What Is the SAVE Database?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns election integrity and clean voter rolls. According to an article written by Fred Lucas and published at The Daily Signal, the federal government – the Department of Homeland Security—has a database to help identify dead people and noncitizens who are registered to vote. The program is the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database. 

Using the SAVE database, twenty-five states have “identified hundreds of thousands of dead people and noncitizens registered to vote.” However, only ten states “have fully processed the voter data through the … SAVE database.”

SAVE is primarily used by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to verify eligibility for government benefits. The Trump administration made it available to states to cross-reference voter registration data.

So far, 25 states have cross-checked more than 68 million voter registration records through SAVE and found 28,000 noncitizens and 400,000 dead people registered to vote. As more states finalize the process, the number will likely grow.

Among just those 10 states that completely process their voter data through the SAVE system, they found more than 10,000 noncitizens and more than 360,000 dead people on the voter rolls, according to DHS.

A DHS memo says, “These states are serious about ensuring that only US citizens vote in US elections.”

Georgia, in using the SAVE system, found that 2,540 noncitizens had at some point registered to vote. It also found 42,776 deceased people on the rolls….

Several other of the 10 states that completed the process corroborated the numbers referenced in the DHS memo.

Ohio identified only 769 noncitizens on the voter rolls, but 59,774 dead people were listed….

North Carolina’s review determined 34,622 deceased people and 1,599 noncitizens were on the voter rolls….

In Texas, the nation’s second-most populous state, there are 111,573 dead people and 2,296 noncitizens on the voter rolls, according to DHS.

Louisiana had 15,231 dead people on the voter rolls, and 419 noncitizens, according to DHS….

Alabama, using the SAVE system, found 33,165 dead people on the rolls, and 465 noncitizens, according to DHS.

Missouri had 10,660 dead people registered to vote, and 1,112 noncitizens. Kansas has 10,197 dead registered voters and 449 noncitizens on the voter lists, according to DHS.

Idaho had 4,328 dead people on the voter rolls and 49 noncitizens.

Should Americans Worry About Democratic Socialists Winning Elections?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns socialism and “the recent rise in democratic socialists winning primary elections.” In an article published at the Deseret News, opinion editor Jay Evensen wrote the following: 

I’ve been around long enough to see how most long-term political plans eventually crack and disintegrate under the harsh heat of reality. So, I try not to get too worked up over the recent rise in democratic socialist winning primary elections, or over the movement’s supposed aims, which sound closer to Marx than to Jefferson or Madison.

But those who hope a post-Trump future might revert to the calmer political days of our youth may be disappointed. The far left seems to be on the rise to compete with the far right.

And while that rise is still small, if politicians don’t stem the fearsome rise in the national debt, a possible economic collapse and the chaos it could cause might bolster all kinds of radical ideologies….

Democracy has a way of taking the sharp edges off radical ideologies, eventually. The MAGA movement benefited from a charismatic leader, which the far left currently lacks.

A Gallup poll last year found a majority of Americans still feel favorably toward capitalism, but support is waning.

As I said, that trend could accelerate if the economy collapses under the weight of the national debt and its annual interest payments, which already exceed the nation’s military budget.

Samuel J. Abrams (professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and a scholar with the Sutherland Institute) agreed with Evensen in his column for Deseret News. “… Evensen is right not to panic [about] the recent string of democratic socialist primary victories nationwide.” Why young Americans are turning to socialism | Opinion – Deseret News

This is all true, but there is a deeper story that must be told as to why these radical ideologies have begun to win and why these politicians have been able to organize so effectively. It begins with the question of why so many young Americans are drawn to them.

The answer can be found in a book published a quarter century ago by a late mentor of mine – Seymour Martin Lipset. Writing with Gary Marks, Lipset wrote “It Didn’t Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States” and asked why America, alone among industrial democracies, never developed a serious socialist movement.

The socialists trying to reshape the Democratic Party

The answers Lipset and Marks offered were partly structural – our two-party system and winner-take-all elections punished third parties – but they were also, crucially, experiential. So many Americans lived capitalism’s promise and positive realities.

America’s workforce saw real mobility for themselves and their children and an individualist, antistatist creed ran deep. Moreover, Americans were formidable joiners – as observed by Alexis de Tocqueville decades earlier – and they were deeply embedded in churches, lodges, unions, clubs and neighborhood associations that gave them belonging, status and voice without any need for a revolutionary party to supply it.

Lipset and Marks argued that socialism did not fail in the United States because Americans read the right rebuttals to Marx. Rather, it failed because the conditions present nationwide never let it take hold. This points to the uncomfortable truth of 2026: Almost every immunity Lipset and Marks identified in their book has now degraded – particularly for young adults.

A misunderstanding of market economics

Start with young Americans’ lived experience of markets and capitalism. In cities where socialism has gained political traction – Chicago, Seattle, New York and San Francisco – many younger Americans are living through soaring housing costs, shrinking opportunities and dysfunctional markets. Their frustrations are real.

This mistake is not in recognizing the problems but in misidentifying their causes. Too often, however, they are seeing the consequences of regulation, restrictive zoning and poor governance as if they were failures of capitalism itself.

That confusion is hardly surprising. Most young Americans have never been taught how markets create prosperity. Significant numbers graduate from college without taking a single economics course….

A lack of strong social structures

Moving beyond economic systems, Lipset and Marks would point to the recent real decline of associational life as a major cause of socialism’s ascent. Theorists from Alexis de Tocqueville and Edmund Burke to Robert Nisbet and Richard John Neuhaus have long marveled at Americans’ art of association. Lipset understood that these institutions kept radicalism marginal by meeting fundamental human needs for fellowship, purpose and recognition.

Those institutions have been hollowed out, and young adults are the loneliest Americans on record. They may be digitally connected and habitually online, but few join congregations, civic clubs, scouting or recreational leagues. They are not merely under-informed; so many younger Americans are isolated, under-formed, unattached and without a social core….

What can be done?

