Patriotism is more than a flag pin or a slogan—it's a profound, enduring commitment to one’s country and its values. Unlike nationalism, which often glorifies a nation regardless of its conduct, patriotism seeks to hold a country to its highest ideals. A patriot recognises a nation's imperfections but strives to improve them for the common good.
The modern idea of patriotism began to take shape during the eighteenth century, particularly in Britain, at a time when the country was undergoing profound political and cultural transformations. Patriotism, in this context, did not simply mean love for one's land or ruler, but rather a deeper sense of public responsibility, moral conscience, and loyalty to a nation’s ethical and constitutional principles.
As Ian Crowe explains in his study of Edmund Burke (Patriotism and Public Spirit: Edmund Burke and the Role of the Critic in Mid-Eighteenth-Century Britain, 2012, Stanford University Press), patriotism arose partly as a response to concerns over political corruption, unchecked government power, and the loss of civic virtue in an age dominated by personal ambition and party interests. The ideal of patriotism emerged as a way to reclaim the moral integrity of political life, suggesting that true loyalty to a country meant not blind obedience to its leaders but a willingness to hold them accountable and defend the nation’s founding ideals—particularly liberty, justice, and public good.
In Burke’s view, patriotism was closely tied to the idea of public spirit. A true patriot was someone who loved their country enough to criticise it constructively, someone who could act beyond selfish or partisan interests for the sake of preserving the nation's moral and constitutional heritage. This notion of patriotism emphasised a deliberate and informed attachment to a way of life grounded in law, tradition, and civic duty—not mere nationalism or cultural pride.
In The True Patriot (2007, Sasquatch Books), authors Eric Liu and Nick Hanauer argue that modern patriotism should be redefined not as blind allegiance or nationalism, but as a commitment to shared responsibility, fairness, and active civic participation. They challenge the narrow and often partisan notion of patriotism as merely supporting the military or defending traditional symbols, instead proposing a deeper and more inclusive understanding rooted in American values and ideals.
According to Liu and Hanauer, true patriotism demands that citizens take responsibility not only for themselves but for one another. This includes recognising that the strength of a nation lies in its ability to care for all its people, particularly the most vulnerable. They emphasise that a patriotic American does not just ask what the country can do for them but actively works to ensure that systems are fair, just, and accessible to everyone.
Fairness, as they present it, is central to patriotism. This means promoting economic justice, equitable opportunities, and a fair distribution of resources so that all citizens have the tools they need to thrive. For Liu and Hanauer, policies that favor the wealthy at the expense of the broader population are not patriotic; instead, true patriotism is expressed through efforts to close inequality gaps and to ensure that prosperity is shared.
Finally, civic action is at the heart of their vision. Patriotism, they argue, is not a passive sentiment but an active practice. It involves participating in the democratic process—voting, engaging in public discourse, holding leaders accountable, and contributing to the common good. For them, being a “true patriot” means being an engaged and informed citizen who upholds the responsibilities of democracy.
In sum, The True Patriot reclaims patriotism as a moral and civic duty grounded in empathy, justice, and democratic engagement. Liu and Hanauer call for a version of patriotism that transcends party lines and personal interest, urging Americans to embrace a shared destiny and a commitment to building a fairer, stronger nation for all.
As historian Timothy Snyder notes in "On Tyranny" (2017, Tim Duggan Books), patriotism is not about blind loyalty or symbolic gestures. It is about service, responsibility, and moral courage. “A patriot,” Snyder writes, “wants the nation to live up to its ideals...always wishing it well—and wishing that it would do better.
What does it truly mean to love one’s country? In an age when national symbols are often brandished more as tools of division than unity, it becomes essential to return to the root meaning of patriotism. It is not an empty performance of pride or a matter of optics. Patriotism is the deep, enduring, and principled devotion to the well-being of one’s nation, rooted not in self-congratulation but in service and responsibility.
To understand patriotism, it helps to first consider what it is not. In On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century (2017, Tim Duggan Books), historian Timothy Snyder urges us to recognise that patriotism does not involve dodging military service and then ridiculing those who answered the call of duty. It is not found in mocking war heroes or discriminating against veterans, nor in refusing to pay taxes while ordinary citizens contribute to the system that supports everyone. And patriotism certainly does not look like seeking foreign assistance in national elections or aligning one’s interests with authoritarian regimes like those of Vladimir Putin or Bashar al-Assad.
Instead, patriotism is grounded in truth and ethical conduct. It is not about pretending the country is flawless, but about striving to make it better. A patriot desires the nation to live up to its ideals—justice, equality, freedom, and accountability. As Snyder writes, “A patriot wants the nation to live up to its ideals, which means asking us to be our best selves.” This vision of patriotism is both aspirational and grounded in reality. It does not dismiss problems but addresses them head-on.
Patriotism is not confined to any one group or profession. It is not just the domain of soldiers or public officials. Anyone—teachers, parents, workers, students—can be a patriot. It is expressed in everyday life: by voting, volunteering, respecting the law, caring for one’s community, and holding leaders accountable. It manifests in countless actions, small and large, that serve the greater good.
