On Patriotism

Beyond Flags and Anthems—The Moral Courage to Defend Democracy

Photo by frank mckenna on Unsplash

This is, after all, a philosophy blog.

Two plus two equals four. There are twenty-four hours in a day. And the most profound act of patriotism is not waving a flag or singing an anthem, but defending the constitutional order when it faces existential threat.

True patriotism is not abstract love of country divorced from its foundational principles. It is not blind loyalty to whoever currently holds power. It is certainly not the willingness to abandon constitutional principles in the name of partisan advantage or cultural grievance. True patriotism is the moral courage to stand for the democratic republic even—especially—when doing so comes at personal cost.

We find ourselves at a moment when the meaning of patriotism itself has become contested. When those who would dismantle democratic institutions claim the mantle of patriotic defenders. When loyalty to a person is conflated with loyalty to the nation. When the symbols of patriotism are weaponized against the very principles those symbols were meant to represent.

It is in such moments that we must return to fundamentals. To examine what it means to love a country founded not on blood and soil, not on ethnic identity or religious creed, but on a set of principles: that all are created equal, that legitimate governance derives from the consent of the governed, that power must be constrained by law rather than wielded through force or fraud.

The Liberal Patriotic Tradition

The American experiment began with an act of treason against the British Crown, justified not by ethnic grievance or cultural identity but by appeal to universal principles of human liberty and self-governance. Our founding patriots were not bound by blind loyalty to established authority but by commitment to ideas—radical for their time—about how human beings ought to govern themselves.

This paradox—that the most patriotic act was rebellion against established power—established the distinctive character of American patriotism from the beginning. Our national identity was forged not through ancient kinship or religious unity but through shared commitment to constitutional principles.

Abraham Lincoln understood this when he defended the Union against secession. His patriotism was not primarily sentimental attachment to national symbols but fierce commitment to the proposition that democratic self-governance “shall not perish from the earth." He recognized that the Constitution's principles, however imperfectly realized, represented humanity's best hope for legitimate governance—a system worth preserving even at terrible cost.

Franklin Roosevelt likewise embodied this liberal patriotic tradition during the existential crisis of World War II. His appeal was not to racial or religious identity but to the “Four Freedoms” that represented universal human aspirations. American patriotism meant defending these principles not just at home but globally, against fascist ideologies that rejected human equality and democratic governance.

Perhaps most profoundly, Martin Luther King Jr. demonstrated how true patriotism often requires challenging the nation to live up to its founding promises. His “I Have a Dream” speech wasn't a rejection of American principles but an insistence that they be applied universally. King understood that patriotism means fighting for the country's soul, not just celebrating its symbols. His was a patriotism of accountability and aspiration, not blind devotion.

This liberal patriotic tradition stands in stark contrast to the authoritarian nationalism that threatens to replace it. It recognizes that love of country means commitment to its founding principles, not loyalty to any person, party, or faction. And it accepts the moral duty to defend those principles, even against domestic threats.

Patriotism vs. Nationalism

The distinction between patriotism and nationalism isn't merely semantic—it's fundamental to understanding what it means to love one's country in a constitutional democracy.

Patriotism, properly understood, represents love for a country's constitutional principles and the ongoing project of realizing them more fully. Nationalism, by contrast, defines national identity through blood, soil, language, religion, or cultural tradition. Where patriotism binds citizens through shared commitment to democratic principles, nationalism binds them through shared enemies and mythologized past.

George Orwell captured this distinction decades ago: “Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also—since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself—unshakeably certain of being in the right,” and “by ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people.”

This distinction helps explain our current crisis of patriotic identity. What we're witnessing isn't a resurgence of patriotism but a retreat from it—a turn toward nationalist identity politics that defines America not through its constitutional principles but through cultural grievance and nostalgia for a mythologized past.

True patriots defend democratic institutions even when those institutions deliver outcomes they dislike. They accept legitimate electoral results even when disappointed by them. They recognize that constitutional processes matter more than momentary partisan advantage. Nationalists, by contrast, support democratic principles only when they serve nationalist ends. When democracy produces outcomes they dislike, they question the system's legitimacy rather than their own positions.

The patriot's question is: “Are we being true to our constitutional principles?” The nationalist's question is: “Are we winning?” This fundamental difference explains much about our current political turmoil.

When congressional representatives swear their oath, they pledge allegiance not to a leader, not to a party, not even to specific policies, but to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." This oath embodies the essence of patriotism in a constitutional republic—commitment to principles and processes over personalities and partisan advantage.

