what is the difference between patriotism and nationalism essay

What Is Patriotism? Definition, Examples, Pros and Cons

• Key Concepts
• Major Sociologists
• News & Issues
• Research, Samples, and Statistics
• Recommended Reading
• Archaeology
• B.S., Texas A&M University

Simply stated, patriotism is the feeling of love for one’s country. Demonstrating patriotism—being “patriotic”—is one of the necessities of being the stereotypical “ good citizen .” However, patriotism, like many well-intentioned things, can be harmful when taken to an extreme .

Key Takeaways

• Patriotism is the feeling and expression of love for one’s home country, along with a feeling of unity with those who share those feelings
• Though it shares patriotism’s love of country, nationalism is the belief that one’s home county is superior to all others
• While considered a necessary attribute of good citizenship, when patriotism becomes politically mandatory, it can cross a line

Patriotism Definition

Along with love, patriotism is the feeling of pride, devotion, and attachment to a homeland, as well as a feeling of attachment to other patriotic citizens. The feelings of attachment may be further bound up in factors like race or ethnicity , culture, religious beliefs, or history.

Historic Perspective

Patriotism originated some 2,000 years before the rise of nationalism in the 19th century. Greek and especially Roman antiquity provide the roots for a philosophy of political patriotism that conceives of loyalty to the “patria,”—the power that the male head of a family exercised over his children—like loyalty to a political conception of the republic. It is associated with the love of law and common liberty, the search for the common good , and the duty to behave justly toward one’s country. The Roman meaning of patria is repeated in the context of the Italian city-states of the 15th century, such as Naples and Venice, as representing the common liberty of the city, which can only be safeguarded by the citizens’ civic spirit.

To Renaissance period Italian diplomat, author, philosopher, and historian Niccolò Machiavelli , the love of common liberty enabled citizens to see their private and particular interests as part of the common good and helped them to resist corruption and tyranny. While this love of the city is typically intermixed with pride in its military strength and cultural superiority, it is the political institutions and way of life of the city that form the distinctive focal point of this kind of patriotic attachment. To love the city is to be willing to sacrifice one’s own good—including one’s life—for the protection of common liberty.

While patriotism is evident throughout history, it was not always considered a civic virtue. In 18th-century Europe, for example, devotion to the state was considered a betrayal of devotion to the church.   

Other 18th-century scholars also found fault with what they considered excessive patriotism. In 1775, Samuel Johnson , whose 1774 essay The Patriot had criticized those who falsely claimed devotion to Britain, famously called patriotism “the last refuge of the scoundrel.”

Arguably, America’s first patriots were its Founding Fathers who had risked their very lives to create a nation that reflected their visions of freedom with equality. They summarized this vision in The Declaration of Independence :

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

In that single sentence, the Founders dispelled the long-held belief of the ruling British Monarchy that an individual’s pursuit of personal happiness was nothing more than a disloyal act of self-indulgence. Instead, they acknowledged that the right of each citizen to pursue personal fulfillment was essential to the qualities, such as ambition and creativity, that would fuel the nation’s economy. As a result, the pursuit of happiness became and remains the force behind America’s entrepreneurial system of free-market capitalism .  

The Declaration of Independence further states, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” In this phrase, the Founding Fathers rejected the autocratic rule of monarchs and confirmed the revolutionary principle of “government of the people, by the people” as the basis of American democracy and the reason the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution begins with the words “We the People.”

Examples of Patriotism

There are countless ways of showing patriotism. Standing for the National Anthem and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance are obvious ones. Perhaps more importantly, many of the most beneficial acts of patriotism in the U.S. are those that both celebrate the country and make it stronger. A few of these include:

• Participating in the representative democracy by registering to vote and voting in elections .
• Volunteering for community service or running for elected government office.
• Serving on juries.
• Obeying all laws and paying taxes.
• Understanding the rights, freedoms, and responsibilities contained in the U.S. Constitution.

