Yes, as with all polls and surveys, one should be wary of this one; still, Gallup is as close to non-partisan as one can get in 2026, and the results seem consistent with what we have been observing for a long time.
And true, confirmation bias comes into play. However, what we saw with the Democrats in Congress refusing to enthusiastically applaud the U.S. Olympic champion hockey team certainly seemed significant, especially since one assumed that if nothing else, the party knows its base. The core Democratic base looks, sounds, and behaves as if it is hostile to American values, traditions and history. With such quacking and waddling going on, it would take an ingenious argument to maintain that this isn’t a metaphorical duck.
I was drawn to the chart, which has been around for several months, because an “X” pundit wrote, “What’s going on here?,” the threshold question for all ethics inquiries. So what is going on here?
This:
Ethics Alarms 
Jack wrote, “The core Democratic base looks, sounds, and behaves as if it is hostile to American values, traditions and history. With such quacking and waddling going on, it would take an ingenious argument to maintain that this isn’t a metaphorical duck.”
I don’t know about the rest of you, but, the political left’s words and actions in the 21st century have shown me that they’re anti-American and pro-socialist or pro-communist, especially progressive (read regressive) minded leftists. So…
The left made their bed.
Here’s a good one showing the disingenuousness of the left. A woman on The View hinted that Trump must be gay and attracted to the men of the U.S. men’s hockey team. The View co-host Sara Haines cracks snide GAY joke about Trump while blasting him for inviting US men’s hockey team to the White House | Daily Mail Online When did accusing someone of being gay become acceptable? Wouldn’t Trump’s being gay or bisexual be trumpeted to the sky? Incredible. The left is simply exhuasting.
There was a straight decline among Democrats from the beginning of Obama’s second term to 2020.
On the bad presidents list, I’m not sure Bill Clinton is where to start. Wilson? FDR, Kennedy? Nixon? They all did their part at chipping away at the presidential gravitas. They just were not as out front and William Jefferson his own self.
That thought notwithstanding, an excellent thumbnail history of American decline.
Before it slips my mind, I can’t help noting that Hillary Clinton is testifying to a Congressional committee in a performing arts center.
Clinton was the lead-in act to 2000, when the graph starts cratering. It makes sense to start with him. Before him, the Presidency was more resilient. It withstood the bad apples. Clinton made respecting someone who was President just because they were President much more difficult.
The decision to invade Iraq based on a perfect storm of Saddam’s perfidy, U.N. corruption, intelligence failures and neo-con passion was (and is) presented to the public by the news media and Democrats (who knew better) as Bush 2 “lying” to get us into a war. Then the war was botched (though it didn’t have to be that way).
My view is that this analysis does not take into considerations the full ramifications of that war. From the research that I did (though it was not that much) I learned that the plans to wage warfare on Iraq had already been drawn much prior to the 9/11 events. And the level of collusion and also corruption that this war involved, and other wars in the Middle East involve, is particularly ugly and reflects severe breakdowns that do harm and will continue to do harm to the Republic and to the republican concept. See for example The Persian Gulf TV War (Douglas Kellner).
It was not simply President Bush that ‘lied’ to the nation, and rather it was an established elite (interconnected corruptions) that linked government, arms industries, and most importantly the propaganda industries (we now refer to them as the ‘mainstream media’) to present the war as a TV spectacle that was received and consumed by a gullible public who did not understand the degree to which their Republic had been ‘taken over’ by interests inimical to their own. (Not to mention the assertion that a specific foreign nation, with significant power in America, advocated with all sorts of means to involve the US in that war, and other wars in the Middle East).
Many in ‘conservative circles’ now seem, at least, to be able to talk about the ‘lying media’, but that seems to be because there is enough other people who use the term that they don’t have to feel too ‘naked’ making such radical statements. But only a few short years ago those same (“”) conservatives were fanatical jingoists. If you did not *support the war* you were not a patriot and you were anti-American.