The patriot understands that the Constitution matters more than any election, any policy preference, any cultural grievance. The nationalist sees the Constitution as merely instrumental—useful when it advances nationalist goals, dispensable when it doesn't.

In this light, we can see that many who wrap themselves most ostentatiously in patriotic symbols demonstrate the least patriotic substance. The truest patriots often speak not in emotional appeals to national glory but in sober defense of constitutional principles and democratic norms.

The Patriotic Duty of Dissent

Perhaps the most persistent misunderstanding of patriotism is the notion that it requires uncritical support for government actions or unconditional reverence for national symbols. In reality, the patriotic tradition that built America has always included a powerful counter-tradition of principled dissent.

The Declaration of Independence itself was an act of dissent—a formal statement of opposition to established authority, justified through appeal to higher principles. Our republic was born not from obedience but from principled rebellion against power that had lost its legitimacy through violation of fundamental rights.

This tradition continued through figures like Henry David Thoreau, whose essay “Civil Disobedience” argued that refusing to comply with unjust laws could represent the highest form of patriotic duty. It animated the abolitionists who opposed slavery when that institution was still constitutional, the suffragists who demanded voting rights when denial was still legal, and the civil rights activists who challenged segregation when it still had judicial sanction.

Each of these movements was criticized in its time as unpatriotic. Each was told that true patriots would accept established authority rather than challenging it. Each was accused of disrespecting national traditions. Yet history has vindicated them as embodiments of the highest form of patriotism—the commitment to hold America accountable to its founding promises.

This tradition reminds us that patriotism sometimes requires standing against the government rather than with it. When government actions violate constitutional principles, when they undermine democratic processes, when they threaten the fundamental rights the Constitution was established to protect—dissent becomes not just permissible but morally necessary.

The patriotic dissenter doesn't oppose the nation; they oppose forces that threaten its constitutional foundations. They don't reject American principles; they insist that those principles be honored in practice, not just in rhetoric. Their criticism isn't meant to tear down the republic but to strengthen it by bringing practice into alignment with principle.

This understanding helps us distinguish between patriotic dissent and its counterfeits. When protestors peacefully challenge government policies they believe violate constitutional rights, they act within the patriotic tradition of principled dissent. When violent insurrectionists storm the Capitol to overturn a legitimate election, they place themselves outside that tradition, no matter how many flags they wave or patriotic songs they sing.

The test of patriotic dissent isn't how it makes us feel but what it aims to protect. Dissent that defends constitutional principles against threats, even when uncomfortable, serves the republic. Dissent that seeks to undermine those principles, even when draped in patriotic symbolism, betrays it.

Patriotism in an Era of Global Challenges

Today's interconnected world presents unique challenges for patriotic identity. Climate change, pandemic disease, nuclear proliferation, and technological disruption create threats that no nation can address alone. Economic globalization has created supply chains and financial systems that transcend national boundaries. The internet has enabled communication and cultural exchange that ignore traditional borders.

These realities have led some to question whether patriotism remains relevant or whether it should be replaced by cosmopolitan identity focused on humanity as a whole. But this framing creates a false choice. True patriotism has never required isolationism or indifference to humanity beyond national borders.

Indeed, America's founding principles have universal implications. When the Declaration states that “all men are created equal” and possess “unalienable rights,” it makes claims not just about Americans but about humanity itself. The Constitution begins “We the People” rather than naming any ethnic or religious group, establishing principles of governance with potential application beyond America's borders.

Patriotic commitment to these principles naturally extends outward. It recognizes that a world where democracy and human rights flourish globally is not just morally preferable but strategically beneficial for American security and prosperity. It understands that defending democratic values abroad strengthens them at home, while abandoning them internationally undermines them domestically.

This doesn't mean uncritical support for every military intervention or unilateral surrender of sovereignty to international institutions. But it does mean recognizing that patriotic commitment to American principles includes supporting their advancement globally through diplomacy, alliance-building, and selective use of American influence.

The patriot can simultaneously love their country and recognize humanity's shared challenges. They can advocate robust national defense while supporting international cooperation on climate change, pandemic prevention, or arms control. They can celebrate American culture while appreciating global cultural exchange.

Authoritarian nationalism presents these as contradictions to exploit, forcing false choices between national interest and global cooperation. The patriot understands they're complementary—that America's founding principles provide a framework not just for domestic governance but for addressing humanity's shared challenges.