Patriotism vs. Nationalism

While the words patriotism and nationalism were once considered synonyms, they have taken on different connotations. While both are the feelings of love people feel for their country, the values upon which those feelings are based are very different.

Feelings of patriotism are based on the positive values the country embraces—like freedom, justice, and equality. The patriot believes that both the system of government and the people of their country are inherently good and work together for a better quality of life.

In contrast, feelings of nationalism are based on a belief that one’s country is superior to all others. It also carries a connotation of distrust or disapproval of other countries, leading to the assumption that other countries are rivals. While patriots do not automatically denigrate other countries, nationalists do, sometimes to the point of calling for their country’s global dominance. Nationalism, through its protectionist beliefs, is the polar opposite of globalism .

Historically, the effects of nationalism have been both positive and negative. While it has driven independence movements, like the Zionist movement that created modern Israel, it was also a key factor in the rise of the German Nazi Party , and the Holocaust . 

Patriotism versus nationalism arose as a political issue when U.S. President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron verbally sparred over the meaning of the terms.

At a rally on October 23, 2018, President Trump defended his populist “Make America Great Again” platform and protectionist policies of tariffs on foreign imports, officially declaring himself a “nationalist":

“A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much,” he said. “And you know what? We can't have that. You know, they have a word. It sort of became old-fashioned. It's called a nationalist. And I say, really, we’re not supposed to use that word. You know what I am? I’m a nationalist, OK? I’m a nationalist.”

President Macron, speaking at the 100th Armistice Day ceremony in Paris on November 11, 2018, offered a different meaning of nationalism. He defined nationalism as “putting our nation first, and not caring about the others.” By rejecting the interests of other countries, Macon asserted, “we erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what makes it great and what is essential, its moral values.”

Pros and Cons of Patriotism

Few countries survive and prosper without some degree of patriotic feelings among their people. A love of country and shared pride bring the people together, helping them endure challenges. Without shared patriotic beliefs, colonial Americans may not have chosen to travel the road to independence from England. More recently, patriotism brought the American people together to overcome the Great Depression and achieve victory in World War II .

The potential downside of patriotism is that if it becomes a mandatory political doctrine, it can be used to turn groups of people against each other and can even lead the country to reject its fundamental values.

A few examples from United States history include:

As early as 1798, extreme patriotism, spurred by fears a war with France, led Congress to enact the Alien and Sedition Acts allowing the jailing of certain U.S. immigrants without due process of law and restricting the First Amendment freedoms of speech and the press .

In 1919, early fears of Communism triggered the Palmer raids resulting in the arrest and immediate deportation without trial of more than 10,000 German- and Russian-American immigrants.

After the December 7, 1941, Japanese air raid on Pearl Harbor , the Franklin Roosevelt administration ordered some 127,000 American citizens of Japanese ancestry imprisoned in internment camps for the duration of World War II.

During the Red Scare of the early 1950s, the McCarthy era saw thousands of Americans accused without evidence by the government of being communists or communist sympathizers. After a series of so-called “investigations” conducted by Senator Joseph McCarthy, hundreds of those accused were ostracized and prosecuted for their political beliefs.

• Johnson, Samuel (1774). “ The Patriot .” SamuelJohnson.com
• “ Nationalism .” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Plato.stanford.edu
• Boswell, James, Hibbert, “The Life of Samuel Johnson.” Penguin Classics, ISBN 0-14-043116-0
• Diamond, Jeremy. “ Trump embraces 'nationalist' title at Texas rally .” CNN (October 23, 2018)
• Liptak. Kevin. “ Macron rebukes nationalism as Trump observes Armistice Day. ” CNN (November 12, 2018)
• What Is Nationalism? Definition and Examples
• Regionalism: Definition and Examples
• Veterans Day Quotes
• Barack Obama's Inspiring 2004 Democratic Convention Speech
• What Is Totalitarianism? Definition and Examples
• 32 Patriotic Independence Day Quotes
• Your Rights and Responsibilities as a New US Citizen
• 'On National Prejudices' by Oliver Goldsmith
• Comparing Nationalism in China and Japan
• What Are Individual Rights? Definition and Examples
• Understanding Political Culture
• Causes of the Russian Revolution
• What Is Democracy? Definition and Examples
• Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism, and Fascism
• What Is Sectionalism? Definition and Examples
• Republic vs. Democracy: What Is the Difference?

