Month: April 2024

Confused American Identity, Patriotism, and Immigration | By Catalina Scheider Galiñanes

Considering what constitutes the United States of America


What constitutes the American nation? As border crossings surge1, with 2023 ending with a high of nearly 250,000 U.S. Border Patrol-Migrant encounters at the southern border in December of 2023, and political rhetoric heating up between Biden and Trump in anticipation of their impending presidential face-off, the question of how one ought to define a nation-state looms large in the minds of many Americans. While nearly all Americans2 identify the number of migrants seeking to enter the United States from the Mexico border as either a crisis (45%) or a major problem (32%), President Biden calls3 for foreign nationals to “immediately surge to the border” and states that the United States’ absorption of mass migrants and refugees is “who we are.” It is worthwhile to ask: who are we, as the American nation? And how could an unprecedented level of immigration change our answer? An America which refuses to acknowledge that she possesses specific historical and cultural components and struggles to address large-scale illegal immigration, reveals the pressing importance of the development of a shared self-understanding and local interconnectedness to the survival of the United States.

Ancient writers and accounts have much to offer on the topic of national borders and patriotic identity. Plutarch’s biography of Lycurgus, the great lawgiver and leader of Sparta, in The Parallel Lives reveals the centrality of united community and economic components of the state as intimately tied to its citizens’ habituation in virtue. In a radical and somewhat fictitious account of unity and clarity of intention, Lycurgus founds and rules the Spartan state with a defined idea of who his people ought to be. In this partially legendary account, Lycurgus abolishes all traditional currency, equally redistributes land, limits trade and immigration, and forms the Spartan citizenry into an elite fighting force. His policies, although extreme, and in tension with liberal notions of limitless self-determination, reveal a deeper goal of the state: to form its citizens as “integral parts of the whole community…almost beside themselves with enthusiasm and noble ambition, and to belong wholly to their country.”  It is not clear that the modern American would identify feeling “beside themselves with enthusiasm and noble ambition,” as a part of the current political ideal. As only 16% of Americans4 report being very attached to their local community, it becomes nearly impossible for citizens to experience a deep feeling of responsibility for their nation. 

In Plutarch’s account of the ancient Spartan state, the appeal of political harmony was so strong as to supersede inconveniences or the human push towards individuality. Patriotic ties towards one’s nation, call forward  “an indefinable and special emotion, which nothing modern can possibly arouse,” as Swiss political philosopher Benjamin Constant expressed in his famous 1816 essay, “The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with That of the Moderns.”  Lycurgus outlawed international markets not due to a fear of invasion, but due to his understanding that, “For along with strange people, strange doctrines must also come in; and novel doctrines bring novel decisions, from which there must arise many feelings and resolutions which destroy the harmony of the existing political order.”  The notion of a protective orientation towards immigration is foreign to modern political rhetoric. The defense of the “harmony of the existing political order,” requires the acknowledgement that the maintenance of the political order is the central goal of the government.

Lycurgus’s reforms display that essential to any national identity is the willingness of the populace to sacrifice themselves out of a love of neighbor and country. In order for America to survive, one must first acknowledge that there is a particular definition of the American way of life and it is good. The very fact that the nation of the United States of America exists necessitates that there are some things which America is and some which it is not. American citizens must buy-in to a similar notion of values, history, laws, and interpersonal commitments. These objective standards must rest upon the country’s Judeo-Christian founding, traditions of personal rights, and the common good. The relativistic desire to identify America exclusively as a mixture of standards and values fundamentally confuses the American project of republican government into a post-modern, post-Christian project of contradictions. In order to begin to clarify American identity, citizens must assent to standards such as equality under the law and the fomentation of virtues which allow for the proper usage of liberty–not to the destructive rhetoric of identity conflict which holds that “America” does not means much of anything besides a system of oppression.

Interestingly, a traditional notion of national identity has recently been communicated by an unexpected source—Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota. In a speech delivered in the Somali language in early February 2024, Congresswoman Omar spoke to her constituents about national identity and patriotism. The speech’s translation is disputed, with the conservative Heritage Foundation reporting5 on her as saying, “Somalia belongs to Somalis—it is unified, and we are all brothers” and the progressive Minnesota Reformer writing6 that her words were, “we are also people who can rely on each other. We are people who are siblings. We are people with courage. We are people who know that they are Somali and Muslim. We are people who support each other.” Either translation expresses a powerful patriotic sentiment, a call for Somali unity and support, and a clear definition of who Somalis are. And yet, Congresswoman Omar serves in the House of Representatives of the United States of America, not of Somalia. Her speech, widely criticized by Republicans and defended by Democrats as an example of intersectionality, is actually an exemplification of what it means to truly belong to a nation. 

