Search

What fuels both enthusiasm for increasing "American" birth rates and fears about their decline? Citing the prevalence of fertility campaigns in authoritarian regimes characterized by ethno‐nationalist Christianity, we theorize that, in addition to patriarchal attitudes, perceived ethno‐cultural threat and desire for ethno‐cultural dominance substantially drive "nationalist pronatalism" (promoting fertility to strengthen "the nation" and avoid national decline). We expect pronatalist ideology focused on American births is associated with (1) belief that dominant cultural group members (Whites, Christians, men) are threatened and (2) White Christian nationalism—an ideology that looks to conform American identity and values to those of a traditionalist, ethnicized Christianity. Recent, nationally representative data reveal Christian nationalist ideology is the second strongest predictor of support for nationalist pronatalism, second only behind patriarchal attitudes. This association is stronger for men and virtually non‐existent among Blacks. The belief that Whites or Christians face "the most discrimination" as opposed to various minorities also predicts nationalist pronatalism. Contemporary support for pronatalist ideology focused on American births is thus undergirded not only by attitudes that subordinate women but also (1) an ethno‐racially contingent ideology that insists the United States should reflect and institutionalize traditionalist Christian culture and (2) perceptions that Christians and Whites are persecuted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most theoretical and empirical approaches to nationalism not only distinguish between ethnic and civic notions of national belonging but also differentiate national identity from national hubris, pride, and attachment. In this research note, we examine recently published research on nationalist sentiments in the United States that takes a different approach. The study in question, 'Varieties of American Popular Nationalism' by Bonikowski and DiMaggio (2016), has already become quite influential in the field and has the potential to change how we conceptualise and operationalise attitudes about the nation. In this research note, we revisit its analytical strategy and exploratory methods. We ask two questions. First, does this study allow us to draw conclusions about American nationalism? To answer this, we replicate the original model and then execute additional postestimation analyses, whose results undermine the study's main conclusions. Second, we investigate whether judicious revisions to the study's model generate results that would lead us to the article's same conclusions. The 385 additional models lend no support. Based on this evidence, we argue that the original study's conclusions stem from a misinterpretation of its latent class analysis (LCA), as our own analyses demonstrate that there is no empirical basis for its claims. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]