise, its still not enough to offset the diminishing pride of Democrats.
Overall, 58 percent of U.S. adults say they are prideful – still a downward shift compared to last 10 years.
Independent voters' pride in their national identity hit a new low in the most recent survey, at 53 percent, largely following that pattern of gradual decline.
Democrats' diminished pride in being American is more clearly linked to Trump's time in office. When Trump first entered the White House, in 2017, about two-thirds of Democrats said they were proud to be American. That had fallen to 42 percent by 2020, just before Trump lost reelection to former president Joe Biden.
America's decline in national pride has been a slow erosion, with a steady downtick in Gallup's data since January 2001, when the question was first asked.
Even during the tumultuous early years of the Iraq War, the vast majority of U.S. adults, whether Republican or Democrat, said they were "extremely" or "very" proud to be American. At that point, about 9 in 10 were "extremely" or "very" proud to be American. That remained high in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but the consensus around American pride slipped in the years that followed.
"It's not just a Trump story," Jones said. "Something else is going on, and I think it's just younger generations coming in and not being as patriotic as older people."
Only about 4 in 10 U.S. adults who are part of Generation Z, which is defined as those born from 1997 to 2012, expressed a high level of pride in being American in Gallup surveys conducted in the past five years, on average. That's compared with about 6 in 10 Millennials.
"Each generation is less patriotic than the prior generation, and Gen Z is definitely much lower than anybody else," Jeffrey Jones, a senior editor at Gallup, told The Associated Press.
"But even among the older generations, we see that they're less patriotic than the ones before them, and they've become less patriotic over time. That's primarily driven by Democrats within those generations."
Other recent polling shows that Democrats and independents are less likely than Republicans to say that expressing patriotism is important or to feel a sense of pride in their national leaders.
Nearly 9 in 10 Republicans in a 2024 SSRS poll said they believed patriotism has a positive impact on the United States, with Democrats more divided: 45 percent said patriotism had a positive impact on the country, while 37 percent said it was negative
But a more general sense of discontent was clear on both sides of the aisle earlier this year, when a CNN/SSRS poll found that fewer than 1 in 10 Democrats and Republicans said "proud" described the way they felt about politics in America today.
In that survey, most Americans across the political spectrum said they were "disappointed" or "frustrated" with the country's politics.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
36 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Planned Parenthood may not survive the Trump administration
Planned Parenthood, the massive, 108-year-old network of women's and reproductive health clinics that operates almost 600 health centers across the United States, may not survive the Trump administration. Long a hated symbol on the right, and unable to summon enthusiastic support from the left, the medical network has nevertheless remained a symbolic and material cornerstone of women's equality, serving millions of patients – many of them indigent or low-income – each year, and housing one of the biggest feminist and pro-choice lobbying and litigation shops in America, in addition to being one of the nation's largest healthcare providers. Since returning to power in January, the Trump administration has made repeated cuts targeting Planned Parenthood's clinics, excluding the group from the vast Title X family planning program, on the pretext of scurrilous claims that they have violated federal anti-discrimination law by adopting resolutions stressing their 'commitment to Black communities' and by providing medical treatment to undocumented immigrants. Now, the supreme court has struck another blow. Last week, the court ruled that patients cannot sue to challenge their states' exclusion of Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs. The ruling threatens to transform the Medicaid program, giving states leeway to ban Medicaid reimbursements to any practice that provides politically disfavored medicine – notably abortion, but potentially also including contraception, IVF, gender-affirming care, or HIV treatment. The court functionally nullifies a clause in the bill that established the Medicaid program, which gives patients the right to seek care from 'any qualified provider' of their choosing. Now, the choice of provider can be dramatically limited by the state on the basis of that provider's political beliefs. The ruling also dramatically weakens section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, a landmark Reconstruction-era law that allows for citizens to sue states that deprive them of federally protected rights – raising the troubling prospect that the court will look askance at citizens' ability to enforce their constitutional rights against states that are disdainful of them. In the process, the court provided states with yet another way to choke off Planned Parenthood's funding, and to deprive their residents – particularly women – of the healthcare that they need to live safe, healthy and dignified lives. Many states – most – will now probably proceed to do so. The case, Medina v Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, concerns South Carolina's decision to exclude Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program. State funding of abortions is not at issue: abortion is banned in South Carolina, and even before it was, the state did not provide Medicaid coverage for abortions out of its state funds. (Federal money is not used to pay for abortions, either: a budget rider known as the Hyde Amendment has prevented federal Medicaid funding from covering abortion care since 1977, in effect prohibiting low-income women from accessing the