If we consider this framing, it radically changes how we think about this so-called socialist surge. If the problem were socialism as an ideology itself, the answer would be rebuttal with more op-eds, more education and public-focused work, and more warnings about Venezuela and countless failed states. But reason and evidence alone do not persuade or work on people whose initial attraction was rooted less in ideas than belonging.

If the problem is formation – and that certainly appears to be the case – the real answer is to rebuild what once formed young Americans into confident, connected participants in a free society.

That means teaching economics so that graduates understand scarcity, trade-offs, incentives and the astonishing record of market economies, along with their real failures. It also means rebuilding our social associations where young people find the belonging they now seek in ideological movements like the DSA….

Finally, I should note that Lipset’s title contained a quiet warning that his admirers sometimes miss. Socialism didn’t happen here in the past tense because a particular America existed: prosperous, mobile, religious, fraternal and thick with institutions that formed citizens and demonstrated capitalism’s promise in daily life. That America was not an accident, and its immunities are not permanent as we see now – our nation’s immunities to socialism were built and then regularly reaffirmed.

Evensen is right that we need not fear the socialists. What we should fear and then fix is the loneliness and disconnection as well as the ignorance that make socialism feel like an answer for so many young people. Restore formation, purpose, community, and belonging and this socialist impulse will fade the way of every American socialist movement before it did.

  

What Are the Threats against America?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns threats in America that go “beyond the familiar divide between Democrats and Republicans.” According to Ben Shapiro in his article published at The Daily Signal, there are “two ideological movements – one on the far left, one emerging on the populist right.” The two movements “share a willingness to undermine the principles that have long defined the American experiment.” After opening his article with the quoted information, he explained as follows. 

On one side stands the Democratic Socialists of America, whose influence within the Democratic Party has grown dramatically. This is no longer simply a debate over tax rates or entitlement programs. The party’s activist wing has become increasingly hostile to the ideas that have undergirded th3e country for 250 years: freedom of speech, religious liberty, private property, free markets and the belief that America is an exceptional nation worth preserving.

The political consequences are no longer hypothetical. Democrats have a realistic chance to regain control of Congress in the 2026 midterm elections. Competitive Senate races across North Carolina, Ohio, Maine, Texas, Alaska, and Iowa underscore how narrow the margins have become. If Democrats were to reclaim both the House and Senate, the ramifications would extend far beyond the next two years.

The federal judiciary is the clearest example.

Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are both in their late 70s. Should vacancies arise while Democrats control the Senate, the ideological balance of the court could shift for a generation. A new liberal majority would influence constitutional interpretation on everything from executive authority and religious liberty to economic regulation and the administrative state. At the same time, Democrats would accelerate confirmations throughout the federal judiciary, leaving an imprint that would outlast any single administration.

Those stakes make recent developments on the right especially consequential.

Tucker Carlson has spent recent weeks floating the idea of launching a third political party, arguing that Republicans and Democrats are effectively indistinguishable on issues of war, spending and finance. He portrays America’s two-party system as little more than a single political establishment masquerading as democracy.

That argument ignores the most significant policy differences in American politics. Republicans and Democrats remain sharply divided over taxation, judicial appointments, regulation, free markets, energy policy, and the proper role of government. Pretending those distinctions no longer exist requires overlooking the very issues that define modern elections….

[Carlson’s] current rhetoric politically [is] significant even if no third party ever appears on the ballot. Republicans already face the historical disadvantages of defending Congress during a president’s midterm. Voices on the right openly rooting for Republican defeats only increase the likelihood that Democrats, increasingly influenced by their progressive wing, will gain power.

Following the nation’s semiquincentennial, the debate should return to first principles rather than political personalities.

For 250 years, America’s strength has rested on enduring ideas: constitutional government, individual liberty, private property, free enterprise, religious freedom and peace through strength. Those principles have survived wars, economic crises and political upheaval because each generation chose to defend them rather than discard them.

The greatest challenge facing the country may not come from a single ideological movement but from competing factions that, despite their differences, are increasingly willing to abandon those foundational principles. If the United States is to thrive to its 300^th anniversary, its 500^th and beyond, it will depend not on charismatic personalities or political factions but on whether Americans remain committed to the ideals that made the republic possible.

 

What Is the First Freedom and Why Is It Essential?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday is that “religious freedom undergirds the very existence of America.” President Dallin H. Oaks of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints authored an essay about the First Amendment, moral absolutes, and why the Constitution was created for a religious people. The essay was published at the Deseret News and was adapted from an earlier address given at Chapman University School of Law. 

Here is a note from the Editor: The centrality of religious freedom to the revelatory nature of America’s founding is why we’ve curated seminal selections on this first freedom in honor of America’s 250^th anniversary. These essays highlight the critical role faith played and continue to play in living out the inherent truths of the Declaration of Independence.

The first provision in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution is what many believe to be its most important guarantee. It reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

For almost a century, the First Amendment’s guarantee that the United States shall have “no law (prohibiting) the free exercise (of religious)” has been understood as a limitation on state as well as federal power. The guarantee of religious freedom is one of the supremely important founding principles in the United States Constitution, and it is reflected in the constitutions of all 50 of our states.

As noted by many, the guarantee’s “pre-eminent place” as the first expression in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution identifies freedom of religion as “a cornerstone of American democracy.” The American Colonies were originally settled by people who, for the most part, came to this continent for the freedom to practice their religious faith without persecution, and their successors deliberately placed religious freedom first in the nation’s Bill of Rights.

So it is that our federal law formally declares: “The right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States,” So it is, I maintain, that in our nation’s founding and in our constitutional order, religious freedom and its associated First Amendment freedoms of speech and press are the motivating and dominating civil liberties and civil rights. Religious teachings and religious organizations are valuable and important to our free society and therefore deserve special legal protection.

Our nation’s inimitable private sector of charitable works originated and is still furthered most significantly by religious impulses and religious organizations…. Religious beliefs instill patterns of altruistic behavior.

