Can Federalism Solve America's Culture War?

By Richard Samuelson
Can states' rights end the culture war? Commentators from David Brooks to Andrew Sullivan to David Gelernter believe that it can. According to Sullivan, in an essay in The New Republic, "The whole point of federalism is that different states can have different public policies on matters of burning controversy--and that this is okay."
Similarly, David Brooks argued in his New York Times column that each state should regulate abortion as it sees fit. According to him, Roe v. Wade was political poison. By taking the issue away from state legislatures, the Court "set off a cycle of political viciousness and counter-viciousness that has poisoned public life." Overturning Roe, he thinks, would end that cycle. Writing in the Weekly Standard, Gelernter adds: "An era where deep and fundamental moral questions divide the nation is in need of a revival of federalism. Federalism supplies the expansion joints that make America supple rather than brittle; make it a bridge that can ride out hurricanes without falling to pieces, that can sustain enormous twisting, turning, and tearing forces without cracking."

Gelernter, Brooks, and Sullivan are right in theory. Our federal system can allow for a certain degree of legal and cultural diversity in the Union. What we need to keep in mind, however, is that since the Progressive era, and particularly since the New Deal, Americans have forgotten the not just the virtues of federalism, but also the practice of federalism. A workable federal system requires forbearance on the part of the political class. It might take us a while to re-learn that virtue. Until then, I'm okay, you're okay might not be a workable political program.
A federal approach to cultural issues might worsen things, at least in the near term. As we saw in the Terry Schiavo case, separating state from national issues won't be easy. Federalism works when jurisdiction is clear, but cultural issues create murky and contentious jurisdictional controversies. That has allowed our advocacy groups to make federal cases of them.
Consider abortion. If Roe v Wade were overturned, the states could pass a rainbow of regulations, reflecting the different shades of opinion. Abortion might be legal for nine months in New York, two months in Michigan, and not at all in South Dakota. States might adopt various informed consent laws, parental consent laws, and waiting periods. That might release a certain amount of cultural steam. It could also make the cultural pot boil over. State choice might bring local troops to the culture war by forcing us all to pick sides.
Whatever happens in the states, Washington will still weigh in. Last year, the House of Representatives passed a law making it illegal to take a minor across state lines to have an abortion without her parents' consent. The more variation there is from state to state, the more opportunities Congress will have to intervene. Suppose Utah declares that life begins at conception, and Nevada declares that it begins at birth. May a resident of Utah have an abortion in Nevada? According to Utah, she has crossed state lines to commit murder. According to Nevada she has done nothing wrong. National law will have to be biased in one way or the other. It might energize more citizens, rather than less, about the issues.
Settling gay marriage state by state raises similar problems. If a gay couple marries in Massachusetts and moves to Ohio, will Ohio recognize the marriage? If so, then gay marriage in one state effectively nationalizes the institution. If it does not, then the marriage is terribly flimsy. Congress has tried to tackle that problem with the "Defense of Marriage Act." Will the courts let it stand?
Gay couples with children will complicate things further. Would "deadbeat dad" laws apply when a spouse flees to a state that in does not recognize gay marriage? Washington state now recognizes the parental rights of a lesbian partner who is not the biological mother of the child. Not long ago, they had what might very well become a federal case.
Two women, one lesbian and one bisexual, were married and started to raise a child together. The biological mother changed her mind and decided that she would rather marry the biological father. What would happen if the biological parents moved to a state that did not recognize same-sex unions? Could the jilted lover sue for divorce on the grounds of bigamy and abandonment and demand primary custody rights of her child? In Washington she wins the case, but elsewhere her case goes nowhere. Such cases might be rare, but they are already happening. As time passes, they'll occur often enough to keep both advocacy groups and tabloid journalists busy. Tough cases make great political theater.
In short, going local will probably heat up our culture war, at least in the near term. Civic peace requires self-restraint, and even a bit of self-denial. For it to work, we must be willing not to litigate certain cases. Compromise cannot always mean splitting the difference. Sometimes it means letting the other side win, and even ignoring injustice in the name of peace. After so many years of shouting, it will take a while to learn the virtues of self-restraint.
It might be healthy for our body politic to return these issues to the states, for principled contention and compromise are essential parts of citizenship. If we go that way, the transition will not be easy. We should not pretend it will be otherwise.