procedure under their government healthcare plans.) What is at issue, rather, is whether Planned Parenthood, which provides a wide array of services for a disproportionately low-income clientele, can be prohibited from receiving reimbursement for other services that they provide – like pap smears, prenatal care and STD testing. Planned Parenthood challenged their own exclusion by the law in tandem with a Medicaid patient who went to them seeking birth control; because she chose a provider that her state government had a disdain for, she was denied. The suit questioned whether the plaintiffs could sue to enforce the right of patients to choose their own providers. Writing for the court's six-justice majority of Republican-appointed judges, Neil Gorsuch found that they can't. In practice, this decision enables an aggressive expansion of the states' power to put the political preferences of Republican lawmakers between women and gender-nonconforming people and their doctors. Delivered the day after the third anniversary of Dobbs, the decision expands the court's attack on abortion rights by granting states broad latitude to exclude abortion providers from the government subsidy programs that structure much of American healthcare: in practice, this will make abortion provision even more prohibitively expensive and onerous for doctors and practices, and will shutter many clinics. The ruling also comes on the heels of Skrimetti, the court's ruling upholding bans on transition-related healthcare for minors, on the absurd claim that such laws are somehow not sex discrimination. Collectively, the cases illustrate a judicial agenda that is not just vehemently anti-choice, but aggressively gender prescriptive: willing to use the levers of medicine and its regulation to enforce a narrow and regressive vision of gender roles, from identity to sexuality to gestation. The decision comes at a moment when Donald Trump's domestic policy agenda, known humiliatingly as the 'big, beautiful bill,' is working its way through the Senate, which among other things is considering a provision to ban Planned Parenthood from all Medicaid reimbursements nationwide. The organization has said that as a result of the supreme court and Trump administration actions, nearly a third of their clinics – about 200 – may have to close; the group has already decided to close 20 clinics just this year. The result is a de facto ban not just on abortion, but on any healthcare provision by pro-choice providers for vast swaths of American women. One in three women in the US has received services from Planned Parenthood; more than half of American Black women have. When combined with the independent reproductive health clinics that will also be excluded from Medicaid due to their abortion politics, that number rises higher. These Medicaid-enrolled women have now been denied the right to choose a doctor for their most intimate care based on their own comfort and values: instead, they will be forced to choose one based on the whims and bigotries of elected Republicans. In her dissent for the court's three Democratic appointees, Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the decision will strip patients 'of a deeply personal freedom: 'the ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable''. Instead, those vulnerable patients will probably be pushed, in growing numbers, toward religiously affiliated groups that deceive rather than treat. While abortion-providing medical practices like Planned Parenthood are being pushed out of Medicaid, the program is giving more and more money to crisis pregnancy centers, the Christian fake clinics that lure in frightened women, lie to them about their health, do not provide comprehensive care, and often lack any doctors on staff. These fake clinics, which are lavishly funded and outnumber real reproductive health centers nationwide at a rate of three to one, are not a substitute for real healthcare. But they are a means of restricting women's freedom. For the court, that's good enough. Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
Daily Mail
43 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Transgender woman defies Wyoming's new bathroom bill with stunt inside state's capitol building
A transgender woman defiantly violated a newly-implemented bathroom law in Wyoming - and was left stunned when nothing happened. Rihanna Kelver, 27, had been planning for months to use the women's restroom at the Wyoming State Capitol in protest of a new law that restricts people to the bathroom corresponding with their sex in public buildings. She explained to the Laramie Reporter that she saw her use of the women's bathroom at the state capitol - right next to the governor's office - as 'a pretty simple and creative direct action to either A) force litigation that could help us dismantle this policy or B) at least force the message that the policy is kind of worthless.' Kelver then traveled to Cheyenne on Tuesday, when the law went into effect, for her act of protest. 'I do not inherently believe in the state's interpretation of my identity,' she told supporters before walking into the women's room. 'Nor will I willfully be silent in the enforcement of where and how I can exist in public and who I am.' By 12.30pm, Kelver marched into the capitol and approached a Wyoming Highway Patrol officer stationed at a desk near the restrooms and announced her intention to use the bathroom, Cowboy State Daily reports. The officer did not have any issue with that, and Kelver then entered the women's room next to Gov. Mark Gordon's Office. Moments later, she exited the building via the front entrance without any issue - despite telling her supporters there was a chance she would be arrested. 'Now I don't know what I'm going to do with my evening,' Kelver admitted in the aftermath. 'I didn't really plan anything. Kept it really free.' But when addressing her supporters who had gathered outside the state capitol, Kelver said: 'This is exactly what should just be happening. 