Many of the great moral advances in Western society have been motivated by religious principles and moved through the public square by pulpit-preaching. The abolition of the slave trade in England and the Emancipation Proclamation in the United States … were driven primarily by individuals who had a clear vision of what was morally right and what was morally wrong. In our time, the Civil Rights Movement was, of course, inspired and furthered by religious leaders.

Religion also strengthens our nation in terms of honesty and integrity. Modern science and technology have given us remarkable devices, but we are frequently reminded that their operation in our economic system and the resulting prosperity of our nation rest on the honesty of the men and women who use them…. These standards and practices of honesty and integrity rest, ultimately, on our ideas of right and wrong, which, for most of us, are ground in principles of religion and the teachings of religious leaders.

Our society is not held together just by law and its enforcement, but most importantly by voluntary obedience to the unenforceable and by widespread adherence to unwritten norms of right or righteous behavior. Religious belief in right and wrong is a vital influence to advocate and persuade such voluntary compliance by a large proportion of our citizens.

Others, of course, have a moral compass not expressly grounded in religion….

My final example of the importance of religion in our country concerns the origin of the Constitution. Its formation over 200 years ago was made possible by religious principles of human worth and dignity, and only those principles in the hearts of a majority of our diverse population can sustain that Constitution today. I submit that religious values and political realities are so interlinked in the origin and perpetuation of this nation that we cannot lose the influence of religion in our public life without seriously jeopardizing our freedoms.

The founders who established this nation believed in God and in the existence of moral absolutes – right and wrong – established by this Ultimate Lawgiver. The Constitution they established assumed and relied on morality in the actions of its citizens. Where did that morality come from and how was it to be retained? Belief in God and the consequent reality of right and wrong was taught by religious leaders in churches and synagogues, and the founders gave us the First Amendment to preserve that foundation for the Constitution.

The preservation of religious freedom in our nation depends on the value we attach to the teachings of right and wrong in our churches, synagogues and mosques. It is faith in God that translates these religious teachings into the moral behavior that benefits the nation.

Why Are Christian Roots Essential to Return America to Greatness?

The discussion for this Constitution Monday focuses on America’s 250^th birthday and restoring America to greatness. Americans and friends of America celebrated 250 years sine the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, America’s official birthday. However, the celebration will continue until the end of 2026. Many columns and posts are written about this birthday, including an interesting piece authored by Victor Joecks. 

The pages of tomorrow’s history are written by today’s decisions.

History is littered with failed republics and democracies. The Roman Republic became the Roman Empire. Democracy in ancient Greece turned into an aristocracy.

This didn’t just happen in ancient history. In 1961, a new constitution in Venezuela divided the government into three branches. But in 1999, Hugo Chavez swept to power and rewrote the country’s constitution. He eventually became a dictator.

The Founding Fathers were well aware of the fleeting nature of our form of government. In 1787, Elizabeth Willing Powell asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

For context, in Federalist 39, former President James Madison defined a republic as “a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people; and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior.”

The term “democratic republic” references the role that popular elections play in selecting some of our leaders. But the Founding Fathers held a much dimmer view of democracy by itself. In Federalist 10, Madison observed that democracies “have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

Even as America celebrates her 250^th birthday, there are plenty of reasons to wonder about the country’s future. America has abandoned her Christian heritage. Government0funded schools teach children to hate America and Western Civilization more broadly. Birth rates have generally been below replacement level for decades.

You can see the fruit of those trends. Darializa Avila Chevalier, a Democrat congressional nominee from New York City, founded a group that seeks “the total eradication of Western Civilization.” Chants of “Death to America” have rung out on college campuses and the streets of New York City. Muslims are openly plotting to turn America into a Muslim country.

But concerning trends are not outcomes. Americans still have the freedom and ability to change course. The most important thing is for America to return to her Christian roots. Listen to our Founding Fathers, not the misinformation taught in most modern history classes.

“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?” Thomas Jefferson wrote. A version of that quote is on the Jefferson Memorial.

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports,” George Washington said in his farewell address. “In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.”

You can’t force people to become Christians. But students should learn historical truths, not skewed leftist narratives. Institutions should also elevate and honor other pillars of America’s past – like the ideas of Western Civilization and the family.

Part of this requires political action. You can’t win the war of ideas when the government subsidizes the losing side. America needs leaders who will act vigorously to defend America’s values. That includes deporting immigrants who hate America.

But it also requires individual action. Pray for your country. Urge your friends to vote. Use whatever influence you have to advance these ideas. Send your grandchild a great work of literature and talk about a chapter a week. Revive the lost art of matchmaking to encourage one more marriage. Offer the practical help, like watching kids or helping buy a home, that could help a responsible young couple have one more child.

A few of those choices would make headlines. Most wouldn’t. But every one of them would help restore America’s greatness.

 

 

Why Does the Pledge of Allegiance Include the Words “Under God”?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the addition of the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. Fred Lucas at The Daily Signal considered it to be “both a spiritual and strategic move” for President Dwight D. Eisenhower to sign this bill, on Flag Day, June 14, 1954. I was nine years old when this change took place, and I remember the change.

“From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty,” the president said upon signing the bill….

“To anyone who truly loves America, nothing could be more inspiring than to contemplate this rededication of our youth, on each school morning, to our country’s true meaning,” he continued.

This event was included in “The Soul of an American President: The Untold Story of Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Faith,” written by Alliance Defending Freedom founder and former President Alan Sears and two co-authors, Craig Osten and Ryan Cole. It “details how faith was important to the 34^th president well before he entered the White House.

“In World War II, he saw the concentration camps and it shook him to his core,” Osten told the Daily Signal. “He was convinced this is where a godless society ends up. He also looked at what was happening in the Soviet Union and the destruction of their churches.”

During the bill-signing remarks, Eisenhower made a subtle reference to the Cold War. “In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future. In this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons, which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource, in peace or in war,” Eisenhower said.

Critics of the bill have dismissed it as a geostrategic move to claim the moral high ground against the Soviets.

Osten stressed it was much more than that for Eisenhower.

