The 4th of July, a Time to Celebrate — Or Not?
Newsletter 365 - July 2, 2025
Note: All our newsletters are also available on the BI Newsletter Archive.
As our U.S. readers know, Friday, July 4 is U.S. Independence Day — the day that we, in the United States, traditionally celebrate the founding of our country with patriotic concerts, fireworks, picnics, and a wide range of other mid-summer festivities.
Boulder used to have a patriotic concert and picnic in a large park around dinnertime on the Fourth, and then fireworks accompanied by more patriotic music at the University of Colorado stadium after dark. These events were free and well-attended and supported by the city, the University, citizen donations, and corporate sponsors.
But not this year. Or, the year before. Or, if I remember right, the year before that. The explanation being given is that the tradition lost momentum with COVID, when it was canceled, and then concerns about fire risks grew. The last July 4 celebration or maybe two saw an aerial drone display replace the fireworks. But there was still a 4th of July community-wide celebration with patriotic music. Now the sponsors have pulled out, the city won't pay for it, and it is being replaced with a Phish concert (which may or may not have patriotic music), which costs many hundreds of dollars per seat. So much for a community celebration! (It is, of course, not surprising that the University might prefer to host such a giant revenue-producing event.)
We suspect, however, that the real reason the 4th of July concert and fireworks have disappeared, is that progressive Boulder, and likely many other progressive communities, simply lack the enthusiasm needed to mount a big celebration. A big part of the reason is that pride in the United States and its heritage has sharply diminished in recent years. The United States, as many progressives are quick to point out, was built on the twin shames of slavery and the conquest of Native American tribes. All of its successes (when they acknowledge that there have been some successes) have been built on the back of oppressed people who were not able to enjoy the opportunities created by those successes.
We certainly know and have read a lot of people who feel this way. They have little interest in celebrating a country they see as basically evil, an attitude made even more immediately apparent as they object to our current President, who they see as acting in ways which are profoundly anti-democratic. (There seems to be an irony here: if one opposes an anti-democratic President, then one ought to celebrate, it would seem, a day that started the effort to establish a democracy here in the United States.)
Wondering if we are being too cynical (perhaps we are), we decided to consult ChatGPT. Part of our reason for doing this was to further test our hypothesis that, for all of its faults, AI technology is pretty good at listening to extremely large groups of people and summarizing their collective views. Specifically, we asked ChatGPT 4o (which is much better than the free version), "Can you tell me what progressives think about celebrating the 4th of July in the United States?" ChatGPT's response (which is reprinted below), tracks pretty closely with our image.
ChatGPT's Response
Progressive views on celebrating the Fourth of July in the United States are diverse and nuanced—ranging from enthusiastic patriotism to critical reflection. While many progressives still participate in July 4th traditions, they often use the holiday as an opportunity to call attention to the gaps between American ideals and realities, especially concerning issues like racial injustice, inequality, colonialism, and the ongoing fight for civil rights.
Here’s a breakdown of how progressives typically engage with or critique the holiday:
1. Reclaiming and Expanding American Ideals
Many progressives believe deeply in the foundational ideals of liberty, equality, and democracy—but argue that the U.S. has often fallen short of those promises. On July 4th, they may:
Celebrate grassroots movements that have expanded civil rights (e.g., abolitionism, women’s suffrage, labor unions, civil rights movements, LGBTQ+ rights).
Reflect on ongoing struggles to make America more just and inclusive.
Promote a version of patriotism rooted in holding the nation accountable and striving for a “more perfect union.”
Quote example: “As we celebrate, let’s remember: patriotism isn’t blind loyalty—it’s the courage to demand better.”
2. Critiquing Historical Myths and Exclusion
Some progressives use July 4th to challenge dominant historical narratives, including:
The glorification of the Founding Fathers without acknowledging their role in enslaving people or excluding women, Indigenous peoples, and non-property owners.
The idea that 1776 marks freedom for all—when many were still enslaved or under colonial domination.
Example: The continued citation of Frederick Douglass’s 1852 speech, “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?”, which highlights the hypocrisy of celebrating freedom in a nation that still practiced slavery.
3. Inclusive and Alternative Celebrations
Others embrace the holiday but use it as a chance to amplify underrepresented voices and tell more inclusive stories of America. This might include:
Highlighting Indigenous land acknowledgments.
Celebrating immigrant contributions to American society.