Though patriotism can be displayed at any time, it is most visible and most crucial during moments of crisis or moral uncertainty—during wars, economic downturns, public health emergencies, or threats to democratic institutions. During these moments, the character of a patriot becomes clear, as they choose integrity over convenience and courage over silence. History teaches us this lesson vividly. In the 1920s, ’30s, and ’40s, many democracies across Europe collapsed not because of external conquest but because of internal complacency and the rise of authoritarianism. Snyder warns us that democracy often falls not with a bang, but with a shrug—the moment when too many people say, “It can’t happen here.”
This insight echoes the warning of George Orwell, who in his 1945 essay Notes on Nationalism described the nationalist as someone who “not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” Nationalism, Orwell suggests, is concerned not with truth, but with power. Similarly, the novelist Danilo Kiš once noted that nationalism “has no universal values, aesthetic or ethical.” Patriotism, by contrast, is grounded in both moral standards and a realistic view of the world.
In his essay, Orwell presents a critical and nuanced exploration of the concept of nationalism, which he distinguishes sharply from patriotism. For Orwell, patriotism is a devotion to a particular place and a way of life, which one believes to be the best, but has no wish to impose on others. Nationalism, by contrast, is inseparable from the desire for power, and it involves identifying oneself with a single nation or cause to the exclusion of all others.
Orwell argues that nationalism is not limited to countries or ethnic groups; it can also attach itself to ideologies, religions, political parties, or even movements such as Communism, Zionism, Catholicism, or Pacifism. What defines nationalism, in Orwell’s view, is the uncritical and often fanatical allegiance to a group, combined with a tendency to see the world in terms of competitive prestige and dominance. A nationalist, Orwell writes, “thinks in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist—that is, he may use his energies either in boosting his own group or in slandering others—but in either case his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs, and humiliations.”
,Orwell also highlights the emotional and irrational nature of nationalism. He describes how it leads people to ignore reality, distort facts, and maintain double standards in judgment. A nationalist will be indifferent to atrocities committed by their own side while exaggerating or inventing those committed by opponents. This results in what Orwell calls “intellectual dishonesty,” where truth becomes subordinate to loyalty. He gives examples of how nationalists rewrite history, excuse cruelty, and ignore inconvenient facts to preserve their sense of righteousness.
Another critical point Orwell makes is that nationalism is not necessarily tied to power. One can be a nationalist of a defeated or oppressed group, and in such cases, nationalism can express itself through a fixation on martyrdom and grievance. He gives the example of Irish nationalists and Jewish nationalists, showing how even the powerless can be driven by the same obsessive identification and desire for superiority.
Throughout the essay, Orwell is concerned with the moral and intellectual consequences of nationalism. He believes that it corrupts critical thinking, leads to moral blindness, and fuels the kinds of ideological conflicts that characterised the 20th century. His ultimate warning is that nationalism, as a mode of thought, is dangerous because it prioritises loyalty over truth and power over justice.
In sum, Notes on Nationalism is a prescient and deeply critical analysis of how identification with a group—be it nation, race, religion, or ideology—can lead to distorted thinking, hostility, and a loss of individual moral judgment. Orwell’s insights remain relevant today, especially in the context of rising populism and ideological polarisation around the world.
In The Idea of Nationalism: A Study in Its Origins and Background (1944), Hans Kohn presents a detailed historical analysis of the emergence and evolution of nationalism, distinguishing it from earlier forms of collective identity and loyalty, such as patriotism. Kohn argues that modern nationalism arose primarily in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as a product of the Enlightenment and the socio-political transformations of Western Europe. Unlike traditional patriotism, which is rooted in loyalty to a particular place, ruler, or way of life, modern nationalism is defined by a more abstract and ideological commitment to the nation as an imagined political and cultural community. Kohn explains that patriotism, particularly in its earlier forms, was a civic sentiment often tied to localism and loyalty to the monarchy or city-state. It was generally inclusive and centred on shared values, civic duties, and emotional attachment to one's homeland. Patriotism did not necessarily require a belief in cultural homogeneity or ethnic unity. By contrast, nationalism—especially in its modern form—evolved as a doctrine that sought to align political boundaries with cultural or ethnic identities. It demanded not just loyalty but identification with a nation that was increasingly defined by shared language, history, and often a mythic sense of origin.
Importantly, Kohn makes a geographic and historical distinction between Western and Eastern nationalism. He observes that in Western Europe, particularly in countries like France and England, nationalism developed in the context of emerging liberal democracies and constitutional governments. Here, nationalism often had a rational and civic dimension, closely tied to ideas of citizenship, law, and individual rights. In Eastern and Central Europe, however, where states were often more authoritarian and less politically unified, nationalism tended to take on a more ethnic and cultural character. It was driven by a sense of historical grievance, exclusion, and the need for cultural preservation, often resulting in a more romantic and sometimes xenophobic form of national identity.