“He looked at what was different about America. He believed the Soviet Union’s weak link was that it was an atheistic society,” Osten said. “it’s not that he was using religion as a weapon, but he did want to remind America of its spiritual roots.”

Osten added the president “wanted to make sure America didn’t drift the way Russia and Germany did.”

After the bill-signing ceremony, the former Supreme Allied commander met with an American Legion gathering at the Capitol, where he and the others recited the pledge with the newly added words “under God.”

As for the pledge itself, it had quite a journey before Eisenhower’s monumental act.

The first version of the pledge, which skipped from “… one nation indivisible …” was interestingly enough written by Baptist minister Francis Bellamy in 1892 to mark the 400^th anniversary of the discovery of North America by Christopher Columbus….

It was during World War II, on June 22, 1942, that President Franklin D. Roosevelt officially recognized the pledge in signing the U.S. Flag code.

It was well after the war, in 1951, that the Catholic group Knights of Columbus resolved to call on Congress to add the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. Rep. Louis Rabaut, D-Mich., introduced legislation adding the words to the pledge; the measure then passed both the House and Senate.

Though Catholics initiated the effort, Protestants weren’t far behind.

It was well after the war, in 1951, that the Catholic group Knights of Columbus resolved to call on Congress to add the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. Rep. Louis Rabaut, D-Mich., introduced legislation adding the words to the pledge; the measure then passed both the House and Senate.

Though Catholics initiated the effort, Protestants weren’t far behind….

Almost two months after the Flag Day bill signing, Eisenhower wrote a letter of gratitude to the Knights of Columbus Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart.

“And this year we are particularly thankful to you for your part in the movement to have the words ‘under God’ added to our Pledge of Allegiance,” Eisenhower wrote in the Aug. 6, 1954, letter. “These words will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded.”

How Do Americans Defend and Protect the US Constitution?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns how to defend and protect the US Constitution. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that God was the inspiration behind the writing of the US Constitution. Therefore, we believe that we have a responsibility to uphold and defend it. 

In the April 2021 General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, President Dallin H. Oaks, then-First Counselor in the First Presidency, spoke on the topic “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution.” President Oaks is professionally qualified to speak on this topic because he studied the Constitution for 60 years. He was a law clerk to the chief justice of the US Supreme Court, he was a professor of law for 15 years, and he served as a justice on the Utah Supreme Court for 3.5 years. Most important, he had served at that time as an apostle of Jesus Christ for 37 years, charged with determining the meaning of the divinely inspired Constitution to the work of the God’s restored Church.

Our belief in divine inspiration gives Latter-day Saints a unique responsibility to uphold and defend the United States Constitution and principles of constitutionalism.

In this troubled time, I have felt to speak about the inspired Constitution of the United States. This Constitution is of special importance to our members in the United States, but it is also a common heritage of constitutions around the world.

I. A constitution is the foundation of government. It provides structure and limits for the exercise of government powers. The United States Constitution is the oldest written constitution still in force today. Though originally adopted by only a small number of colonies, it soon became a model worldwide. Today, every nation except three have adopted written constitutions….

What was God’s purpose in establishing the United States Constitution? We see it in the doctrine of moral agency….

God had given His children moral agency—the power to decide and to act. The most desirable condition for the exercise of that agency is maximum freedom for men and women to act according to their individual choices…it is wrong for citizens to have no voice in the selection of their rulers or the making of their laws.

II. Our belief that the United States Constitution was divinely inspired does not mean that divine revelation dictated every word and phrase, such as the provisions allocating the number of representatives from each state or the minimum age of each. The Constitution was not “a fully grown document,” said President J. Reuben Clark. “On the contrary,” he explained, “we believe it must grow and develop to meet the changing needs of an advancing world.” For example, inspired amendments abolished slavery and gave women the right to vote. However, we do not see inspiration in every Supreme Court decision interpreting the Constitution.

I believe the United States Constitution contains at least five divinely inspired principles.

First is the principle that the source of government power is the people. In a time when sovereign power was universally assumed to come from the divine right of kings or from military power, attributing sovereign power to the people was revolutionary. Philosophers had advocated this, but the United States Constitution was the first to apply it…. The Constitution established a constitutional democratic republic, where the people exercise their power through their elected representatives.

A second inspired principle is the division of delegated power between the nation and its subsidiary states. In our federal system, this unprecedented principle has sometimes been altered by inspired amendments, such as those abolishing slavery and extending voting rights to women, mentioned earlier. Significantly, the United States Constitution limits the national government to the exercise of powers granted expressly or by implication, and it reserves all other government powers “to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Another inspired principle is the separation of powers. Well over a century before our 1787 Constitutional Convention, the English Parliament pioneered the separation of legislative and executive authority when they wrested certain powers from the king. The inspiration in the American convention was to delegate independent executive, legislative, and judicial powers so these three branches could exercise checks upon one another.

A fourth inspired principle is in the cluster of vital guarantees of individual rights and specific limits on government authority in the Bill of Rights, adopted by amendment just three years after the Constitution went into force. A Bill of Rights was not new. Here the inspiration was in the practical implementation of principles pioneered in England, beginning with the Magna Carta….

Without a Bill of Rights, America could not have served as the host nation for the Restoration of the gospel, which began just three decades later. There was divine inspiration in the original provision that there should be no religious test for public office, but the addition of the religious freedom and antiestablishment guarantees in the First Amendment was vital. We also see divine inspiration in the First Amendment’s freedoms of speech and press and in the personal protections in other amendments, such as for criminal prosecutions.

Fifth and finally, I see divine inspiration in the vital purpose of the entire Constitution. We are to be governed by law and not by individuals, and our loyalty is to the Constitution and its principles and processes, not to any office holder. In this way, all persons are to be equal before the law….

III. Despite the divinely inspired principles of the United States Constitution, when exercised by imperfect mortals their intended effects have not always been achieved.