Holding “people’s history” events or community gatherings focused on justice and solidarity.
4. Some Choose Not to Celebrate
A smaller number of progressives, particularly those from historically marginalized communities, opt out of the holiday entirely. Their reasons might include:
Protest against U.S. military actions or systemic racism.
Refusal to celebrate a nation that, in their view, has not yet earned their full allegiance or trust.
Summary:
While progressives are not unified in how they approach the Fourth of July, man becomes a space to ask hard questions about who has—and hasn’t—benefited from American freedom, and what work remains to bring the country closer to its ideals. They see it as an opportunity for both celebration and critique. The day often becomes a space to ask hard questions about who has—and hasn’t—benefited from American freedom, and what work remains to bring the country closer to its ideals.
As we were writing this post, the Liberal Patriot came up with a very similar article that echoes ChatGPT's assertions. It also has good ideas about how and why Democrats can and should maintain their patriotism in the Trump Era (which echo, to some extent the ideas we include below.)
We then went on to ask ChatGPT 4o, "Using a similar style, can you tell me what conservatives think about celebrating the 4th of July in the United States?"
Absolutely. Conservatives generally view the Fourth of July as a deeply meaningful celebration of American identity, freedom, and exceptionalism. While there is some internal variation, most conservatives emphasize patriotism, gratitude for the nation's founding, and respect for the military, Constitution, and traditional American values.
Here’s a breakdown of how conservatives typically think about and celebrate Independence Day:
1. Celebrating American Exceptionalism
For many conservatives, July 4th is a powerful reminder of the unique greatness of the United States—a nation founded on individual liberty, limited government, and natural rights.
The Founding Fathers are viewed as visionary heroes who created the most successful democratic experiment in human history.
The Constitution and Declaration of Independence are seen as enduring blueprints for freedom, often cited in defense of conservative principles.
2. Honoring the Military and Law Enforcement
Conservatives often use the Fourth to express respect for those who serve—especially military veterans, first responders, and law enforcement.
Fireworks, parades, and flag displays are seen not just as tradition, but as symbols of sacrifice and unity.
Many speeches and statements emphasize the blood shed to preserve freedom, from the Revolutionary War to today’s global conflicts.
3. Promoting Unity Through Patriotism
While conservatives acknowledge America’s flaws, they tend to focus on unity through shared pride in national symbols and history rather than highlighting divisions.
Criticism of America, especially on July 4th, is often seen as divisive or ungrateful.
Many believe national holidays should focus on what unites Americans rather than what separates them.
4. Pushback Against “Woke” or Critical Narratives
Some conservatives use the holiday to push back against progressive or “anti-American” interpretations of history.
They may criticize movements that focus heavily on America’s sins (e.g., slavery, colonization) as undermining patriotism or national cohesion.
There is strong resistance to educational or cultural efforts (like The 1619 Project) that are seen as reframing July 4th in a negative light.
5. Emphasizing Personal Responsibility and Freedom
Many conservatives use July 4th to highlight core principles of freedom, responsibility, and self-determination, with a focus on:
Free markets, gun rights, religious liberty, and limited government.
The belief that the American Dream is still attainable through hard work and perseverance.
Summary:
For conservatives, the Fourth of July is a sacred civic holiday—a time to honor tradition, express gratitude, and affirm belief in the enduring greatness of the American experiment. It’s a day to celebrate, not critique. Patriotism is not only welcome—it’s seen as essential to preserving what makes America exceptional.
Power-Over Democracy
The stark differences in the ways in which progressives and conservatives view the 4th of July holiday does, of course, reflect the deep divisions that plague US society — divisions that make it hard for people to participate in a celebration that embraces the other's view of our national story. As we think back to earlier eras when the Fourth of July wasn't such a contentious holiday, we realize that those holidays were framed in ways that more closely resemble the unquestioning patriotism embodied in the conservative frame outlined above.
As those on the progressive left would doubtless quickly point out, this unanimity reflected a time when the nation had not yet awakened to the shame of its neocolonial past; its terrible, racist history; its mistreatment of those with non-traditional views on gender, sex, and family; the climate emergency; and other issues.