Dr. Samuelson is the Salvatori Visiting Scholar in the American Founding at Claremont McKenna College and an adjunct fellow at the Claremont Institute.

Can Federalism Solve America's Culture War?

By Richard Samuelson
Can states' rights end the culture war? Commentators from David Brooks to Andrew Sullivan to David Gelernter believe that it can. According to Sullivan, in an essay in The New Republic, "The whole point of federalism is that different states can have different public policies on matters of burning controversy--and that this is okay."
Similarly, David Brooks argued in his New York Times column that each state should regulate abortion as it sees fit. According to him, Roe v. Wade was political poison. By taking the issue away from state legislatures, the Court "set off a cycle of political viciousness and counter-viciousness that has poisoned public life." Overturning Roe, he thinks, would end that cycle. Writing in the Weekly Standard, Gelernter adds: "An era where deep and fundamental moral questions divide the nation is in need of a revival of federalism. Federalism supplies the expansion joints that make America supple rather than brittle; make it a bridge that can ride out hurricanes without falling to pieces, that can sustain enormous twisting, turning, and tearing forces without cracking."

Gelernter, Brooks, and Sullivan are right in theory. Our federal system can allow for a certain degree of legal and cultural diversity in the Union. What we need to keep in mind, however, is that since the Progressive era, and particularly since the New Deal, Americans have forgotten the not just the virtues of federalism, but also the practice of federalism. A workable federal system requires forbearance on the part of the political class. It might take us a while to re-learn that virtue. Until then, I'm okay, you're okay might not be a workable political program.
A federal approach to cultural issues might worsen things, at least in the near term. As we saw in the Terry Schiavo case, separating state from national issues won't be easy. Federalism works when jurisdiction is clear, but cultural issues create murky and contentious jurisdictional controversies. That has allowed our advocacy groups to make federal cases of them.
Consider abortion. If Roe v Wade were overturned, the states could pass a rainbow of regulations, reflecting the different shades of opinion. Abortion might be legal for nine months in New York, two months in Michigan, and not at all in South Dakota. States might adopt various informed consent laws, parental consent laws, and waiting periods. That might release a certain amount of cultural steam. It could also make the cultural pot boil over. State choice might bring local troops to the culture war by forcing us all to pick sides.
Whatever happens in the states, Washington will still weigh in. Last year, the House of Representatives passed a law making it illegal to take a minor across state lines to have an abortion without her parents' consent. The more variation there is from state to state, the more opportunities Congress will have to intervene. Suppose Utah declares that life begins at conception, and Nevada declares that it begins at birth. May a resident of Utah have an abortion in Nevada? According to Utah, she has crossed state lines to commit murder. According to Nevada she has done nothing wrong. National law will have to be biased in one way or the other. It might energize more citizens, rather than less, about the issues.
Settling gay marriage state by state raises similar problems. If a gay couple marries in Massachusetts and moves to Ohio, will Ohio recognize the marriage? If so, then gay marriage in one state effectively nationalizes the institution. If it does not, then the marriage is terribly flimsy. Congress has tried to tackle that problem with the "Defense of Marriage Act." Will the courts let it stand?
Gay couples with children will complicate things further. Would "deadbeat dad" laws apply when a spouse flees to a state that in does not recognize gay marriage? Washington state now recognizes the parental rights of a lesbian partner who is not the biological mother of the child. Not long ago, they had what might very well become a federal case.
Two women, one lesbian and one bisexual, were married and started to raise a child together. The biological mother changed her mind and decided that she would rather marry the biological father. What would happen if the biological parents moved to a state that did not recognize same-sex unions? Could the jilted lover sue for divorce on the grounds of bigamy and abandonment and demand primary custody rights of her child? In Washington she wins the case, but elsewhere her case goes nowhere. Such cases might be rare, but they are already happening. As time passes, they'll occur often enough to keep both advocacy groups and tabloid journalists busy. Tough cases make great political theater.
In short, going local will probably heat up our culture war, at least in the near term. Civic peace requires self-restraint, and even a bit of self-denial. For it to work, we must be willing not to litigate certain cases. Compromise cannot always mean splitting the difference. Sometimes it means letting the other side win, and even ignoring injustice in the name of peace. After so many years of shouting, it will take a while to learn the virtues of self-restraint.
It might be healthy for our body politic to return these issues to the states, for principled contention and compromise are essential parts of citizenship. If we go that way, the transition will not be easy. We should not pretend it will be otherwise.