Important subjects of lawmaking, such as some laws governing family relationships, have been taken from the states by the federal government. The First Amendment guarantee of free speech has sometimes been diluted by suppression of unpopular speech. The principle of separation of powers has always been under pressure with the ebb and flow of one branch of government exercising or inhibiting the powers delegated to another.

There are other threats that undermine the inspired principles of the United States Constitution. The stature of the Constitution is diminished by efforts to substitute current societal trends as the reason for its founding, instead of liberty and self-government. The authority of the Constitution is trivialized when Candidates or officials ignore its principles. The dignity and force of the Constitution is reduced by those who refer to it like a loyalty test or a political slogan, instead of its lofty status as a source of authorization for and limits on government authority.

IV. Our belief in divine inspiration gives Latter-day Saints a unique responsibility to uphold and defend the United States Constitution and principles of constitutionalism wherever we live. We should trust the Lord and be positive about this nation’s future.

What else are faithful Latter-day Saints to do? We must pray for the Lord to guide and bless all nations and their leaders. This is part of our article of faith. Being subject to presidents or rulers of course poses no obstacle to our opposing individual laws or policies. It does require that we exercise our influence civilly and peacefully within the framework of our constitutions and applicable laws. On contested issues, we should seek to moderate and unify.

There are other duties that are part of upholding the inspired Constitution. We should learn and advocate the inspired principles of the Constitution. We should seek out and support wise and good persons who will support those principles in their public actions. We should be knowledgeable citizens who are active in making our influence felt in civic affairs…. [Emphasis added in most paragraphs.]

What Is the Connection Between Founding of US and Restoration of Gospel?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the connection between the founding of the United States and the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the earth. The Restoration began when Heavenly Father and Joseph Smith appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in what is known as the First Vision. However, “the Lord had been preparing for His latter-day work of restoration many years in advance.”

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland taught that the “meticulous preparation and precise timing” of the Lord took place over several centuries as He created the exact conditions of freedom that were essential for the coming forth of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (“A Promised Land,” Ensign, June 1976, 25). 

Holy scripture records that “after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof.” (Ether 13:2).) Such a special place needed now to be kept apart from other regions, free from the indiscriminate traveler as well as the soldier of fortune. To guarantee such sanctity the very surface of the earth was rent. In response to God’s decree, the great continents separated and the ocean rushed in to surround them. The promised place was set apart. Without habitation it waited for the fulfillment of God’s special purposes.

With care and selectivity, the Lord began almost at once to repeople the promised land. The Jaredites came first, with stories of the great flood fresh in their memories and the Lord’s solemn declaration ringing in their ears: “Whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them.” (Ether 2:8.)

Despite such counsel, however, the Jaredite civilization steadily degenerated into a violent society which forced a man to keep “the hilt of his sword in his right hand” (Ether 14:2)—until finally he “ate and slept, and prepared for death on the morrow.” (Ether 15:26.)

But even as the last light flickered on Jaredite civilization, a bold new sun rose to illuminate a thousand years of Nephite-Lamanite experience on the same soil. Despite periods of war and rebellion, these people nevertheless had great moments of power and purity, including the personal ministry of the resurrected Christ, who walked and talked and prayed with these New World inhabitants for three indescribable days. There in the meridian of time the land enjoyed three generations of peace and perfection, which it would not know again until the Master’s millennial reign.

But the lessons of history, if not learned well, are certain to be taught again, and a lone father with his son lived to see the self-destruction of these people of promise….

So, after a thousand years of preparation, the Spirit of God rested upon a young Italian sailing under the flag of Spain, and, as Nephi had seen in vision, “he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.” (1Ne. 13:12.) This “Christian of almost maniacal devoutness” as Alistair Cooke calls him, this man with the zeal of Galileo, Don Quixote, and John the Baptist combined, was not to be denied. (Alistair Cooke, America, New York: Alfred Knopf, 1973, p. 30.) “Our Lord with provident hand unlocked my mind,” said Columbus, “sent me upon the seas, and gave me fire for the deed. Those who heard of my enterprise called it foolish, mocked me, and laughed. But who can doubt but that the Holy Ghost inspired me?” (Jacob Wasserman, Columbus, Don Quixote of the Seas, New Brunswick: Rutgers Univ. Press, 1959, p. 20.) Columbus stood on the captain’s deck, but the all-seeing eye of the Lord was on the compass, and the hopes of every dispensation filled the sails. The prophet Nephi had also seen in vision what followed: colonization, war, and the birth of a new nation.

“And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them.

“And I beheld that their mother Gentiles were gathered together upon the waters, and upon the land also, to battle against them.

“And I beheld that the power of God was with them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle. And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations.” (1 Ne. 13:16–19.)

Once again, after meticulous preparation and precise timing, the Lord had begun to build on his promised land a congregation that had compacted to pursue “the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith.” The cultural freedom of the Renaissance and religious freedom of the Reformation underscored the strong sense of personal freedom espoused in the Enlightenment to provide the ideal attitudes and environments for the beginning of this “first new nation.” …

Neither Washington nor Paine knew, however, the full import of their work or their time. Indeed it was a beginning, but it was a beginning of the end. The work of pilgrims and Puritans, patriots and politicians had been to prepare the way for prophets of the living God. With what Washington called “the singular interpositions of Providence” a political path had been prepared that would allow the “restitution of all things.” (Acts 3:21.) Less than a score of years after the Constitutional Convention had concluded its work and freedoms of conscience, speech, press, and worship had been guaranteed in a historic Bill of Rights, the Prophet Joseph Smith was born in clear, graceful Vermont, home of Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys. As Elder Paul H. Dunn recently declared to a Church-wide audience:

“[Joseph] grew up toward adolescence just like the new land. He fitted it. He was young, clean, unspoiled—a lad without a past, kneeling in a grove. This pristine land—this innocent young man—and thus the Lord reached out and kept his promise. He established his conditions over centuries; you see, God has time. His plan made it possible for the holy priesthood and the Church to be restored upon the earth—the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ—but only in America. …

“The purpose of America was to provide a setting wherein that was possible. All else takes its power from that one great, central purpose.” (Ensign, Nov. 1975, p. 54.)