What's missing, we believe, from the left's focus on American's faults, is a counter-balancing inventory of the positive things that the US has done and continues to do. As we, in the US, work to overcome past injustices, we need to be sure to do so in a way that maintains and strengthens the good things that those in the US have done and are doing. Simply rebelling against things we don't like does not assure that things will get better. To do that, we need to defend and strengthen a democracy capable of navigating today's complex trade-offs (while also resisting the attacks from bad-faith actors who seek to exploit inevitable political tensions). Bottom line, we think it is important to recognize that Americans have a lot to be proud of — and a lot to protect and build upon — as we go into this 4th of July holiday.
While there has long been strong support for efforts to address America's past injustices for many years, many on the left now argue that these efforts have been wholly inadequate. The left's current approach to "diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)" is extremely controversial. While the 1950 and 60s era civil rights movement was also controversial and much more violent, it also made much more progress. The country came together to support the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act with bipartisan majorities. A bipartisan civil rights, voters rights, or immigration act is acts are almost impossible to imagine today. Rather, the left's approach to civil rights has given Donald Trump a second term and the ability to dismantle (among many other things) all agencies and policies even remotely related to DEI, and initiate a major effort to deport as many immigrants as possible.
A big part of what makes the left's approach so controversial is its decision to essentially bifurcate society into two groups, oppressors and the oppressed, and to frame politics as an effort by the oppressed, "protected classes" championed by the left (and their white allies) to overpower the oppressors that the Republican Party is seen by the left as representing. Not surprisingly, Republicans rebelled and responded by framing politics in pretty much the opposite way — they see themselves as the oppressed and the Democrats as the oppressors who must be overpowered.
This power-over approach to politics, embodied in the hyper-polarized confrontation between these two worldviews, is pretty much the opposite of the power-with style of democracy that we have been championing and looking for ways to build. We acknowledge that our democracy mostly is, and has been, of the power-over sort throughout its history. Indeed, the very structure of our winner-take-all elections reinforces that kind of unbridled competition. But due to a variety of factors, we have now devolved from tough, but reasonably healthy, competition into deeply toxic hyper-polarization. Many are now much more interested in demonizing and hurting the other side than in working to solve problems in ways that advance their interests and the interests of society as a whole. This toxicity has caused both sides to cut the corners of democratic rule of law, or at times entirely ignore it, if that is what they think it will take to "win." We have now reached the point where our democratic norms and institutions have been so seriously eroded that the long-term viability of the U.S. democratic system is in serious jeopardy.
Activists on both sides have become so frustrated that they have called for tearing our democratic structures down if they threaten their agenda. Trump has asserted ever more expansive claims of executive authority — eliminating agencies (USAID and USIP, for instance) that were funded by Congress, withholding funds allocated by Congress, pursuing his campaign against both legal and illegal immigrants in ways that are designed to terrorize people and violate fundamental rights of due process, and sending in the National Guard and even the Marines to suppress protests, against the wishes of local authorities.
In an effort to enact Trump's policies more easily, some Republicans are advocating the elimination of the filibuster in the Senate (as have some Democrats in the past), which would allow them to pass bills with a simple majority, not a 60% majority required by a filibuster. The wise senators realize that the filibuster, despite its problems, plays a major role in protecting society from the tyranny of tiny (sometimes one vote) majorities. Democrats are advocating replacing the Electoral College with a National Popular Vote for President, and some are calling for structuring the Senate. Both efforts are focused on finding ways that reduce what they see as the over-representation of sparsely populated western states (which tend to vote Republican).
Not surprisingly, both sides also frequently express strong displeasure with judicial decisions with which they disagree — displeasure that is often seen as questioning the legitimacy of the judiciary as a whole and its decisions. Both sides gerrymander whenever possible, and try to enact voting policies or laws that they think favor their side or disfavor the other.
The Power-With/Power-Over Choice
Given the "it's either us or them" way in which US politics is now being framed, it is not surprising that long-standing, hardball tactics (such as those described above) have now escalated to the point where they are shaking democracy's very foundations. While the hate mongering and authoritarian-style tactics used by President Trump have certainly done much to contribute to our predicament, it seems clear that we won't really be able to heal our democracy until the left understands, and corrects the things that it has been doing that contribute to the problem. Republicans are, after all, a reactionary party — they are reacting to and primarily motivated by their opposition to the changes being so aggressively championed by the left.