Dr. Samuelson is the Salvatori Visiting Scholar in the American Founding at Claremont McKenna College and an adjunct fellow at the Claremont Institute.

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Culture of the United States

• A Quick Guide for Living in the U.S.
• Customs & Culture in the U.S.
• Social institutions in the United States
• Life in the USA: The Complete Guide for Immigrants and Americans
• Portrait of the USA
• Guide to American culture and customs for foreign students (U.S. Army Intelligence)
• Culture, Hedonism & Lifestyle
• CommonCensus Map Project – Identifying geographic spheres of influence
• USA Popular Culture 1900–1949

Further reading

 

• Coffin, Tristam P.; Cohen, Hennig, (editors), Folklore in America; tales, songs, superstitions, proverbs, riddles, games, folk drama and folk festivals, Garden City, N.Y. : Doubleday, 1966. Selections from the Journal of American folklore.
• Marcus, Greil (2007). The Shape of Things to Come: Prophecy and the American Voice. Macmillan. ISBN 0312426429.
• Shell, Ellen Ruppel, Cheap: The High Cost of Discount Culture, New York: Penguin Press, 2009. ISBN 978-1-59420-215-5
• Swirski, Peter. Ars Americana Ars Politica: Partisan Expression in Contemporary American Literature and Culture. Montreal, London: McGill-Queen's University Press (2010) ISBN 978-0773537668

References

1. ^ ^{a b c d e f g h i j} Thompson, William; Joseph Hickey (2005). Society in Focus. Boston, MA: Pearson. ISBN 0-205-41365-X.
2. ^ Kirschbaum, Erik (1986). The eradication of German culture in the United States, 1917-1918. H.-D. Heinz. pp. 155. ISBN 3880996172.
3. ^ ^{a b} "Mr. Jefferson and the giant moose: natural history in early America", Lee Alan Dugatkin. University of Chicago Press, 2009. ISBN 0226169146, 9780226169149. University of Chicago Press, 2009. Chapter x.
4. ^ McDonald, James (2010) Interplay:Communication, Memory, and Media in the United States. Goettingen: Cuvillier, p. 120. ISBN 3-86955-322-7.
5. ^ Clack, George, et al. (September 1997). "Chapter 1". One from Many, Portrait of the USA. United States Information Agency.
6. ^ ^{a b c} Adams, J.Q.; Pearlie Strother-Adams (2001). Dealing with Diversity. Chicago, IL: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. ISBN 0-7872-8145-X.
7. ^ "Selected Social Characteristics in the United States: 2007". United States Census Bureau. Retrieved 2008-10-09.
8. ^ United States, CIA World Factbook.
9. ^ "U.S. Stands Alone in its Embrace of Religion". Pew Global Attitudes Project. Retrieved January 1, 2007.
10. ^ "1795–1895. One hundred years of American commerce", Chauncey Mitchell Depew. D.O. Haynes, 1895. p. 309.
11. ^ Marsden, George M. 1990. Religion and American Culture. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, pp.45–46.
12. ^ Jefferson, Thomas (1904). The writings of Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States. pp. 119.
13. ^ "CIA Fact Book". CIA World Fact Book. 2002. Retrieved 2007-12-30.
14. ^ ^{a b c d e f} Hine, Darlene; William C. Hine, Stanley Harrold (2006). The African American Odyssey. Boston, MA: Pearson. ISBN 0-12-182217-3.
15. ^ "U.S. Census Bureau, Race and Hispanic or Latino during the 2000 Census". Retrieved 2006-12-15.
16. ^ Semiannual Report of the War Relocation Authority, for the period January 1 to June 30, 1946, not dated. Papers of Dillon S. Myer. Scanned image at trumanlibrary.org. Accessed September 18, 2006.
17. ^ "Religion in the U.S. by state". USA Today. Retrieved 2006-12-14.
18. ^ ^{a b} "U.S. Census Bureau, Income newsbrief 2004". Archived from the original on 2006-12-11. Retrieved 2006-12-15.
19. ^ "U.S. Census Bureau, educational attainment in the U.S. 2003" (PDF). Retrieved 2006-12-15.
20. ^ "U.S. Department of Justice, Crime and Race". Archived from the original on 2006-12-12. Retrieved 2006-12-15.
21. ^ Key Issues in Postcolonial Feminism: A Western Perspective by Chris Weedon, Cardiff University