In Omar’s case, her patriotic message focuses upon the Somali nation, which the naturalization oath had bound her to “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity” to. That a member of the American congress would feel comfortable communicating such a message about another nation highlights the confusion surrounding American self-identity. This contradiction is the natural outcome of a culture which has condemned American cultural and social standards as oppressive. It is an interesting situation in which the desire to affirm that the United States’ only defining characteristic as its lack of objective values has allowed for other identities–racial, ethnic, or multinational–to secure prominent positions in American self-understanding. 

Regardless of questions raised surrounding Omar’s American identity, it remains obvious that many American citizens long to hear their leaders proclaim a similar sentiment: “America belongs to Americans–it is unified and we are all brothers.” This deep desire to belong within one’s home is an inherent part of human nature, and is not founded upon fear or hatred of the other. Instead of a xenophobic or hateful foundation, patriotism is traditionally understood as man’s desire to come home–as Odysseus longs to return to Ithaka or Aeneas searches for a homeland for his descendants–and as pride in the civilization to which each man and woman belongs. An understanding of home is particularly important in the nation which welcomes the “huddled masses” of Lazarus’s Great Colossus; therefore, attitudes toward mass immigration must be informed by the need for a unified American identity.

Beyond the first step in recognizing and embracing that being American means assenting to certain principles and rejecting others–immigration processes must ensure that these standards are communicated and accepted. This is simply impossible to ensure when the United States is facing such record high entries at the Southern border. In documents sent to Congress from Homeland Security, the federal government projects7 that the “non-detained docket,” or migrants without official legal status, is projected to have hit eight million by October 2023. The sheer volume of migrants is staggering–although President Biden had promised8 to effectively “absorb” asylum seekers during his 2020 campaign. This absorption has proved to be more difficult than anticipated, and it is impossible to thoroughly vet individuals when the Border Patrol is facing up to a quarter of a million encounters within a single month. The situation at the Southern border is distinct from any other migration to the United States, which has historically welcomed and been benefited by diverse immigration. Immigration undoubtedly plays an important role in the United States’ economic and social development. In order to address the immigration crisis, the government must recognize its role as the protector of political harmony, and acknowledge a responsibility to both migrants and citizens–lack of documentation leaves immigrants at risk of labor exploitation and trafficking9.

America is a nation founded upon an ambitious program of self-government, individual rights, and an orientation towards a national common good. Any meaningful notion of American identity rests upon her citizens’ ability to recognize foundational. American ideals as historic, objective, and central to their own understanding of themselves. Rhetoric which pushes a vision of the United States as a mere amalgamation of subjective multiculturalism, and welcomes mass illegal migration, welcomes dangerous ideological confusion: confusion in which an American Congresswoman extols the patriotism of another nation, confusion in which 8 million undocumented and vulnerable individuals are practically impossible to identify or contact, and confusion in which a record low10 Americans are proud of their nation. If Americans wish to preserve their nation, they must not fear defining both their ideological and geographical borders.

Notes

*Headline picture “American Flag Waving on a Flag Pole” is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