Patriotism vs. Nationalism: What’s The Difference?

You’ve probably heard of public servants carrying out great acts of patriotism . You’ve probably also heard of concerns of a rising wave of nationalism around the world. Yes, both words involve some form of pride in one’s country, but there is an incredibly important distinction to be made between the two.

Historically, both patriotism and nationalism were used roughly in the same way. But they significantly diverged along the way, and one has a much more positive connotation than the other. Do you know which is which?

In this article, we’ll explain the difference between patriotism and nationalism , the different forms they can take and what they can lead to, as well as how to use them correctly.

What is the difference between patriotism and nationalism ?

The word patriotism is a noun that means “devoted love, support, and defense of one’s country; national loyalty.”

The term often brings to mind people directly involved with the defense of a nation, namely military service members as well as state and local government representatives. For example: The soldiers showed exemplary patriotism defending their country from attack.

Patriotism, however, can take many other forms outside serving in the military and public office. Diplomats , teachers, first responders , and so many more all exemplify patriotism in the many forms of good they do in service of their communities.

There are millions of government employees, as well as millions who volunteer their time in the interest of their country. Individual acts of pride, such as displaying an American flag at one’s home, are also examples of patriotism .

The word patriotism is first recorded in the early 1700s. Interestingly, by the 1770s, the word patriot could refer to “a member of a resistance movement, a freedom fighter,” specifically those who fought against the British in the war for independence—associations that persist today.

Patriotism is based on patriot , which is recorded in the 1500s. This word ultimately derives from Greek patriṓtēs , “fellow-countryman or lineage member.” The root of this word, in turn, means “ fatherland .” Paternal , patriarchy , and even English’s own father are related.

Go Behind The Words!

• By clicking "Sign Up", you are accepting Dictionary.com Terms & Conditions and Privacy policies.
• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

In most contexts today, nationalism is “the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one’s own nation viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.” In short, nationalism is a kind of excessive, aggressive patriotism.

Modern nationalism is rooted, in part, in French and American revolutions that fought for the sovereignty of their people over monarchies. This historic nationalism is generally viewed favorably, a cornerstone of Western liberalism and democracy.

However, fascist regimes have merged the fervor of nationalism with the notions of superiority, especially when it comes to ethnicity and religion. In such contexts,  “patriots” can become those who happened to agree with you or look like you, and “traitors” those who do not.

This form of nationalism is what happens when patriotism gets out of hand and morphs into something more exclusionary, isolationist, and … well, chauvinist . For example, The lecturer’s speech on immigration and foreign policy quickly devolved into nationalism , blaming undocumented migrants for the climbing unemployment rate, making much of the audience feel uneasy .

Such nationalism can result in jingoism , which is a form of extreme nationalism promoting vigilant preparedness for war and an aggressive foreign policy. It can also result in  isolationism , or “the policy or doctrine of isolating one’s country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreement.”

Recorded in the early 1800s, nationalism , as you probably guessed, is based on nation , ultimately from a Latin word meaning “birth, tribe.”

How to use patriotism vs. nationalism

When using these words, it’s important to keep context, and connotation , in mind:

Patriotism generally has a positive connotation. It’s used for various positive sentiments, attitudes, and actions involving loving one’s country and serving the great good of all its people.