    In her novel The Bluest Eye (1981), Toni Morrison depicts the effects of the legacy of 19th century racism for poor black people in the United States. The novel tells of how the daughter of a poor black family, Pecola Breedlove, internalizes white standards of beauty to the point where she goes mad. Her fervent wish for blue eyes comes to stand for her wish to escape the poor, unloving, racist environment in which she lives.
    

22. ^ Some notes on the black cultural movement
23. ^ ^{a b} ADC.org
24. ^ "Famous American Trials: John Peter Zenger Trial 1735", Doug Linder. University of Missouri-Kansas City. 2001. Accessed September 9, 2010.
25. ^ "American history told by contemporaries..., Volume 2", John Gould Curtis. The Macmillan company, 1919. p. 192.
26. ^ Meyers, Jeffrey (1999). Hemingway: A Biography. New York: Da Capo, p. 139. ISBN 0-306-80890-0.
27. ^ Law.cornell.edu
28. ^ "Section 1-3-8".
29. ^ "Holidays Observed".
30. ^ The.honoluluadvertiser.com
31. ^ "History of the hot dog". Archived from the original on 2006-10-18. Retrieved 2006-11-13.
32. ^ "History of the Hamburger". Retrieved 2006-11-13.
33. ^ ^{a b} Klapthor, James N. (2003-08-23). "What, When, and Where Americans Eat in 2003". Institute of Food Technologists. Retrieved 2007-06-19.
34. ^ "Coffee Today". Coffee Country. PBS. May 2003. Retrieved 2007-06-19.
35. ^ Smith, Andrew F. (2004). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 131–32. ISBN 0-19-515437-1. Levenstein, Harvey (2003). Revolution at the Table: The Transformation of the American Diet. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, pp. 154–55. ISBN 0-520-23439-1. Pirovano, Tom (2007). "Health & Wellness Trends—The Speculation Is Over". AC Nielsen. Retrieved 2007-06-12.
36. ^ "Fast Food, Central Nervous System Insulin Resistance, and Obesity". Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. American Heart Association. 2005. Retrieved 2007-06-09. "Let's Eat Out: Americans Weigh Taste, Convenience, and Nutrition" (PDF). U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Retrieved 2007-06-09.
37. ^ The CHOW Editorial Team (19 June 2008). "The Hamburger Through Time". CBS INTERACTIVE INC.. Retrieved 16 April 2012.
38. ^ Glazed America: Anthropologist Examines Doughnut as Symbol of Consumer Culture Newswise, Retrieved on July 22, 2008.
39. ^ "Middle class according to The Drum Major Institute for public policy". Retrieved 2006-07-25.
40. ^ ^{a b} Fussel, Paul (1983). Class: A Guide through the American Status System. New York, NY: Touchstone. ISBN 0-671-79225-3.
41. ^ ^{a b c} Ehrenreich, Barbara (1989). Fear of Falling: The Inner Life of the Middle Class. New York, NY: HarperCollins. ISBN 0-06-0973331.
42. ^ ^{a b} Eichar, Douglas (1989). Occupation and Class Consciousness in America. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-26111-3.
43. ^ "Harvard Magazine, Middle class squeeze". Retrieved 2006-12-13.
44. ^ USnews.com
45. ^ Davis, George (January 6, 2010). "Spiritually Liberal, Socially Conservative". Psychology Today.
46. ^ Thenewamerican.com
47. ^ ^{a b} "CNN, work in American, UN report finds Americans most productive, 2002". 2001-08-31. Retrieved 2006-12-15.
48. ^ "U.S. Bureau of Labor, hours worked, 2005". Retrieved 2006-12-15.
49. ^ "U.S. Department of Labor, employment in 2006". Retrieved 2006-12-15.
50. ^ "International vacation comparison". Retrieved 2006-12-15.
51. ^ ^{a b} Harden, Blaine (2006-06-22). "Washington Post, America is losing its middle income neighborhoods". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2006-07-25.
52. ^ ^{a b} Highlights of the 2001 National Household Travel Survey, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation, accessed May 21, 2006