  1.  Gramlich, John. “Migrant Encounters at the U.S.-Mexico Border Hit a Record High at the End of 2023.” Pew Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/15/migrant-encounters-at-the-us-mexico-border-hit-a-record-high-at-the-end-of-2023/. ↩︎
  2.  Center, Pew Research. “1. How Americans View the U.S.-Mexico Border Situation and the Government’s Handling of the Issue.” Pew Research Center – U.S. Politics & Policy, 15 Feb. 2024, https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/02/15/how-americans-view-the-u-s-mexico-border-situation-and-the-governments-handling-of-the-issue/. ↩︎
  3.  Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Candidate Biden Calls On Illegal Immigrants to Surge the Border. 2021. YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYwLYMPLYbo. ↩︎
  4. Mitchell, Travis. “5. Americans’ Satisfaction with and Attachment to Their Communities.” Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project, 22 May 2018, https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/05/22/americans-satisfaction-with-and-attachment-to-their-communities/. ↩︎
  5. Gonzalez, Mike. “Ilhan Omar Brags About Advancing a Somalia First Agenda in Congress.” The Heritage Foundation, https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/ilhan-omar-brags-about-advancing-somalia-first-agenda-congress↩︎
  6.  Nesterak, J. Patrick Coolican, Max. “Republicans Smeared Ilhan Omar over a Faulty Translation. Here’s What She Really Said. .” Minnesota Reformer, 1 Feb. 2024, https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/02/01/republicans-smeared-ilhan-omar-over-a-faulty-translation-heres-what-she-really-said/* ↩︎
  7. Kight, Stef. “Scoop: Migrant Backlog to Hit 8 Million under Biden by October, Data Reveal.” Axious, 2 Mar. 2024, https://www.axios.com/2024/03/02/data-biden-border-crisis-immigration-8-million-detention↩︎
  8. Steck, Andrew Kaczynski, Em. “Joe Biden Promised to ‘Absorb’ 2 Million Asylum Seekers ‘in a Heartbeat’ in 2019 – He Now Faces an Immigration Crisis.” CNN, 7 Mar. 2024, https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/07/politics/kfile-biden-2-million-migrants-asylum-seekers-immigration-crisis/index.html↩︎
  9. Finckenauer, James, and Jennifer Schrock. Human Trafficking: A Growing Criminal Market in the U.S. . International Center of the National Institute of Justice , 2001, https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/human-trafficking-growing-criminal-market-us↩︎
  10.  Megan, Brenan. “Record-Low 38% Extremely Proud to Be American.” Gallup, Inc., 29 June 2022, https://news.gallup.com/poll/394202/record-low-extremely-proud-american.aspx. ↩︎

An Epidemic of Disengagement: Gen Z and the 2024 election | By Anne Rehill


I remember the excitement and pride I felt the first time I voted, just two months after turning 18. Those of us who are now seniors in college came of age during the 2020 presidential election, giving us the chance to be part of something that felt impactful and incredibly important at the time, regardless of what party we identified with. Yet, this optimism was short-lived as voters now prepare to confront the same two options in 2024 that we did in 2020. Acknowledging that the structure of the current two-party electoral system makes a third-party vote unlikely to have any meaningful impact on the outcome, many opted to choose the “lesser of two evils” in their view in 2020. From the left, electing Biden was seen by many as a necessary, if undesirable, effort to prevent Trump from re-election. From the right, many Republicans did favor Trump at the time, but his popularity also demonstrated a move towards extremism, which isolated many moderates. Ultimately, this choice was difficult for hundreds of thousands of Americans who felt they did not have a candidate who truly represented them.

Now, only 13% of voting-age Gen Z (individuals born from 1997 to 2013) answered that they have “A great deal” or “Quite a lot” of trust in the presidency, and that number is even lower if you narrow it down to only Gen Z independents of voting age: 7%.1 There is an epidemic in which young people of voting age in the U.S. lack trust in several critical political and social institutions including Congress, the news, and the Presidency. According to the Harvard Youth Poll, although Gen Z played an instrumental role in the election of Biden in 2020, fewer young Americans plan on voting in 2024, with most of this decline coming from young Republican and independent voters. Comparing this to the 2020 presidential election cycle, the number of young Americans between 18 and 29 years old who “definitely” plan on voting for president has decreased from 57% to 49%.2 If continued, Gen Z could have lower political participation rates in upcoming elections due to a sense of disillusionment with their effectiveness in influencing politics in a political system that reinforces a rigid binary. The fact that a significant portion of the voting population is frustrated with the status quo is a serious concern and should be taken as a serious warning about the health of American democracy.

Everyone has heard that America is the most polarized today that it has ever been. Republican representatives have tended to move more right on the ideological spectrum, Democratic representatives have tended to move more left, negative views of each other have reached record highs, and government structures like Congress that require bipartisan cooperation have become dysfunctional. However, despite still having political “leanings” and strong beliefs, Gen Z and Millenials are the least partisan generations, with a whopping 52% identifying themselves as Independent.3 

Pew Research Center, “Party Identification in the United States in 2022, By Generation,” chart, August 18, 2022, Statistia, https://www.statista.com/statistics/319068/party-identification-in-the-united-states-by-generation.

Some potential reasons why Gen Z may not want to identify with the Democratic Party or the Republican Party include recognition of the ineffectiveness of partisan uncooperativeness, distrust in the beholdenness of the parties to large donor organizations and individuals, and mismatches between voters and candidates in stances on topical issues such as Israel/Palestine and environmental initiatives. This leads to a dilemma as we are dissatisfied with the lack of third-party options. The First-Past-the-Post (also called “single-choice voting”) and Winner-Takes-All Voting systems presently in American Presidential elections discourage smaller parties from gaining a foothold because they may struggle to win electoral votes without widespread support across multiple states. Without the primaries producing any solid alternatives to Biden and Trump, other groups have attempted to offer third-party options.