At this point, we all have a choice to make. We can do the easy thing and align ourselves with the Democratic or Republican side of the political divide and then embrace business-as-usual, power-over politics with its efforts to demonize and discredit the other side in hopes of either hanging onto the political pendulum or pulling it back from the other side's grasp. This way of thinking about politics frees us from the hard work of trying to truly understand the complex problems we face and evaluate the relative merits of always imperfect solutions. Instead, we can simply immerse ourselves in comfortable media bubbles and mutually supportive social communities that see our side as infallible and the solutions to our problems as simple — just defeat anything and everything associated with the other side. All we need to NOT DO is think about what happens when our ill-considered "solutions" fail to solve our problems, when our tactics alienate so many people that we lose and the other side takes power, when the animosities that we are enthusiastically cultivating escalate into large scale civil unrest and violence, or when foreign adversaries choose to take advantage of the many weaknesses associated with our squabbling.
Alternatively, we can do something much harder. We can work to build a power-with democracy that really does live up to its ideals. To do this, we must first take urgent steps to start unwinding the hyper-polarization spiral that is taking us to the brink of catastrophe. Beyond this, we must abandon unrealistic, simplistic solutions and start honestly addressing the daunting complexities that surround our many problems. This will require respecting, debating, and learning from those with differing opinions on both moral and factual questions. We need to build a society that makes room for people who believe, for example, that there are only two sexes and for those who see sex as more complex. We need to make room for people who believe that abortion is murder and for those who think it is a woman's choice. We need to accept people who see climate as an existential emergency and those who see it as one of many long-term challenges we need to address. We need to make room for people who prioritize efforts to reverse past discrimination, even if they favor some racial groups over others, and those who argue that many of those efforts have gone too far and now constitute unacceptable reverse discrimination. And, finally, we need to include people who want to increase immigration and those who want to sharply limit it. If we can learn to approach these problems in the spirit of tolerance and compromise, and work together to build building a better society in which we would all want to live, then the 4th of July can once again become a collective celebration.
To do this, we need to dramatically improve our collective ability to constructively manage the giant stream of disputes that pervade our society. We need to get better at identifying and taking advantage of mutually beneficial opportunities and wisely and equitably working through unavoidable win-lose issues. To deal with the scale and complexity of this challenge, we all need to find a place in the larger massively-parallel democracy-building effort — working with our neighbors to improve our communities, and when we can, weighing in on state and national matters, encouraging our representatives to better represent us at higher levels of government. Though not everyone has the time, energy, or skills to do more, we do need many, many more people to take up one or more of the 50+ massively parallel roles we have laid out in our latest MPP paper. We will be examining these roles, people and organizations who are already doing them and the skills that are needed for all of us to "do democracy" and "problem solving" better in coming newsletters and our forthcoming Guide to Constructive Conflict (part of the new BI, coming to a screen near you soon, we hope!)
--------------------
Photo Credit: Fireworks -- Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fireworks_diego_bay_on_the_fourth_of_july.jpg; By: Jon Sullivan; Permission: Public Domain; Date Acquired: June 30, 2025.
Please Contribute Your Ideas To This Discussion!
In order to prevent bots, spammers, and other malicious content, we are asking contributors to send their contributions to us directly. If your idea is short, with simple formatting, you can put it directly in the contact box. However, the contact form does not allow attachments. So if you are contributing a longer article, with formatting beyond simple paragraphs, just send us a note using the contact box, and we'll respond via an email to which you can reply with your attachment. This is a bit of a hassle, we know, but it has kept our site (and our inbox) clean. And if you are wondering, we do publish essays that disagree with or are critical of us. We want a robust exchange of views.
About the MBI Newsletters
BI sends out newsletter 2-3 times a week. Two of these are substantive articles. Once a week or so we compile a list of the most interesting reading we have found related to our topics of interest: intractable conflict, hyper-polarization, and democracy, and we share them in a "Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links” newsletter. These links include articles sent by readers, information about our colleagues’ activities, and news and opinion pieces that we have found to be of particular interest. Each Newsletter will be posted on BI, and sent out by email through Substack to subscribers. You can sign up to receive your copy here and find the latest newsletter here or on our BI Newsletter page, which also provides access to all the past newsletters, going back to 2017.
NOTE! If you signed up for this Newsletter and don't see it in your inbox, it might be going to one of your other emails folder (such as promotions, social, or spam). Check there or search for beyondintractability@substack.com and if you still can't find it, first go to our Substack help page, and if that doesn't help, please contact us.
If you like what you read here, please ....