The other absurdity, and I guess the thing that get you labeled as a ‘Leftist’ is you point it out is that the Iraq leader was for a long long time ‘our man”, and this seems to be the case in much of postwar history: Supporting the worst sorts of dictators if it was felt they could keep their domains in order and for the advantage of business-interests (who care about a rat’s ass about the conditions of other people in this world) was the way US political business was conducted. On one level the turn against such an ally (Saddam Hussein) could be looked at as an example of political duplicity on the part of the US government. What does it mean ethically to turn on those who was your previous ‘best friend’? Surely politics is a dirty business but the notion that the US is a ‘fair dealing player’ should be rejected by clear-thinking Conservatives. If the object is to become ‘clear thinking’ and to be conservative I suggest there is a looooooonnnnggg way to go yet. But if Conservatives can, now, talk about a ‘deep state’ and ‘government corruption’ now, well perhaps there is hope!
My present view is that it takes radical seeing, radical insight, to see just how and why the Republic has become as corrupt as it is. You cannot think either like a Leftist or like a Rightist to achieve that. It takes another sort of stance and platform.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W89-ikemXJE
I see Jack’s post as an indictment of American politics since at least Bill Clinton, and perhaps even Watergate. I do not see any issues with this indictment given the deplorable state of US politics and the visible rot in the institutions, however it does not at all explain the striking differences in patriotism between Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans have the most reason to be disillusioned about the cultural decay of the USA, however they are more patriotic than ever. How do w explain that?
The differences are more likely to found in world view. One world view prioritizes the local over the global. Vice President JD Vance stated in in interview in January 2025 “You love your family, and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country, and then after that you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world”. This is a reference to a classical Christian concept “Ordo Amoris” articulated by St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. This traditional view helps us understand why Republicans (mostly conservative) emphasize the importance of the family, favor traditional morals on sexuality, are protective of existing traditions and culture, and prioritize the national interest. There is belief in the superiority of the Judeo-Christian tradition and Western culture. There is pride and gratitude about the history of the nation. They seek restoration of rotting institutions.
The Democrats have a different worldview. They are cosmopolitan and globalist. They care a lot about international opinion and international law, and have deep faith in transnational organization such as the United Nations, the European Union and the NATO. The attitude towards the history and culture of their own nations and culture is one of critical distance, (and sometimes guilt and shame). Attachment to own culture, and patriotic displays such as waving the national flag are seen as crude and vulgar.
The cosmopolitan worldview is even more prevalent in Western Europe than in the USA. The European Union is an embodiment of the cosmopolitan worldview. The creation of the EU needs to been in the light of two World Wars, where out-of-control nationalism led to the suicide of the old political order in Europe.
Socialism and communism are cosmopolitan. Their famous anthem “The International” written by Eugène Pottier, a refugee from the Paris commune in 1871 embodies that spirit by calling workers from all nations to unite.
Multiculturalism is of course cosmopolitan, as it denies that one culture is better than another. (In practice, multiculturalists tend to disparage Western culture and history.)
The results of cosmopolitan philosophies can be seen all over Europe, as witnessed by uncontrolled migration from non-Western civilizations, plus the taboos in openly discussing Islamic extremism, and immigration related crime (e.g. Pakistani rape gangs in the UK).
The attitude of the Democrats mirrors that of the cosmopolitans in the UK and EU. They disparage Western culture and the Judeo-Christian tradition. They are for open borders. They embrace ideologies with Marxist origins. They reject the traditional family.
Both nationalism and cosmopolitanism have their pros and cons. Extreme nationalism and patriotism are implicated in the start of elective wars with disastrous consequences, such as WWI and WWII. In 1982 the junta of Argentina started the Falkland wars with Great Britain, to deflect the publics attention from the poor economy, and appealing to patriotic zeal. And in recent USA history, we have to reconsider the wisdom of invading Iraq, and question whether our patriotic impulses have dulled our critical sense.
Right now I think cosmopolitanism shows its disadvantage as in practice it means that the interests of foreigners (often illegals or asylum seekers) are often prioritized over the interests of the own citizens. As the UK is showing, this leads to social instability, loss of national identity, and rumors of impending civil war.
The Religious Right was a big part of the problem …
As the Ultra-Zionist Evangelical Right is, if the truth could be told, extremely dangerous still. Few are willing to talk honestly about Evangelical Zionism and to really examine the particulars of Christian Zionist belief. (I.e. the reestablishment of Israel, the in-gathering, represents the beginning of the end of the world! What a lovely hope to hold to!)
Al-Aqsa flood — flying monkeys landing and assassinating stoned Israeli youths high on LSD — was a reaction to extremist Zionism that plans to detonate the mosque and rebuild the Judean Temple. Not a joke. The plans are outlined by rabbis speaking mostly in Hebrew.