It is good that the historical celebration of the United States bicentennial allows us to focus on a land in which God has done so much of his work. It has not always looked the same geographically nor has it always been governed the same politically. But that all seems appropriate since the meaning of America, in its most theological sense, is something more than borders and boundaries, something above nativism and nationalism. It is an ideal, a thing of the spirit. Benjamin Franklin told his colleagues, “Our cause is the cause of all mankind,” and Patrick Henry spoke much more than he knew when he said America had “lighted a candle to all the world.” (Henry Steele Commager, “The Revolution as World Ideal,” Saturday Review, Dec. 13, 1975, pp. 13–18, 110.) …

A Frenchman, a contemporary of the colonial Founding Fathers, sketched the clearest meaning of America for those of other nations. Although the twenty-year-old Marquis de Lafayette had been ordered by Louis XVI of France to give up his expedition to aid the rebellious Americans, he defied the command and embarked for the New World. On board his ship The Victory Lafayette wrote back to his beautiful and concerned wife, Adrienne: “Out of love for me, become ‘a good American’. … The welfare of America is closely bound up with the welfare of all mankind.” (Maurice de la Fuye and Emile Baubeau, The Apostle of Liberty: A Life of LaFayette, New York: Thomas Yoseloff, 1956, p. 30.) So it has been and so it yet will be. And so it is—but in ways which only those who embrace the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ can fully understand or appreciate.

 

What Is the Connection Between Religious Freedom and Moral Agency?

The topic of discussion for this Freedom Monday concerns the connection between religious freedom and moral agency. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that we all lived with Heavenly Father in the spirit world as His spirit sons and daughters before the creation of this world. While we were in His presence, our Father gave moral agency, or the freedom to choose, to each of us. We brought that moral agency with us into mortality.

Heavenly Father taught us about His plan for the eternal happiness of His children. This plan included a period of instruction and experiences available only in mortality. According to His plan, each of us would leave His presence for a few years of life on earth. There we would be instructed and have experiences to prepare us for eternal life with Him.

Heavenly Father wants each of us to return to Him, but He does not want to force us to return to His presence. The purpose of giving us moral agency is to give us the right and power to choose for ourselves. He wants us to choose Him and His ways freely – His light, truth, and goodness -- without any compulsion.

Moral agency is essential to God’s plan for our happiness. Satan sought to destroy this agency, and he was cast out of God’s presence (see Moses 4:3). On the other hand, Jesus Christ supported Heavenly Father’s plan and became the Savior of the world. Heavenly Father knew that we would make mistakes and commit sins while in mortality, and He provided a way for us to overcome our mistakes and repent of our sins so that we could return to His presence.

According to teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ and this site, Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice make it possible for each of us to use our moral agency to choose God (see 2 Nephi 2:26-27). If we had no Savior, we would be in captivity to our weaknesses, sins, and the conditions of mortality. It is Jesus Christ who makes us free (see John 8:36). 

Throughout the earth’s history, the principle of moral agency has not been universally honored. Too many of God’s children have been—and still are—oppressed. At the same time, God has been inspiring His children to protect “that principle of freedom [that] belongs to all mankind” (Doctrine and Covenants 98:5). A key event in that effort happened 250 years ago: The Declaration of Independence was signed, leading to the establishment of the United States of America and its other founding document, the US Constitution. It’s appropriate, as citizens of the United States, to pause and give thanks for the freedoms these documents preserve for us. And it’s equally appropriate, as Latter-day Saints, to recognize God’s purposes and role in those founding events (see Doctrine and Covenants 101:77-80). This [celebration of America] is an opportunity to rejoice in “the Lord our God, who has redeemed us and made us free” (Alma 58:41).

God’s work and glory is to “bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39). The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution help to accomplish God’s purposes for His children by protecting our freedom to choose.

In the early years after the organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, members of the Church were persecuted because of their religion. In 1833, the Lord revealed to Joseph Smith that He had a part in establishing “the Constitution of this land” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:80. Here are the words of the Lord as recorded by Joseph Smith.

76 And again I say unto you, those who have been scattered by their enemies, it is my will that they should continue to importune for redress, and redemption, by the hands of those who are placed as rulers and are in authority over you—

77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

The Saints were being persecuted, and the Lord told Joseph Smith to “importune [to the US Government] for redress and redemption.” God wanted the Saints to use the laws of the land and the very Constitution that He had established by men who were “raised up unto this very purpose.” According to the words of the Lord, the blood shed in the Revolutionary War had redeemed this land.

God was there when Americans fought for freedom in the Revolutionary War, and He was there to inspire the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. He will be with us as we use our moral agency to defend and protect our freedom of religion. Also, moral agency flourishes in conditions of freedom. 

Should Babies Born to Illegal Aliens Be Granted U.S. Citizenship?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is birthright citizenship. As a reminder, President Donald Trump, just hours after taking his oath of office on January 20, 2025, signed 26 executive orders. One of those orders was written to end birthright citizenship as it is currently known. That order prompted immediate worldwide backlash because it was meant to change what is considered a right enshrined in the Constitution. The Trump administration obviously believes it is not a constitutional right for a foreigner to enter the United, have a baby, and claim U.S. citizenship for such a baby. I agree with Trump.

The first lawsuit was filed less than two hours after Trump signed the order. According to an article written by Natalia Galicza and published in the Deseret News, “attorneys general from 22 states sued to block it.” 

Opponents decry the president’s move as inhumane and in direct violation of the 14^th Amendment, which has legally granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. since 1868. Proponents say ending so-called birthright citizenship would decrease illegal immigration rates, limit “birth tourism” and protect the value of American citizenship.

Courts have interpreted birthright citizenship in the constitution to mean that those born in the United States are citizens, regardless of whether their parents are citizens. Trump’s executive order would effectively change that to mean a baby born stateside would not have American citizenship if the father is not a citizen or legal permanent resident (also known as a green card holder) and the mother is undocumented or has legal temporary status.

