What better way to capture the spirit of 2026 than to attempt
to define and to discuss patriotism? In this 250th year of our
nation’s existence, what did the concept mean to our founding fathers? Today,
with our antagonistic tribal politics, who can lay claim to being a patriot?
How can we shape an inclusive, forward-looking patriotism for future
generations?
According to Wikipedia, “Patriotism
is the love, support, and defense of one’s country. It represents an
emotional attachment and loyalty to a nation, encompassing dedication to its
principles, its people, and the betterment of society…It fosters a sense of
unity and shared responsibility among fellow citizens.”
Before the Revolution, American patriots were in the
minority. Estimates by historians of those colonists who favored independence
hover around 40 per cent. About twenty per cent remained loyal to the crown,
and the rest were undecided. The founders consistently tried to drum the idea
of liberty into the heads of the uncommitted. Ironically, promises that slavery
would remain and that indigenous lands would be opened for settlement helped
the cause.
Over time, traditions, and institutions began to coalesce
into an American patriotism. My personal view is that modern patriotism should
ignore the pronouncements of pompous leaders and highlight examples of
pluralism, tolerance, and cooperation.
America has a complicated history, including racism, sexism,
and the ill-treatment of native Americans. The Trump administration is wrong to
stress that patriotism embodies the concept, “Imperfection is for losers, and
America is a winner.” The Constitution was
never perfect. American history is full of both spectacular advances and moral backsliding.
In my view, the better approach was advanced by the
journalist Arthur Krystal in his excellent New Yorker article, How
Problematic is Patriotism? Krystal asserts that “just as obsessive love in
a relationship can warp intimacy, so excessive national pride can debase the
nation that one is trying to protect… Patriotism cannot trade in ignorance.”
As a baby boomer who grew up in the Vietnam era, I also
agree with Krystal on his view of patriotism and war. His opinion is that “The
impulse to come to the aid of one’s country ought to match the justice and
urgency of the call. While patriotism is essential to the national defense, it
should never blind us to the human toll of warfare.”
A recent op-ed article in this newspaper had me scratching
my head on the subject of what modern American patriotism looks like. Rich
Lowry wrote about “The Democrats’ Patriotism Gap.” He complained that the
percentage of Americans who “are extremely or very proud of America” has
dropped dramatically, “driven largely by Democrats.”
Equating “proud of America” with “patriotism” is a mistake
in itself. Accusing Democrats of not being patriotic is a cheap shot that
misrepresents what patriotism means in today’s charged political climate. When
Trump and MAGA are considered, Lowry has reversed the script on patriotism.
As I considered Lowry’s assertions, I remembered the famous
line in the Russian novel, The Brothers Karamazov, “The more I
love humanity in general, the less I like man in particular.” Democrats who
love their country in general, despise the individuals who are now in charge.
Democrats know that their great nation, with its incompetent, meanspirited
leadership, is collapsing into idiocy, or worse.
Democrats admire and honor the abstract concepts found in our
original patriotic document, the Declaration of Independence. They are not
proud of authoritarian officials who attack the founding concepts of equality
and liberty. Democrats who challenge the “out of control” executive branch are
the true patriots.
To illustrate my point, consider the memoir of the Russian dissident,
Alexi Navalny. Published after his death, likely at the hands of Vladamir
Putin, the recent book, Patriot: A Memoir, describes patriotism very
well, indeed.
Navalny, Putin’s most outspoken antagonist died at age 47, in
a Siberian prison, under mysterious circumstances. He refused to become an
émigré and returned to Russia, knowing that Putin would permanently jail and
probably kill him. Navalny was the head of a small but dedicated opposition.
The group was loyal not to Putin but to the patria, Russia. (Patriotism
is a derivative of the Greek, Patris, meaning “fatherland” or “native
country.”)
Navalny informed his followers that to not return to his
homeland would have been “unpatriotic and a concession to impotence.” Navalny
detested Russian leadership and did not support its actions in Ukraine which he
termed “criminal and immoral.” Instead, he
was determined to show his countrymen that it was possible to be a politician
and a person of moral integrity. His memoir should inspire public-spirited
Russians (and Americans) to honor his example of patriotism.
I will end with a thought on Trumpism and the future of
patriotism. Trump has chosen to honor our 250 years as a constitutional republic,
forged by a nation of patriotic immigrants, with a vision that sends the
country back to the white nationalist impulses of the early twentieth century. If
he succeeds, our next generation will inherit a vision of patriotism based on
exclusion and hate, not on unity and shared responsibility.
Our President has failed to grasp that to be a patriot is
not to become an enemy of the rest of humankind. Trump’s imperial,
authoritarian state gives those who support it a sense of superiority. It
demands surrender to its trappings. In such an environment, there is no
dignity, and patriotism is diminished.
