In Part 2 of this series, I chronicled the unique nature of the American nation and why its development reflects a wholly distinct instance of nationism. I offered my observation that American Patriotism and European Nationalism are two separate and detached ideas. In this article, I will aim to establish the reasoning behind this observation.
Many scholars often regard American Patriotism to be the American form of civic nationalism. These scholars define civic nationalism as a specific type of nationalism that involves both a national identity as well as certain ideals and values which transcend and inform that identity.
A typical slicing of nationalism calls civic nationalism or patriotism “good nationalism” while calling ethnic nationalism “bad nationalism.” Others posit that patriotism is, in fact, distinct from nationalism but suggest a small, healthy dose of nationalism informs it. My stance is that patriotism, and especially American Patriotism, is a wholly separate idea from nationalism. I am not alone in this notion.
“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 upon other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation…in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.”
-George Orwell
“I’m as patriotic as anyone from sea to shining sea, but there’s not a molecule of nationalism in me.”
-William Buckley
“Patriotism is when love for your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”
-Charles de Gaulle
“The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to war.”
-Sydney J. Harris
Now, obviously, I’ll have to unpack this idea that patriotism is entirely different from nationalism. As I mentioned in Part 1, nationalism has been used as far too broad of a descriptive term. This has led to the envelopment of wholly disconnected ideas under a single term.
In Part 1, I laid out the various well-known definitions for nationalism and deduced its chief elements. My claim in this article is that there is a clear line of demarcation between nationalism and patriotism. We can place all the positive aspects of “good nationalism” under the umbrella of patriotism’s definition. We do not need to allow patriotism to share ideological space with the negative aspects of “bad nationalism.”
If we can discern nationalism to be a modern expression of tribalism. If we can regard nationism as a process often followed by nationalism but not inevitably leading to it. And, if we can see patriotism as pure civic virtue. Then it becomes easy to deduce where the break between nationalism and patriotism is.
Civic virtue holds principles and ideals as the highest interest. A healthy sense of civic virtue includes ideas such as the sovereignty of the mind, individual liberty and autonomy, human rights, civil decency, self-governance, self-determination, and popular sovereignty. A patriot readily stands against his own nation if it becomes hostile towards these things.
Nationalism reduces principles and ideals to cursory concerns. The ideas held sacred by civic virtue are only of value to a nationalist so long as they serve the nation’s collective sense of narrow self-interest first. Nationalism invites heavy feelings of national supremacy and arrogance. It tends towards collectivist notions of citizenship as surpassing and subserviating individual identity. The individual, under a nationalist regime, either must define their identity as the nation’s identity or become an enemy of the state.
A patriot and a nationalist are wholly different forms of citizenship. A patriot is a free individual guided by civic virtue who holds to principles and values that transcend the state. A nationalist is a subsumed individual who is guided by nothing and beholden to nothing but the state. A patriot is an individualist. A nationalist is a statist.
Note that these are not mere abstract musings. These are reflections upon history. Every truly nationalist state has followed the patterns we’re discussing. As we consider this, how can we rationally conclude that patriotism is “good nationalism”? Can a passing likeness in some aspects of patriotism and nationalism surmount their fundamental opposition to each other? At its heart, patriotism represents a victory of rights and reason over the human drive for tribe and faction. How then can patriotism be a sub-category of nationalism, which places tribe and faction above all else?
Patriotism, as we have discussed it here, seems better defined as nationalism’s antithesis, not a branch of its doctrines.
In the next article, I will discuss patriotism and nationalism as it relates to the current moment in American politics.