53. ^ Imani Perry, More Beautiful More Terrible: The Embrace and Transcendence of Racial Inequality in the United States, New York University Press: 2011, p7
54. ^ Perry, 21
55. ^ Facts on American Teens' Sexual and Reproductive Health
56. ^ "Beginning Too Soon: Adolescent Sexual Behavior, Pregnancy And Parenthood". U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved 2007-03-11.
57. ^ Wendy D. Manning, Peggy C. Giordano, Monica A. Longmore (2006). "Hooking Up: The Relationship Contexts of "Nonrelationship" Sex". Journal of Adolescent Research 21 (5): 459. doi:10.1177/0743558406291692.
58. ^ Katie Couric (2005). "Nearly 3 in 10 young teens 'sexually active'". MSNBC. Archived from the original on 2007-01-20. Retrieved 2007-01-21.
59. ^ Mulrine, Anna. "Risky Business". U.S. News & World Report (May 27, 2002).
60. ^ "U.S. Teen Sexual Activity" (pdf). Kaiser Family Foundation. January 2005. Retrieved 2007-03-11.
61. ^ "Core Health Indicators".
62. ^ [1]
63. ^ Brian K. Williams, Stacy C. Sawyer, Carl M. Wahlstrom, Marriages, Families & Intimate Relationships, 2005
64. ^ "The Italian Way of Death". Retrieved 2009-10-08.
65. ^ Bunting, Bainbridge; Robert H. Nylander (1973). Old Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge Historical Commission. pp. 69. ISBN 0262530147.
66. ^ ^{a b c} Williams, Brian; Stacey C. Sawyer, Carl M. Wahlstrom (2005). Marriages, Families & Intimate Relationships. Boston, MA: Pearson. ISBN 0-205-36674-0.
67. ^ New York apartments pricing and New York NY apartment reviews Apartment Ratings
68. ^ San Francisco apartments pricing and San Francisco CA apartment reviews Apartment Ratings
69. ^ Honolulu apartments pricing and Honolulu HI apartment reviews
70. ^ "American Religious Identification Survey". www.gc.cuny.edu.
71. ^ "Poll: Adults who follow at least one sport". Harris Interactive.
72. ^ Krane, David K. (2002-10-30). "Professional Football Widens Its Lead Over Baseball as Nation's Favorite Sport". Harris Interactive. Retrieved September 14, 2007. Maccambridge, Michael (2004). America's Game: The Epic Story of How Pro Football Captured a Nation. New York: Random House. ISBN 0-375-50454-0.
73. ^ "Raw Numbers: The NHL’s Impact on the South".
74. ^ Dell Upton. 1998. "Architecture in the United States-Oxford history of art." pp. 11 ff. ISBN 0-19-284217-X
75. ^ Pat, Browne (2001). The guide to United States popular culture. "Popular culture is the way of life in which and by which most people in any society live. In a democracy like the United States, it is the voice of the people – their likes and dislikes – that form the lifeblood of daily existence, of a way of life. Popular culture is the voice of democracy, democracy speaking and acting, the seedbed in which democracy grows. Popular culture democratizes society and makes democracy truly democratic. It is the everyday world around us: the mass media, entertainments, and diversions. It is our heroes, icons, rituals, everyday actions, psychology, and religion – our total life picture. It is the way of living we inherit, practice and modify as we please, and how we do it. It is the dreams we dream while asleep"
76. ^ Davis Fred (1992). Fashion, Culture, and Identity
77. ^ Crary, David (September 9, 2010). "Study finds Americans in generous mood". Burlington, Vermont: Burlington Free Press. pp. 1A.
78. ^ "U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people". Reuters. August 28, 2007.
79. ^ "Gun Ownership by State". Washington Post.
80. ^ "The U.S. gun stock: results from the 2004 national firearms survey". Injury Prevention Journal.
81. ^ "Death Sentences Plummet". LA Times. December 15, 2011. Retrieved December 15, 2011.
82. ^ Doctor-Assisted Suicide Is Moral Issue Dividing Americans Most GALLUP
83. ^ Understanding Americans' Support for the Death Penalty GALLUP