In an interconnected world, the most profoundly patriotic stance isn't retreat behind walls, physical or metaphorical. It's principled engagement that brings America's democratic values to international challenges, strengthening both America and the wider world in the process.

The False Patriotism of Authoritarianism

Perhaps the greatest threat to authentic patriotism comes from its deliberate corruption by authoritarian movements. These movements have learned to cloak themselves in patriotic symbols while systematically undermining patriotic substance.

The pattern is disturbingly consistent across countries and historical periods. Aspiring authoritarians begin by presenting themselves as the only true defenders of national identity. They claim exclusive authority to define what counts as patriotic, using national symbols not as shared inheritance but as partisan weapons. They equate loyalty to the nation with loyalty to themselves or their movement.

This false patriotism operates through inversion—it takes patriotic language and symbols and empties them of their democratic content. The flag no longer represents constitutional principles but tribal identity. National history becomes not a complex story of imperfect progress toward democratic ideals but a mythologized golden age to be restored through authoritarian means. Criticism of the leader becomes equivalent to betrayal of the country.

Most perniciously, this counterfeit patriotism redefines the very meaning of loyalty. Where true patriotism demands loyalty to constitutional principles even against power, authoritarian nationalism demands loyalty to power even against constitutional principles. It asks citizens to betray their deepest values in the name of patriotism itself.

We've seen this pattern throughout history—how the Nazis corrupted German patriotism, how Soviet communism distorted Russian patriotic identity, how fascist movements in Italy, Spain, and elsewhere wrapped themselves in national symbols while dismantling democratic institutions.

America now faces its own version of this threat. We see it when politicians who undermined the peaceful transfer of power claim to be defending democracy. We see it when those who violate constitutional norms call themselves constitutionalists. We see it when loyalty to democratic principles is labeled treason, and betrayal of those principles is called patriotic duty.

True patriots must recognize this corruption for what it is—not an authentic competing vision of patriotism but a fundamental perversion of it. Not love of country but exploitation of that love for authoritarian ends.

The defense against this corruption isn't abandoning patriotic identity but reclaiming its authentic meaning. It requires refusing the false choice between democratic values and national loyalty by insisting that genuine loyalty to America means commitment to its democratic foundations. It demands recognizing that those who would dismantle constitutional constraints in the name of national greatness threaten the very principles that make America worth loving in the first place.

Patriotism and Truth

At its core, democratic patriotism depends on commitment to shared truth. Without agreement on basic facts, without trusted processes for resolving factual disputes, democratic governance becomes impossible. Citizens cannot make informed choices about representatives or policies when reality itself is contested. Constitutional processes lose legitimacy when factual claims about their operation become purely partisan.

This makes the relationship between patriotism and truth fundamental rather than incidental. The patriot's duty includes not just defending democratic institutions but protecting the epistemic conditions that make those institutions work. When organized efforts to undermine factual reality itself threaten democratic discourse, defending truth becomes a patriotic imperative.

This connection between patriotism and truth has deep historical roots. The American revolution was justified not through appeals to tribal identity but through “self-evident” truths about human equality and legitimate governance. The Constitution established institutions designed to deliberate toward truth rather than merely aggregate preferences. The First Amendment protected freedoms of speech and press based on the Enlightenment faith that open discourse would advance truth-seeking.

When we understand this relationship, we see why attacks on truth-seeking institutions—journalism, universities, scientific bodies, courts—represent threats to patriotic values. These institutions aren't perfect; they require constant improvement and reasonable criticism. But systematic efforts to delegitimize them, to replace factual discourse with tribal narrative, strike at democracy's foundations.

The patriot recognizes that comfortable fictions, however emotionally satisfying or politically useful, ultimately undermine the republic they claim to love. They understand that democratic deliberation requires shared commitment to reality—not perfect agreement on interpretation, but acceptance that facts exist independent of our preferences and that legitimate processes exist for determining them.

This is why claims that “two plus two equals five” aren't just mathematical errors but attacks on the possibility of democratic governance itself. When reality becomes whatever power declares it to be, when truth becomes merely what serves partisan advantage, the foundation for constitutional democracy crumbles.

The patriot resists this dissolution. They insist on facts even when inconvenient. They support institutions that help society distinguish truth from falsehood. They refuse to contribute to epistemic chaos even when doing so might serve their immediate political goals. They recognize that democratic self-governance requires not just freedom of speech but commitment to truthful speech.