According to No Labels–a group meant to unite conservatives, liberals, and everyone in between under the fundamental beliefs of Country over party and moderation over extremism–their “polling shows 63% of Americans would be open to supporting a moderate independent presidential candidate in 2024 if the alternatives are Donald Trump and Joe Biden.”4 However, No Labels faced high levels of criticism by those who believed it would “spoil” the election and cause Trump to be re-elected by taking votes away from those who would have otherwise voted for Biden. For this reason, they were not able to field a candidate, with Joe Manchin, Chris Christie, and Larry Hogan declining, and abandoned their ticket last week. Meanwhile, as of March 29, 2024 polls, third-party candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. attracted 12.3% of votes.5 This 12.3%, which was mostly siphoned from potential Biden voters, could have a huge impact on the outcome if Kennedy were to remain in the race.

 “2024 General Election: Trump vs Biden vs Kennedy,” Real Clear Polling, accessed March 29, 2024, https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-biden-vs-kennedy.

The only way to mitigate polarization, give proper representation to those outside of the Republican/Democrat dichotomy, and reverse declining political participation is to reform the electoral system. Restructuring campaign finance, the electoral college, and implementing Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) could make third-party options feasible. Others call for age restrictions, with 82% of Republicans and 76% of Democrats supporting a maximum age limit in place for elected federal officials.6 These reforms could be achieved either through amendments to the Constitution or through individual efforts by all states. The U.S. Constitution grants states significant autonomy to states in determining their election procedures, including methods for conducting elections and counting votes. RCV has already been implemented in several statewide and federal elections in Maine and Alaska, and this March, Representative Don Beyer re-introduced an updated Fair Representation Act to implement measures to elect U.S. House Representatives through ranked-choice voting in multi-member districts.7

American historian and activist Howard Zinn said, “You can’t be neutral on a moving train.” To not vote is to take a side by allowing a winning candidate to be elected without opposition. Gen Z is the most diverse, most well-educated, and most technologically adept generation in American history. This makes it not only essential to get Gen Z levels of participation up to 2020 levels this 2024 but also gives us a unique ability to advocate for change. As we head into November, it is important that we mobilize to get out and vote, as voting goes far beyond the Presidential race. Thirty-two states will have senator elections and and dozens of House seats are up for re-election. These representatives have the power to back legislation for electoral reform in Congress. Whether you sign a petition in support of election reforms, contact your representatives to let them know your support, or volunteer on campaigns, now is the time to take action.

Notes

*Headline image “I Voted Sticker” is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.

  1. Zach Hrynowski and Stephanie Marken, “Gen Z Voices Lackluster Trust In Major U.S. Institutions,” Gallup, September 14, 2023, https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/510395/gen-voices-lackluster-trust-major-institutions.aspx. ↩︎
  2. “Harvard Youth Poll,” Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics, December 5, 2023, https://iop.harvard.edu/youth-poll/46th-edition-fall-2023 utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#key-takeaway–id–1516  ↩︎
  3.  Pew Research Center, “Party Identification in the United States in 2022, By Generation,” chart, August 18, 2022, Statistia, https://www.statista.com/statistics/319068/party-identification-in-the-united-states-by-generation. ↩︎
  4.  “Unity Ticket 2024 FAQs,” No Labels, accessed April 3, 2024, https://www.nolabels.org/unity-ticket-faqs. ↩︎
  5.  “2024 General Election: Trump vs Biden vs Kennedy,” Real Clear Polling, accessed March 29, 2024, https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-biden-vs-kennedy. ↩︎
  6.  John Gramlich, “Most Americans favor maximum age limits for federal elected officials, Supreme Court justices,” PEW Research, October 4, 2023, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/10/04/most-americans-favor-maximum-age-limits-for-federal-elected-officials-supreme-court-justices/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Constitution%20sets%20minimum,age%20for%20Supreme%20Court%20justices. ↩︎
  7. Congress, “Text – H.R.3863 – 117th Congress (2021-2022): Fair Representation Act,” November 1, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3863/text. ↩︎

The Unforeseen Consequences of Social Capital | By Kendall Manning


Introduction
Robert Putnam is best known for his book Bowling Alone, in which he links a healthy democracy with strong levels of social capital. Putnam defines social capital as “connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them.”1 Putnam illustrates the importance of creating bonds within a community to promote healthy democracy. However, these bonds are not always used for good, something he highlights in his discussion of how social capital can contribute to the formation and success of extremist groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).2 In recent years, modern extremist groups have become more mainstream.3 Robert Putnam’s theory argues that in the United States, we are currently experiencing a severe decrease in social capital – something that is seen through falling enrollment in clubs and organizations such as bowling leagues and rotary clubs. In this paper I will argue that this decline in social capital is what has created the space for the increased prominence and attractiveness of extremist groups. With nowhere else to turn, people find community wherever they can.

