Every nation is built on a story. Every country has a story that helps its people understand their place in the world. For the United States, this story is the American Dream. The American Dream promotes the idea that a person’s background should not define their future or success. If someone is determined and works hard, they can achieve socioeconomic success and improve their quality of life like anyone else. Whether this idea is actually true is less important than whether Americans believe in it. Leaders can use it to support their agendas, explain economic results, or deflect responsibility for growing inequalities. The Dream has shaped a national identity that affects voting patterns, views on fairness, career choices, and self-image.
Despite the plummeting homeownership rates and skyrocketing student debt, which render the white-picket-fence fantasy increasingly distant and unattainable, around 70 percent of Americans still believe they have or will achieve the American Dream—perhaps unsurprisingly so, considering the Dream pervades popular culture and the national mythology to its fullest extent. Its simple moral logic and ubiquitous appeal lend themselves well to storytelling, be it in Hollywood or on the Hill. Politicians and cultural leaders have long weaponised a hopeful narrative about fairness to justify their various policy agendas, irrespective of whether said policies succeed in expanding opportunity and fighting inequality. The Dream has become one of the nation’s most effective political tools because its simple moral logic can be reshaped to justify various policy agendas.
The term first appeared in 1931, introduced by historian James Truslow Adams in “The Epic of America.” He described the Dream as the hope that life could be “better and richer and fuller for everyone.” At that time, the nation was in the midst of the Great Depression, and Adams’ idea gave Americans hope. President Franklin D. Roosevelt quickly transformed this aspirational narrative into political support for federal action. Through programs like Works Progress Administration, Civilian Conservation Corps, and Social Security Act, Roosevelt framed the Dream as part of a shared recovery effort. His ‘Fireside Chats,’ a series of evening radio addresses, fostered a sense of common strength. These chats encouraged Americans to see themselves as partners in rebuilding the nation, rather than isolated individuals. Roosevelt believed that opportunity was something the government enabled and not just something individuals achieved on their own. Roosevelt redefined the Dream to suggest that personal success relied on collective investment, challenging early interpretations that framed it as purely personal.
After World War II, depictions of the Dream underwent significant changes. The postwar boom, driven by the GI Bill, suburban growth, and mass production, placed consumer goods at the heart of American identity, effectively replacing moral equality. Owning a car and earning stable wages became symbols of success. This shift was intensified during the Cold War, when US leaders claimed this prosperity proved that capitalism offered freedom and opportunity. Beyond being a cultural change, this period illustrated how the Dream reinforced political messaging. Leaders pointed to mass consumption as proof that meritocracy was working, even though only some groups, primarily white Americans, benefited from government-subsidized housing, education, and credit. The Dream’s message of ‘equal opportunity’ helped justify policies that actually increased racial and class divides.
This mindset peaked under the leadership of President Ronald Reagan. His 1984 advertisement, “Morning in America,” paired calming images meant to evoke reassurance with a message of renewal, claiming that renewed prosperity resulted from his administration’s policies. He portrayed ‘big government’ as a barrier to achieving the Dream rather than as its protector, as Roosevelt had suggested. Deregulation, tax cuts, and a weakened labor movement were presented as necessary steps to restore individual opportunity even as income inequality widened and the gap between rhetoric and reality became harder to ignore. Reagan’s framing turned the Dream into a political argument, blaming individuals for their economic choices and promoting the wealthy as proof that the system was working. By casting government as the enemy of the Dream, he polarized views on welfare, unions, and regulation.
President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign emphasized hope, inclusivity, and mobility. It revived the Dream’s focus on fairness and shared dignity, reflecting Adams’ ideas. In contrast, President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, centered on his slogan “Make America Great Again,” heavily drew on nostalgia. He claimed that something valuable had been lost for “real Americans” due to globalization, immigration, and political elites. Trump used the Dream to promote a politics of exclusion, suggesting that if the Dream was fading, it was because some groups were taking more than their fair share. This perspective deepened racial and class divisions. Both leaders drew from the Dream, but in opposite directions—one toward expanded opportunity, the other toward cultural restoration.
But the optimistic logic of the Dream obscures a darker counterfactual. If success can be achieved through hard work, regardless of one’s lot in life, then failure is necessarily the consequence of personal flaws. This perspective has influenced many political discussions, especially during the Trump era, regarding immigration, poverty, and race, ultimately casting minority groups as barriers to the Dream rather than individuals who are excluded from it. Such discussions reinforce social divisions, redirecting blame towards individuals and communities instead of the structural forces that limit opportunity. The Dream’s moral message helps protect the systems that create inequality. This allows politicians to avoid confronting deeper economic and racial disparities.
Political psychologists argue that a coherent narrative often matters more to voters than factual accuracy in understanding events. The simple structure of the Dream, that hard work leads to reward, offers optimism and agency, especially in uncertain times, and makes it easier to make sense of the complex and unjust world around us. But this carries immense political consequences. The fact that people hold on to the Dream makes it easier for leaders to manipulate it. They offer comfort while concealing systemic inequalities. One can only fully buy into the stability and optimism of the American Dream if one ignores the real conditions and structures which complicate it.
The question now is who will shape the story in the coming decades. Historically, the ones at the top, such as presidents, advertisers, and mass media, have held that power. But now, activists advocating for climate justice, racial equality, economic reform, and labor rights are crafting new versions focused on community well-being instead of individual achievement. These reimaginings of the Dream are rooted in its original promise and challenge the political interpretations of the Dream that have long justified inequality.
The future depends on whether Americans can distinguish the Dream as a hopeful vision from the Dream as a political myth. If people can recognize how the Dream has been reshaped to justify inequality rather than address it, they may start to reclaim it as a story about collective potential rather than personal blame. Stories shape national identity, but they can also be rewritten.