This column was originally published by Sheila Kennedy on her blog, “A Jaundiced Look at the World We Live In.”
By Sheila Kennedy
August 13, 2025
As I recall, it was John Edwards who ran for President proclaiming that there were “two Americas.” He was addressing economic differences, but the term applies at an even more fundamental level.
What most of the faux patriots chanting about American Exceptionalism fail to recognize is what actually was exceptional about the establishment of this nation: it was the first country to define citizenship as allegiance to a governing philosophy–what I have called The American idea–rather than rooting citizenship in the various notions of blood and soil that had previously defined the concept.
Today, we tend to think of “blood and soil” citizenship in connection with Nazism, but even before the rise of the Third Reich, it was common to believe that citizenship in a nation must be defined by common ancestry (“blood”) rooted in tradition and nature (“soil”).
America’s Founders disagreed. They saw government not as an expression of tribal identity or the expression of divine right, but as a mechanism that “the people” created to protect what they considered (in the aftermath of the Enlightenment) to be inalienable human rights. Rather than exercising the divine right of kings, government was to operate in the public interest–and that interest would be expressed by the votes of We the People.
True, People originally were limited to White landowning men, but the Constitution and Bill of Rights had erected what was a truly innovative, exceptional concept of government. America was the first nation to base citizenship on behavior rather than upon identity. As American notions of citizenship continued to expand–as We the People became a more commodious concept–the 14th Amendment explicitly extended citizenship to all persons born in America, with the expectation that, whatever their race or religion, they would be part of the American tapestry, supporters of the American Idea.
Despite that constitutional commitment, Americans have never been without a substantial contingent of “blood and soil” throwbacks. Today’s Christian Nationalists are anything but Christian–indeed, anything but religious in any sense. Christian Nationalism is an entirely political, White supremacist and ethno-nationalist movement–a reincarnation of “blood and soil,” and thus fundamentally inconsistent with the American Idea.
Edwards wasn’t wrong. There are two Americas. One America–and I believe it consists of a majority of us–understands citizenship to require adherence to the fundamental premises upon which this nation rests, including–importantly–civic equality and the rule of law. The other is hysterically opposed to the very philosophy that made America truly exceptional–the notion that diverse people can come together to create a government that operates for the good of all, a government protective of individual liberty and expressly forbidden to impose the beliefs and/or prejudices of any particular tribe on the rest of the citizenry.
Bottom line: America is a country founded on the principle that citizenship requires allegiance to the American Idea. It is not a country where citizenship is based upon skin color, purported religious identity, or ancestry.
There is nothing more anti-American than “blood and soil” Christian Nationalism.
Sheila Suess Kennedy is Emerita Professor of Law and Public Policy at the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis. As an attorney, she practiced real estate, administrative and business law in Indianapolis before becoming corporation counsel for the City of Indianapolis in 1977. In 1980, she was the Republican candidate for Indiana’s then 1th Congressional District and in 1992, she became executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana. She joined the faculty of the School of Public and Environment al Affairs in 1998.
The views and opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Indiana Citizen or any other affiliated organization.