Modern Examples of Political Extremism
Modern examples of political extremism occur on both ends of the political spectrum. On the left, groups termed Anarchist Violent Extremists (AVEs) pose a moderate risk of engaging in acts of violence, actively opposing constructs such as capitalism and the government which they view as harmful to society.4 Books written about AVEs from the left often paint their actions as necessary to respond to “right-wing extremist groups’ increased violent activity.”5 This highlights the polarization between the two ends of the political spectrum, as one side may engage in a violent action to retaliate against the other side’s actions. Regardless of the AVE’s motivation, the cyclical nature of escalatory violence among extremist groups offers an explanation to their increased action, and henceforth increased popularity in recent years.

On the other end of the political spectrum, right-wing groups – such as the Proud Boys – have been similarly involved in violent actions. The January 6th attack on the capitol highlights that they “have emerged as a manifestation and driver for polarization and political violence in the United States since their inception in 2016.”6 Since 2016, the Proud Boys have become further incentivized to act violently to accomplish their political goals. Furthermore, the outside forces that plague the AVEs (such as a feeling of necessity to ‘retaliate’) similarly plague right-wing groups. Former President Donald Trump’s rhetoric inflamed the Proud Boys during a time that was already filled with heightened emotions following his loss in the 2020 presidential election. Some leaders of the Proud Boys, and their lawyers, have even gone so far as to claim that Trump caused the January 6th attack through this inflammation.7 Similar uses of rhetorical flourish and fear-mongering acts as an outside pressure for these political groups, motivating
increasingly extreme and violent actions.

The Fall of Social Capital
Putnam’s diagnosis of our social condition – as illustrated through falling registration in bowling leagues – is meant to encourage a revival in social behavior. At present, Putnam travels across the country showing screenings of his documentary Join or Die to remind people of the importance of connecting with one another.8 However, with the recent COVID-19 pandemic and the rise of social media, people are less connected than ever before. In his 20th anniversary edition of Bowling Alone, Putnam discusses the impact of social media on social capital – using Facebook as his focus. While social media has been used increasingly since the original publication of Bowling Alone, and people often use it to make connections, Putnam finds that it has not replaced the “in-person civic life that Bowling Alone showed was disappearing.”9 While people often tout their online connections, the utility of these ‘connections’ is not equivalent to the in-person social capital that was prominent in earlier decades. However, it is not just
Facebook and social media that weakens our social capital – online shopping sites have also harmed our ability to make connections: “Even before the coronavirus epidemic, e-commerce, including Amazon and Uber Eats, had been weakening ‘third places’ beyond home and work… that is, places where people traditionally encountered friends and acquaintances and thus created and maintained face-to-face social capital.”10 Online websites have removed the need to go into public and engage with civil society. The rise of e-commerce websites and social media seem, on balance, to have both further diminished our
social capital over the last two decades since Putnam first diagnosed the problem with American social capital in the 1990s.

This dramatic decrease in social capital partially explains the rise of political extremist groups. This case is in part illuminated by the political success of former President Donald Trump: “Trump’s support comes disproportionately from those with low social connectedness.”11 Low social connectedness is often associated with feelings of isolation and a decline of trust in others.12 These feelings of hopelessness directly contributed to Trump’s election, as he attempted to instill hope for the future in an isolated population.13 Trump’s message was successful – at least among the more socially alienated. In the 2016 Republican Primary, Trump won most districts with the lowest levels of social connectedness and lost most districts with the highest.14 For people with a low level of social connectivity, politically extreme messages – such as Donald Trump’s populism15 – have taken root.