Throughout the work, Kohn emphasizes that nationalism is not an inevitable or universal phenomenon, but a historical construct shaped by particular political, economic, and cultural developments. He critiques the tendency of nationalist ideologies to mask power struggles with claims of cultural destiny, arguing that nationalism often serves as a modern substitute for religious or dynastic loyalties in a secular age. His study suggests that while patriotism can coexist with pluralism and democratic values, nationalism—especially in its more extreme forms—can lead to exclusion, aggression, and authoritarianism.
Thus, according to Kohn, modern nationalism emerged as a transformative force in modern history, reshaping collective identities and state structures, but also posing new challenges to the ideals of freedom, tolerance, and human unity.
In Love of Country: A Hebridean Journey (2016, Granta Books), Madeleine Bunting explores what it means to love one’s country in a reflective, non-jingoistic way by using the remote and rugged landscape of the Hebrides as both a literal and metaphorical journey. For Bunting, loving one’s country isn’t about blind pride, loud nationalism, or the exclusion of others. Instead, it's about deep, thoughtful engagement with the land, its history, its complexities, and its contradictions.
She emphasises that true love of country must involve an honest reckoning with the past, including its darker chapters—such as colonialism, violence, and environmental degradation. Through her travels across the Hebridean islands, Bunting uncovers stories of displacement, resistance, and resilience, particularly highlighting how the histories of marginalised communities, like the Gaels, are often overlooked in national narratives. This process of attentive listening and learning becomes a form of ethical patriotism—one that is humble, curious, and open to multiple truths.
Rather than a flag-waving performance, Bunting presents patriotism as a kind of care—a slow, patient attention to place and people. It’s about understanding the layers of meaning in the landscape, the ways in which identity is shaped by geography, language, and memory. This kind of love is quiet, critical, and committed—not to an idealized version of the nation, but to its full, flawed reality.
In essence, Bunting argues that to truly love one’s country is to be willing to question it, to understand its limits as well as its beauty, and to take responsibility for its future. It's a love that holds a mirror up to the nation, not a megaphone, and one that seeks connection over conquest.
Where, then, does patriotism take place? It happens everywhere—at polling stations, in classrooms, in courtrooms, on streets and sidewalks. It is not confined to parades or speeches; it happens in how we treat one another and in how we uphold our shared responsibilities as citizens. At its core, patriotism thrives in reality, not in rhetoric. It acknowledges the flaws in the nation, but chooses to face them, not flee from them.
People act patriotically for many reasons. Some are moved by a sense of shared history or cultural identity. Others are guided by ethical principles or religious values. But above all, patriots are motivated by a desire to ensure that their country is not only strong but just and fair for all its citizens. This desire is grounded in universal values—truth, justice, and human dignity—which are not relative to any one nation but apply everywhere.
The distinction between patriotism and nationalism is central to this understanding. Patriotism demands responsibility; nationalism demands obedience. Snyder emphasizes that nationalism encourages people to see themselves as inherently superior and urges them to ignore the flaws of their own society while projecting blame onto others. The nationalist flatters the public, telling them they are the best even when they behave poorly. In contrast, the patriot speaks hard truths because they believe the nation can—and should—be better.
Patriotism is not just about loving your country in a symbolic or defensive way, but about taking responsibility to improve and build it.
In the context of the nation, a patriot is someone who believes they have a role—however small—in making their country better. On an individual level, a patriot is someone who dares to seize opportunities, dares to try, and believes that change can start with oneself.
You can make a difference, you can contribute, you can stand up for the values you believe in. Because, as Snyder says, a patriot is someone who wants their country to live up to its ideals—and those ideals will never come to life if we just stay silent.
Take a look at the lyrics of this song:
'And if you ask me to, Daddy's gonna buy you a Mockingbird, I'ma give you the world, I'ma buy a diamond ring for you, I'ma sing for you, I'll do anything for you to see you smile.'
These lyrics from Mockingbird by Eminem are explicitly about a father's love and sacrifice for his child. But if we dig deeper and place it in the context of patriotism, they can be interpreted as a metaphor for sacrifice and love toward the next generation.
The lyrics reflect a pure love, willing to do anything for the child’s happiness. In a patriotic context, we can interpret that a true patriot has the same kind of love for their country and for future generations. They are willing to work hard, make sacrifices, even go against the current—not for personal gain, but just to see their country "smile"—to see it prosper, be just, and live in peace.
Now imagine if these words weren’t spoken by a father to a child, but by a citizen to their nation:
'If you need it, I’ll do whatever it takes. I’ll fight, I’ll give the best I can, just so you—my country—can smile and be happy.'
This is not an aggressive or symbolic kind of patriotism, but one rooted in love. It's a gentle, empathetic, and future-oriented patriotism. A form of love for the homeland that doesn’t just talk about “fighting for the country,” but about giving hope, stability, and a decent future for the generations to come.
In conclusion, patriotism is not about celebrating the country uncritically; it is about loving the country with honesty and integrity. It calls on each of us to participate in the democratic process, to support one another as fellow citizens, and to protect the values that make our nations worth cherishing. A true patriot does not say, “It could never happen here,” in the face of rising tyranny. A true patriot says, “It could happen here—and I will stand against it.”
Just like Eminem wants to give the world to his child, a true patriot also wants to give the best to their country—not for personal glory, but to see their people smile.