While it’s not the first time the principle of birthright citizenship has faced scrutiny, the current legal battle marks the most ambitious attempt yet to redefine it. “There’s been some chatter at various times about whether birthright citizenship makes sense. But no president has sought to restrict…..

At least six federal courts thus far have sided with opponents to Trump’s order….

For both sides, the stakes go beyond the ongoing immigration debate and contest to build up or break down obstacles to citizenship….

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments weeks or even months ago, and their decision on the case should come down before the end of June. According to Galicza:

… it would affect anyone born on or after 1 February 2025. A key factor that differentiates this moment from past challenges is that it isn’t just targeting immigrants living in the country illegally. The executive order would also deny citizenship to some children of “temporary legal residents.” That includes parents with student, work, family, tourist and humanitarian visas. People who have opted for legal pathways…

State-issued birth certificates would no longer count as final proof of citizenship. Instead, citizenship could only be proven by verifying the parents’ immigration status at the time of the child’s birth. With about 10,000 children born nationwide every day – or more than 3.6 million – the shift would require hospital and state workers to take on screening new parents about their citizenship status, requiring proof of immigration status or their own birth certificates and naturalization documents – would cost immigrant parents $600 per child in government fees and anywhere from $600 to $1,000 in associated legal fees….

Supporters of the executive order contend that children of immigrants living in the country illegally cannot express allegiance or take an oath to renounce foreign ties, and that heritage tied to other countries implies they owe allegiance abroad. In other words, they would not be subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States….

What Can You Do Against the SPLC?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is the importance of an honest, law-abiding justice system that holds every individual and organization to the same standards. In particular, the topic is how to hold the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) accountable. Tyler O’Neil explained the following in excerpts from an update of his 2020 book, What You Can Do to Hold the Southern Poverty Law Center Accountable. He explains the history of SPLC, why the organization faces criminal charges, and what you and I can do against SPLC. 

Back in 2019, the SPLC smeared conservative Christian groups as “anti-LGBT hate groups,” [its education arm] Teaching Tolerance was spreading critical race theory and transgender ideology, and the SPLC was trying to convince donor-advised funds to blacklist “hate groups.”

In the intervening years, however, things only got worse….

In 2023, the SPLC released its “hat map” for 2022, and it included 702 “antigovernment extremist groups.” Prominent among these “antigovernment extremists” was the “anti-student inclusion movement.” The “hate map” featured no fewer than 230 chapters of Moms for Liberty, along with the policy group Parents Defending Education.

The next year, the SPLC added groups led by medical professionals, such as Do No Harm and the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, to the “hate map,” branding them “anti-LGBTQ hate groups” because they oppose experimental transgender “medicine” to make men appear female and vice versa. The SPLC even branded Gays Against Groomers – a group of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people who oppose the sexualization of children and transgender ideology – an “anti-LGBTQ hate group,” suggesting that their key target of hate is … themselves.

The following year, the center added Turning Point USA, the largest conservative grassroots youth organization in the country, to the map, stating that its “primary strategy is sowing and exploiting fear that white Christian supremacy is under attack.” The SPLC also added PragerU, a conservative group that makes You Tube videos to educate the public, to the map….

Despite the SPLC’s many scandals, President Joe Biden’s administration welcomed this morally bankrupt smear factory with open arms….

Documents showed that R.G. Cravens, manager of research and analysis at the SPLC’s Intelligence Project, spoke at a conference for Justice Department prosecutors on Nov. 7, 2023. A program for the event noted that Cravens would focus on “the anti-LGBTQ movement” and “help investigators and prosecutors identify potential evidence and motivations for bias crime.”

Under President Donald Trump, the FBI has officially distanced itself from the SPLC. FBI Director Kash Patel told The Daily Signal that the SPLC’s “disgraceful record makes them unfit for any FBI partnership. Even so, Democrats’ defenses of the SPLC suggest that it may return to federal influence should another Democrat follow President Trump in the White House in 2029….

Why, exactly, does the SPLC face criminal charges?

Before acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel announced the criminal charges on April 21, 2026, the SPLC put out its own statement. The SPLC announced that it faced a criminal investigation for what it described as the use of “paid confidential informants to gather credible intelligence on extremely violent groups.”

SPLC Interim CEO Bryan Fair said the informants were “necessary” to protect the SPLC from “countless credible threats.” He added that while the SPLC fed information to law enforcement, it did not “share our use of informants broadly with anyone.” He said the group no longer works with paid informants, even though they previously “saved lives.”

The indictment claims, however, that the SPLC was funding the very “hate” it claimed it exists to destroy. The indictment refers to the payees as “field sources” or “Fs.”

The list incudes F-37, “a member of the online leadership chat group that planned the 2017 ‘Unite the Right’ event in Charlottesville, Virginia and attended the event at the direction of the SPLC.” The indictment states that this field source “made racist postings under the supervision of the SPLC and helped coordinate transportation to the event for several attendees.” Between 2015 and 2023, the SPLC allegedly paid this field source more than $270,000.

The SPLC does not face charges merely for paying members of white nationalist groups, but for defrauding donors, lying to banks, and conspiring to cover up the activity….

The indictment confirms my suspicions that the SPLC had not just been exaggerating “hate” by smearing conservatives, but also by supporting racist extremists. It also underlines the key warning of “Making Hate Pay”: that the SPLC has become a corrupt smear factory. If the SPLC lied to banks, as the indictment suggests, it will be very difficult for the center to weasel its way out of a guilty verdict….

What You Can Do Against SPLC

If you work at a company that works with [the software company] Benevity, please consider asking your employer to opt out of using the SPLC “hate map” filter.

If you notice Learning for Justice materials in your school, please speak up.

If you worked for a company that the SPLC and its allies bullied into blacklisting “hate groups,” and are willing to speak on record or anonymously, I’d love to hear from you.

If you hear someone considering giving to the SPLC, please let them know how corrupt this smear factory is.