Nationalism generally has a negative connotation. It’s used for political ideologies and movements that a more extreme and exclusionary love of one’s country—at the expense of foreigners, immigrants, and even people in a country who aren’t believed to belong in some way, often racial and religious grounds.

Commonly Confused

Trending Words

[ noo-sh uh - tel ]

• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Nationalism vs Patriotism – Differences and Similarities

The key difference between nationalism and patriotism is that nationalism is the belief in an exclusionary and insular nation-state, while patriotism is the non-exclusionary love of your own nation.

Here is a breakdown of the differences:

• Nationalism is a belief that your nation sits that the top of a hierarchy of nations. You believe your nation’s interests are is inherently more important than those of any other country in the world.
• Patriotism , on the other hand, is simply the love of your country and culture. Patriots know that you can love your own nation without thinking it’s objectively better than anyone else’s.

While nationalism and patriotism both represent love of country, patriotism is seen as a positive form of self-expression whereas nationalism is seen as an exclusionary act and assertion of power.

Table of Differences: Nationalism vs Patriotism

What is nationalism.

Nationalism is an ideological and political movement that promotes the idea of a particular nation as an inherently superior or infallible entity.

The concept of nationalism has also been used to promote the idea of a unified people or culture, and it has sometimes been used to promote xenophobic or imperialist attitudes.

There are at least 14 types of nationalism that sit along a spectrum.

On the softer end of the spectrum, versions of nationalism such as civic nationalism overlap significantly with patriotism. For example, civic and liberal nationalists believe in the rule of law , multiculturalism, and democracy (and see these values as central reasons why their country is ‘great’).

On the other end of the spectrum, ethnonationalism and expansionist nationalism can lead to ethnic cleansing and world wars.

What is Patriotism?

Patriotism is feeling proud of and loyal to one’s country. It can stem from having a soft spot for your culture and neighbors or appreciation of everything the country gave you as you were growing up.

Patriotism can manifest in many ways, including:

• Standing for election to represent your nation
• Supporting your country’s football team
• Playing in your country’s football team
• Celebrating national holidays
• Showing pride in your national identity
• Fighting for your country in the military
• Working to make your country a better place

While the above actions can also be the actions of nationalists, patriots do these things only because they love their country and want the best for it and not because they see their country as being in a contest with other countries to be the objectively “best” group of people in the world.

Nationalism vs Supranationalism

Supranationalism is a term related to nationalism, but it is actually anti- nationalistic. Supranationalism refers to the idea of multiple nations coming together to form a higher authority, such as a supranational organization or government. Nationalism, as we have seen, prioritizes the opposite: nationalism is against ceding sovereignty. While nationalists emphasize national culture, identity, and independence, spranationalists emphasize cooperation, interdependence, and a shared cross-border identity.

Patriotism and nationalism are two sides of the same coin. While both involve love of your country, patriots see their love of their country as a subjective feeling while nationalists think that their country is objectively the greatest nation on earth.

While patriotism is generally seen as a positive trait representing pride in your heritage, nationalism tends to be seen as more extreme. Nationalism has led to significant harm, discrimination, prejudice, and war.

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Animism Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 10 Magical Thinking Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Social-Emotional Learning (Definition, Examples, Pros & Cons)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ What is Educational Psychology?

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Patriotism vs. Nationalism: Understanding the Key Differences

By: Author English Study Online

Posted on Last updated: March 9, 2024

Sharing is caring!

When it comes to expressing love and loyalty towards one’s country, the terms patriotism and nationalism are often used interchangeably. However, there is a significant difference between the two concepts. While both patriotism and nationalism involve a deep affection for one’s country, nationalism can take on an extreme form that can be harmful to other nations and people.

Patriotism vs. Nationalism

Table of Contents

What is Patriotism?

Defining patriotism.

Patriotism is the feeling of love, devotion, and sense of attachment to one’s country, often expressed by a willingness to sacrifice for it, and the celebration of the nation’s history, culture, and values.