See also

• America 24/7 (book)
• American dream
• American middle class
• Americana
• Body contact and personal space in the United States
• Broadway theatre
• Culture of the Southern United States
• Folklore of the United States
• Etiquette in the United States
• Philanthropy in the United States
• Protestant work ethic
• Work and Travel USA (organization)

Other aspects

America is one of a few countries that does not primarily use the metric system; though many products are dual-labelled, the United States customary units system is dominant.

Views on justice and the death penalty

Further information: Capital punishment in the United States

Capital punishment has been a contentious social issue in the United States. Historically, a large majority of the American public has favored it in cases of murder. In 1994 public support reached an all-time high of 80%. It has diminished since then. There has been strong opposition. The number of death sentences has been in a steady decline from 2001 to 2011.^[81] 65% of Americans believe the death penalty is justified, although support is lower when respondents are given a choice of the death penalty or life imprisonment with no possibility of parole.^[82] 50% of those cited appeal to fairness, or revenge, as being their reason for supporting the death penalty and 11% cited deterrence as a motivation. 29% were opposed to the death penalty.^[83]
Capital punishment can be used in the U.S. for capital crimes in some states. Currently the use of the death penalty is determined mostly by individual states. As of March 2011, the following U.S. states have fully abolished the death penalty: Alaska, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Firearms

Main article: Gun politics in the United States

Main article: Gun culture

Navy Junior ROTC cadets from Hamilton High School, Ohio, practice marksmanship at the Fire Arms Training Simulator at the Naval Station Great Lakes.

In contrast to many other developed nations, firearms laws in the United States are permissive and private gun ownership is common, with about 40% of households containing at least one firearm. In fact, there are more privately owned firearms in the United States than in any other country, both per capita and in total.^[78] Rates of gun ownership vary significantly by region and by state, with gun ownership most common in Alaska, the Plains States, the Mountain States, and the South, and least prevalent in Hawaii, the island territories, and the Northeast megalopolis.^[79] Hunting, plinking and target shooting are popular pastimes, although ownership of firearms for purely utilitarian purposes such as self-defense is common as well. Ownership of handguns, while not uncommon, is less common than ownership of long guns. Gun ownership is more prevalent among men than among women, with men being approximately four times more likely than women to report owning a gun.^[80]

Group affiliations

The Knights of Columbus exhibiting their group identity.

As the United States is a diverse nation, it is home to numerous organization and social groups and individuals may derive their group affiliated identity from a variety of sources. Many Americans, especially white collar professionals belong to professional organizations such as the APA, ASA or ATFLC, although books like Bowling Alone indicate that Americans affiliate with these sorts of groups less often than they did in the 1950s and 1960s. Today, Americans derive a great deal of their identity through their work and professional affiliation, especially among individuals higher on the economic ladder. Recently professional identification has led to many clerical and low-level employees giving their occupations new, more respectable titles, such as "Sanitation service engineer" instead of "Janitor."^[1]
Additionally many Americans belong to non-profit organizations and religious establishments and may volunteer their services to such organizations. Rotary International, the Knights of Columbus or even the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals are examples of such non-profit and mostly volunteer-run organizations. Ethnicity plays another important role in providing some Americans with group identity,^[14] especially among those who recently immigrated.^[6] Many American cities are home to ethnic enclaves such as a Chinatown and Little Italies remain in some cities. Local patriotism may be also provide group identity. For example, a person may be particularly proud to be from California or New York City, and may display clothing from local sports team.
Political lobbies such as the AARP, ADL, NAACP, NOW and GLAAD (examples being civil rights activist organizations) not only provide individuals with a sentiment of intra-group allegiance but also increase their political representation in the nation's political system. Combined, profession, ethnicity, religious, and other group affiliations have provided Americans with a multitude of options from which to derive their group based identity.^[1]