The Grand Praxis of Democratic Patriotism

Like all meaningful human endeavors, patriotism involves holding tensions rather than eliminating them. It requires balancing seemingly opposing values, finding harmony without forcing false unity. This makes patriotic commitment a grand praxis—a lived practice of creating meaning through the creative holding of necessary contradictions.

The democratic patriot holds the tension between majority rule and minority rights, recognizing both as essential to constitutional governance. They balance love for national traditions with commitment to continued progress, neither dismissing heritage nor resisting necessary change. They maintain both pride in national achievements and honest recognition of national failures.

Perhaps most fundamentally, the patriot holds the tension between national identity and universal principles. They love their particular country, with its unique history and culture, while recognizing the universal human aspirations embedded in its founding documents. They defend national sovereignty while acknowledging humanity's shared challenges and moral obligations that transcend borders.

This capacity to hold tension distinguishes authentic patriotism from its simplistic counterfeits. Blind nationalism collapses these tensions, choosing tribal loyalty over universal principles, majority domination over minority rights, mythologized past over honest history. Radical cosmopolitanism resolves tension differently, abandoning particular attachments for abstract universalism. True patriotism maintains the creative tension between particular and universal, finding in America's best traditions a bridge between love of country and commitment to human dignity everywhere.

In this light, patriotism becomes not just sentiment but moral practice—the ongoing work of holding these tensions in ways that generate meaning rather than collapse into simplistic answers. It asks us not to choose between loving America and criticizing its failures, but to criticize precisely because we love—because we remain committed to the project of creating “a more perfect union” that better realizes its founding promises.

When we frame patriotism as grand praxis, we see why it requires both emotional attachment and critical reflection, both reverence for tradition and commitment to progress, both national pride and universal moral concern. These aren't contradictions to be resolved but productive tensions to be maintained.

The center must be held—not because it is easy, but because it is ours to hold. And holding it means embracing patriotism not as simple sentiment but as complex moral commitment to the democratic principles that make America worth defending in the first place.

Reclaiming Patriotism

We cannot abandon patriotism to those who would corrupt it. When authoritarian movements claim exclusive ownership of national symbols, when they present themselves as the only true patriots, surrendering these symbols only strengthens their hand. It allows them to equate love of country with loyalty to their movement, to frame defense of democratic principles as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

The alternative isn't uncritical flag-waving but reclaiming authentic patriotic identity grounded in constitutional principles. This means insisting that true patriotism means defending democratic institutions against threats, upholding constitutional processes even when they deliver disappointing outcomes, and maintaining commitment to truth even when fiction serves partisan advantage.

It means proudly displaying the flag while refusing to let it become a partisan symbol. It means honoring military service while recognizing that the oath service members take is to the Constitution, not to any leader or party. It means celebrating American achievements while honestly confronting American failures.

Perhaps most importantly, it means demonstrating that defense of democratic principles represents the truest form of patriotism—that those who stand against authoritarianism, who insist on constitutional constraints, who defend truth against convenient fiction, are the genuine patriots, whatever symbols others might display.

Two plus two equals four. There are twenty-four hours in a day. And in a time of democratic peril, true patriotism means standing for constitutional principles even against domestic threats that wrap themselves in the flag. It means recognizing that love of country sometimes requires the moral courage to defend it against those who would corrupt its founding values while claiming to be their only defenders.

The flag belongs not to those who wave it most ostentatiously but to those who defend what it truly represents—a constitutional republic based on self-governance, equal rights, and power constrained by law. In dangerous times, reclaiming authentic patriotism becomes not just a cultural project but a democratic imperative.

Our soul is meaning. Constructed, such as it is. And patriotism, properly understood, is the commitment to defend the constitutional principles that give our national experiment its moral weight and historic significance. Not through blind loyalty, not through tribal identity, but through the difficult, ongoing work of holding the center against all who would destroy it, whatever symbols they claim as their own.

“We are all of us children of earth—grant us that simple knowledge. If our brothers are oppressed, then we are oppressed. If they hunger, we hunger. If their freedom is taken away, our freedom is not secure. Grant us a common faith that man shall know bread and peace-that he shall know justice and righteousness, freedom and security, an equal opportunity and an equal chance to do his best, not only in our own lands, but throughout the world. And in that faith let us march, toward the clean world our hands can make.” — Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

---

Go forth. May God keep you. May coherence hold you. May truth light the way. And may love carry you home.