Patriotism is characterized by a deep love and loyalty to one’s country. It involves a sense of pride in one’s national identity and a desire to defend one’s country from external threats. Patriotism is often associated with sacrifice and service to one’s country.

Some key characteristics of patriotism include:

• Love and devotion to one’s country
• Pride in national identity
• Desire to defend one’s country
• Willingness to sacrifice for the common good
• Service to one’s country

Historical Context

The concept of patriotism can be traced back to ancient civilizations such as Greece and Rome. In these societies, patriotism was seen as a virtue and a duty of citizens to defend their city-state. During the Middle Ages, loyalty to one’s lord or king was considered a form of patriotism.

The modern concept of patriotism emerged during the Age of Enlightenment, when the idea of the nation-state became popular. In the 18th and 19th centuries, patriotism became associated with the defense of national identity and the promotion of national unity.

What is Nationalism?

Defining nationalism.

Nationalism is a political ideology that emphasizes the interests and culture of a particular nation, often in contrast to those of other nations. It is a belief system that holds that a nation, defined by its language, culture, and history, is the most important unit of political identity and that the interests of the nation should be prioritized over those of other nations or international organizations.

Nationalism is characterized by several key features. These include:

• A belief in the importance of the nation as a political entity
• A focus on the interests of the nation, often to the exclusion of other nations or international organizations
• A sense of pride in the nation’s history, culture, and achievements
• A belief in the superiority of the nation’s values and way of life
• A desire for national self-determination, often expressed through demands for independence or autonomy
• A willingness to defend the nation’s interests, often through military means

Nationalism emerged as a political force in the late 18th and early 19th centuries in Europe, as a reaction to the rise of the modern nation-state and the decline of traditional empires. It was closely linked to the idea of self-determination, which held that each nation should have its own state and government. Nationalism played a key role in the unification of Italy and Germany in the 19th century and the breakup of multinational empires such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire after World War I.

Patriotism vs. Nationalism: Examples in Society

Examples of patriotism.

Patriotism can be seen in many different aspects of society. It is often expressed through symbols such as the national flag or anthem. Patriotism can also be seen in the actions of individuals who serve in the military or other public service roles.

Examples of patriotism in society include:

• Military service
• Public service
• Displaying the national flag or other symbols of national identity
• Supporting national sports teams
• Celebrating national holidays

In conclusion, patriotism is a complex and multifaceted concept that has evolved over time. It is characterized by a deep love and loyalty to one’s country and a desire to defend it from external threats. Patriotism can be seen in many different aspects of society, from military service to public displays of national identity.

Examples of Nationalism

Nationalism has played a significant role in many historical and contemporary events. Some examples of nationalism in action include:

• The rise of Nazi Germany and its emphasis on Aryan supremacy and the need for Lebensraum (living space)
• The breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, as various ethnic groups sought to establish their own independent states
• The ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine, which is rooted in competing national claims to the same territory
• The rise of populist nationalist movements in many countries, including the United States, Hungary, and Brazil, which have emphasized the interests of the nation over those of international organizations or global cooperation.

Patriotism vs. Nationalism : A Comparative Analysis

Differences in ideology.

Patriotism and nationalism are often used interchangeably, but they are not the same thing. Patriotism is a love for one’s country and a willingness to defend it against enemies. Nationalism, on the other hand, is an extreme form of patriotism that emphasizes the superiority of one’s country over all others.

Patriotism is based on the idea that a nation is made up of individuals who share common values, traditions, and beliefs. It is a unifying force that brings people together and promotes a sense of community. Nationalism, on the other hand, is based on the idea that a nation is defined by its ethnicity, language, or culture. This can lead to exclusionary policies that discriminate against minority groups.

Impact on Society

Patriotism and nationalism have different impacts on society. Patriotism promotes a sense of unity and belonging, which can lead to a stronger and more cohesive society. It encourages people to work together for the common good and to support each other in times of need.