Political Extremist Groups & The Rise of Social Capital
The idea of politically extreme messages taking root in socially isolated populations is similarly illustrated through the rise of political extremist groups. Both AVEs and right-wing groups illuminate Putnam’s concern about the dangers of social capital. With the continued decrease in social connectivity, alienated populations look for others they can relate to. With the rising appeal of populist and other political messages, as seen through Trump’s political success, it is often the case that they turn to these extremist groups: “Organizations like the Mob or the Klan can sometimes fulfill the need for social solidarity and community involvement as effectively as bowling clubs or the Rotary Club… community involvement is only as good as the community one is involved with.”16 Right-wing groups and AVEs can similarly fill the need for social connectedness among socially isolated individuals. The lack of opportunities for other forms of community involvement reiterates why individuals feel compelled to join political groups.

Additionally, the longevity of groups like the Proud Boys may be appealing: “The tempo of the group’s appearances after January 6 suggests that instead of instigating a standing down, the group may be positioning itself to serve as the violent tip of the post-Insurrection extreme far-right.”17 While the Proud
Boys underwent considerable scrutiny following the January 6th attack on the Capitol, it seems that this has not impacted the longevity of their organization. Individuals who choose to join politically extreme groups for the benefits of social capital can be assured in their resilience against outside pressures. More traditional groups – such as bowling leagues – have not proved similarly resilient against outside pressures, as decreased enrollment due to societal change18 often meant the end of the league itself.

Conclusion
Robert Putnam’s theory of social capital revolutionized the way political scientists think about social connectivity in democracies. He correctly details the decline in the United States’ social capital – as highlighted through dropping civic participation in community organizations. However, the rise of political extremist groups was an unforeseen consequence of decreased engagement. As seen through the patterns of Donald Trump’s political victories in the 2016 Republican Primaries and beyond, alienated individuals are more likely to buy into politically extreme messages such as Trump’s populism. These isolated individuals then seek out social capital in the only way they can – by joining politically extreme groups, whether left-wing or right-wing. These groups instill a sense of social connectivity with previously isolated individuals, which allows for them to flourish. Although it seems at present that the social connectivity of extremist groups is in contrast with the decline of other forms of social capital, their long-term viability remains to be seen. At present, the Proud Boys are reinforcing their organization, despite legal challenges following January 6.19 However, bowling leagues initially did as well, before they tapered off.20 Political extremist groups may similarly decline as a form of social capital, or they could contradict existing trends and remain on the upswing.

Notes

  1. Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone, (New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2000), 19. ↩︎
  2. Putnam, 22. ↩︎
  3. For further reading, see Seth G. Jones “Who Are Antifa, and Are They a Threat?,” Kaitlyn Tiffany “The Right’s New Bogeyman,” and Jared Thomson “Examining Extremism: The Boogaloo Movement.” ↩︎
  4. “Anarchist/Left-Wing Violent Extremism,” (The George Washington University Program on Extremism, 2021), 6. ↩︎
  5. “Anarchist/Left-Wing Violent Extremism,” 9. ↩︎
  6. Matthew Kriner and Jon Lewis, “Pride & Prejudice: The Violent Evolution of the Proud Boys,” (CTC Sentinel, 2021), 26. ↩︎
  7. Kyle Cheney, “Proud Boys leaders: Trump caused Jan. 6th attack,” Politico, 2023, https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/25/proud-boys-trial-trump-tarrio-00093678. ↩︎
  8. Clare Lyons, “Join or Die’: Harvard professor touts extracurriculars at Notre Dame Forum,” The Observer, Feb. 22, 2024, https://www.ndsmcobserver.com/article/2024/02/putnam-talks-social-capital-democracy-at-notre-dame-forum-keynote-event. ↩︎
  9. Putnam, 427. ↩︎
  10. Putnam, 435. ↩︎
  11. Michael Barone, “Does lack of social connectedness explain Trump’s appeal?”, The Washington Examiner, Mar. 27, 2016, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2001105/does-lack-of-social-connectedness-explain-trumps-appeal/. ↩︎
  12. Isabel V. Sawhill, “Social Capital: Why We Need It and How We Can Create More of It,” (Brookings Institution, 2020), 1. ↩︎
  13. Sawhill, 6. ↩︎
  14. Sawhill. ↩︎
  15. Sawhill. ↩︎
  16. Joshua Keating, “Bowling Alone is Bad Unless Your Bowling Team Kills People,” Foreign Policy, 2013, https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/15/bowling-alone-is-bad-unless-your-bowling-team-kills-people/. ↩︎
  17. Kriner and Lewis, 37. ↩︎
  18. Putnam, 17. ↩︎
  19. Kriner and Lewis, 37. ↩︎
  20. Putnam, 472. Bowling league enrollment rose steadily for almost 50 years – from 1920 to 1965 – before it dropped dramatically. ↩︎