'I should have just been able to walk in and out like that,' she declared. Yet Wyoming's bathroom law does not include criminal liability for a transgender person found violating the act, unlike a similar bill in Florida. Instead, the only people who would suffer any consequences under the law if a transgender person used the bathroom of their preferred gender are the taxpayers. As written, the law gives women who encounter biological males in their bathroom at a public building - and vice versa - the authority to sue the governmental entity that oversees the facility. That governmental entity would then become liable for damages, reasonable attorneys fees and costs if it did not take 'reasonable steps' like posting signage and adopting enforcement policies. In Kelver's act of protest, however, her former English teacher, Nikki Bondurant, announced that Kelvar would be entering the women's room and made sure no one else was in there at the time of her demonstration - thereby removing any plaintiffs. 'I didn't want anyone else to get caught up in anything,' Kelver said of her decision to announce her bathroom use ahead of the protest. But some of the laws cosponsors argued she did not understand the crux of the legislation, as they hit out at her for her 'political stunt.' 'The fact that they're publicizing this and making this into something that they're trying to - I guess - get their name known [makes me] feel sad,' House Speaker Pro Tempore Jeremy Haroldson told Cowboy State Daily of Kelver. 'I believe this is just protecting spaces for our women and our girls - and that's predominantly what needs to be addressed here and highlighted here, and has nothing to do with this individual.' State Rep. Tom Kelly also called Kelver's protest a 'publicity stunt for a transgender cause' as he argued that the law seeks to honor 'objective reality,' and Rep. Joel Guggenmos said he felt sorry for Kelver. 'This whole trans issue is about getting attention since it has been glorified in certain groups in society,' he said, claiming he would prefer not to give Kelver the attention she seeks. 'I feel sorry for him actually,' Guggenmos said, purposely misgendering the protester. 'He is trying to be someone he can never become.' Still, the right-wing Wyoming Freedom Caucus took umbrage with Kelver's act of protest. It had called on the governor to use the Highway Patrol Capitol Security detail to 'defend' the new bathroom law ahead of the protest on Monday. 'It's time to show women - real women what it means to be an equality state,' the group said in a statement at the time. Following Kelver's protest, it declared that Gov. Gordon 'waved the white flag' by allowing her to use the women's bathroom. 'Wyoming deserves a leader who fights for real women,' the caucus said.
Sky News
44 minutes ago
- Sky News
PM's last-minute climbdown on welfare left onlookers aghast - and will embolden Labour MPs
So much for an end to chaos and sticking plaster politics. Yesterday, Sir Keir Starmer abandoned his flagship welfare reforms at the eleventh hour - hectic scenes in the House of Commons that left onlookers aghast. Facing possible defeat on his welfare bill, the PM folded in a last-minute climbdown to save his skin. 0:23 The decision was so rushed that some government insiders didn't even know it was coming - as the deputy PM, deployed as a negotiator, scrambled to save the bill or how much it would cost. "Too early to answer, it's moved at a really fast pace," said one. The changes were enough to whittle back the rebellion to 49 MPs as the prime minister prevailed, but this was a pyrrhic victory. Sir Keir lost the argument with his own backbenchers over his flagship welfare reforms, as they roundly rejected his proposed cuts to disability benefits for existing claimants or future ones, without a proper review of the entire personal independence payment (PIP) system first. PM wins key welfare vote - follow latest 4:31 That in turn has blown a hole in the public finances, as billions of planned welfare savings are shelved. Chancellor Rachel Reeves now faces the prospect of having to find £5bn. As for the politics, the prime minister has - to use a war analogy - spilled an awful lot of blood for little reward. He has faced down his MPs and he has lost. 4:38 They will be emboldened from this and - as some of those close to him admit - will find it even harder to govern. After the vote, in central lobby, MPs were already saying that the government should regard this as a reset moment for relations between No 10 and the party. The prime minister always said during the election that he would put country first and party second - and yet, less than a year into office, he finds himself pinned back by his party and blocked from making what he sees are necessary reforms. I suspect it will only get worse. When I asked two of the rebel MPs how they expected the government to cover off the losses in welfare savings, Rachael Maskell, a leading rebel, suggested the government introduce welfare taxes. Meanwhile, Work and Pensions Select Committee chair Debbie Abrahams told me "fiscal rules are not natural laws" - suggesting the chancellor could perhaps borrow more to fund public spending. 0:45 These of course are both things that Ms Reeves has ruled out. But the lesson MPs will take from this climbdown is that - if they push hard in enough and in big enough numbers - the government will give ground. The fallout for now is that any serious cuts to welfare - something the PM says is absolutely necessary - are stalled for the time being, with the Stephen Timms review into PIP not reporting back until November 2026. 1:10 Had the government done this differently and reviewed the system before trying to impose the cuts - a process only done ahead of the Spring Statement in order to help the chancellor fix her fiscal black hole - they may have had more success. Those close to the PM say he wants to deliver on the mandate the country gave him in last year's election, and point out that Sir Keir Starmer is often underestimated - first as party leader and now as prime minister. But on this occasion, he underestimated his own MPs. His job was already difficult enough - and after this it will be even harder still. If he can't govern his party, he can't deliver change he promised.