The Trump administration and conservatives increasingly know the truth about the SPLC – we need to make it so obvious that Democrats and the Left cannot ignore it.

  

How Patriotic Are You?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns patriotism. July 4, 2026, marks 250 years since the signing of the Declaration of Independence. It is the 250^th anniversary of the birth of America. Americans should be celebrating and wearing their red, white, and blue clothing. Yet, polls say that patriotism is declining.

In her article published at the Deseret News, Lauren Irwin shared results of a new Deseret News and the Hinckley Institute of Politics’ surveys of Utahns and voters nationwide, conducted by Morning Consult. Results show that “there are very real partisan, gender and age differences around feelings of patriotism.” 

The survey found that Utahns are more likely than the general American public to say that they are either somewhat or very patriotic, with 75% of Utah respondents choosing those options. Nationally, that number is 69%. [It should be 100%!]

Still, experts say that number is low. Matthew Wilson, an associate professor at Southern Methodist University, said it’s an “unfortunate development” that’s happened relatively recently.

[Republicans More Likely to Say They Are Patriotic Than Democrats]

The finding also found that Republicans are more likely to say they’re patriotic than independent voters or Democrats.

In Utah, 90% of Republican voters ay they’re patriotic and nationally it’s 82%. In Utah, just 49% of Democrats – the lowest of any group in the survey data – say they’re patriotic. That number jumps at the national level to 61% of Democrats.

“Traditionally, we assumed that patriotism, love of and pride in the country, was a constant that cut across party lines, that Republicans and Democrats might have different visions of what America should be and how the country should move forward, but that they were united and consistent in their love for and pride in the country,” Wilson said. “And unfortunately, that is less true than it used to be.”

Wilson noted that when Republicans accuse Democrats of being less patriotic, the data show that they’re “not wrong.” But, patriotism is not solely related to who controls Washington, he argued.

The MAGA and patriotism pipeline

President Donald Trump has not only embraced patriotism in his campaigns and administrations, but has tried to portray patriotism and love of America as “largely synonymous with support for Donald Trump and the MAGA movement,” Wilson said.

To that extent, Trump has seen more support among male voters, which Wilson notes could be why more men in Utah and nationwide say they are patriotic than women. To the extent that women tend to be skeptical or not approve of Trump’s messaging, it “may bleed over” into skepticism about American patriotism generally.

The survey found that among men, 81% in Utah and 75% nationally say they are either somewhat or very patriotic. This drops among women to 70% in Utah and 64% nationally. Hinckley Institute Director Jason Perry noted that the partisan gap, in addition to gender and age differences, shows that “people’s relationship with national identity” is being shaped more by politics than it used to be. He said it was “striking” that the same patterns continued to show up across multiple surveys.

The age gap

The survey found that in both Utah and nationwide, the younger generations are less likely to say they’re patriotic.

In Utah, among respondents ages 18-34, 57% say they are very or somewhat patriotic. Nationally, it’s nearly equal at 56%.

For people ages 35-44, those saying they’re patriotic jumps to 71% in Utah and 61% nationally. For those 45-64, in Utah, 86% say they’re patriotic and 67% of the general population says the same. The oldest generation was the most likely to say they are somewhat or very patriotic with 92% of Utahns and 86% nationwide.

Wilson noted that the decline in patriotism seen among younger generations could be attributed to multiple things. Younger people are more likely to be “disillusioned” with the extreme political polarization they have been raised in, but changes in the country’s education system have also likely impacted the way younger Americans view their country – and their love or disdain for it….

Latter-day Saints’ unique relationship with patriotism

Wilson highlighted the unique relationship between patriotism and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The survey found that 88% of Utah Latter-day Saints considered themselves patriotic.

Leaders in the church teach that America’s founding documents are divinely inspired, including the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

The spiritual significance of Independence Day

Church President Joseph Smith in 1839 said that Constitution is a “glorious standard” and was “founded in the wisdom of God.” He said that the love of liberty inspired him and civil and religious liberty were “diffused into my soul by my grandfathers.”

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox has spoken about how his faith informs his public service. He said the country needs to look beyond politics to solve the nation’s problems and believes there needs to be a “religious revival.”

Wilson said that for members of the church, the founding of America was not just historical, but theological. Church leaders and the Book of Mormon teach that God would raise up a free nation where his church could be restored. It’s why religious freedom and patriotism are core tenets of the faith, he said.

“There’s a kind of core LDS belief in the divinely guided nature of the American founding and so patriotism is kind of woven, in some ways, into Mormon religious DNA,” he said. “More than any other religion, it is completely interwoven with American patriotism.”

Perry agreed. Utahns are more likely than the rest of the country to say they’re patriotic and faith plays an “important role” in that.

“It speaks to Utah’s strong traditions of service, volunteerism, and community life,” Perry said.

Patriotic acts past and present

The survey asked individuals about how they have expressed patriotism, including by voting, standing for the national anthem, saying the Pledge of Allegiance, flying an American flag, protesting and more…..

Perry argued that an “encouraging” finding from the data shows that Americans still broadly agree on what patriotic behavior is.

“Voting, military service, and civic participation continue to receive strong support across political lines,” he said. “Even when people disagree about the meaning of patriotism, there is still considerable agreement around the civic values behind it.”

 

Is there a fix to falling levels of patriotism?

Wilson highlighted how over the last several decades, Americans have changed the way they identify with political parties. The polarization seen in the nation today is part of a phenomenon that is fueling the decline of patriotism.

“There are partisan gaps opening up in almost everything,” he said. “This deep division between people on the left and people on the right shows up in things from what television shows they watch, what cars they buy, what fast food or coffee places they patronize and it has shown up in whether and how they express their affection for and pride in the country.

Wilson said he thinks the decline in Americans who say they are patriotic is a “symptom of broader social polarization.”

So, is there anything that can be done? Wilson said there’s not an easy or quick fix.

“I do think that some correction of the highly critical America narratives that have pervaded education, that’s a part of restoring this balance, but a general decrease in social and political polarization would help as well….