Nationalism, on the other hand, can be divisive and lead to conflict. It can create an “us vs. them” mentality that pits one group against another. This can lead to discrimination, prejudice, and even violence against minority groups.

Role in Politics

Patriotism and nationalism also play different roles in politics. Patriotism is often used to rally support for a government or a cause. It can be a unifying force that brings people together behind a common goal.

Nationalism, on the other hand, can be used to justify aggressive or expansionist policies. It can lead to a sense of entitlement that justifies the use of force to achieve political goals. This can lead to conflicts with other countries and even wars.

Implications of Patriotism and Nationalism

Influence on international relations.

Patriotism and nationalism can have a significant impact on international relations. Countries that prioritize patriotism tend to focus on their own interests and may be less willing to engage in international cooperation. On the other hand, countries that prioritize nationalism may view their own country as superior to others, leading to conflicts with other nations.

For example, during World War II, Nazi Germany’s extreme nationalism led to the invasion of other countries and the genocide of millions of people. In contrast, the United States’ patriotism during the war led to a focus on protecting their own country and allies, while also working with other nations to defeat the Axis powers.

Effect on Domestic Policies

Patriotism and nationalism can also have an impact on domestic policies. A country that prioritizes patriotism may focus on improving the lives of its citizens and promoting national unity. However, this can sometimes lead to policies that exclude or discriminate against minority groups.

On the other hand, a country that prioritizes nationalism may prioritize the interests of the majority group over minority groups, potentially leading to discrimination and social unrest.

For example, in India, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) promotes nationalism and Hindu supremacy, leading to policies that discriminate against Muslims and other minority groups. In contrast, countries like Canada and Australia prioritize patriotism, which has led to policies promoting multiculturalism and inclusivity.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are some examples of patriotism?

Patriotism can manifest in various ways, such as displaying the national flag, participating in national holidays and events, supporting national sports teams, and showing respect for national symbols and institutions. Patriotism also involves a sense of duty towards the country, including voting, paying taxes, and serving in the military or other public service.

What is the importance of patriotism?

Patriotism can help foster a sense of national unity and identity, which can be important for a country’s stability and prosperity. It can also inspire individuals to work towards the betterment of their country and fellow citizens. However, excessive patriotism can lead to xenophobia, discrimination, and a blind acceptance of government policies.

What is the importance of nationalism?

Nationalism is the belief that one’s country is superior to others and should have control over its own affairs. It can be a powerful force for mobilizing people towards a common goal, such as independence or national pride. However, extreme nationalism can lead to conflicts with other countries and groups, as well as a disregard for human rights and international cooperation.

What are the similarities between nationalism and patriotism?

Nationalism and patriotism both involve a love and loyalty towards one’s country, as well as a desire to promote its interests and values. They can both inspire people to work towards the betterment of their country and fellow citizens. However, nationalism is often associated with a more aggressive and exclusive form of national pride, while patriotism is seen as a more inclusive and tolerant form of national pride.

How does Orwell differentiate between nationalism and patriotism?

George Orwell famously wrote that “Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism.” He argued that nationalism involves a desire for power and domination over others, while patriotism involves a love and loyalty towards one’s country without necessarily seeking to impose it on others. Orwell believed that nationalism was a dangerous force that could lead to war and oppression.

What is the difference between nationalism and patriotism?

The main difference between nationalism and patriotism is the extent of one’s loyalty and pride towards their country. Nationalism involves a belief in the superiority of one’s country and a desire to promote its interests above those of others, often at the expense of international cooperation and human rights. Patriotism involves a love and loyalty towards one’s country, but without necessarily believing it is superior to others or seeking to dominate them.

You might also like:

• Humility vs. Humble
• Verb vs. Adverb
• Satan vs. Lucifer
• Assertive vs. Turbulent

"}},{"@type":"Question","name":"What is the importance of patriotism?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"

Patriotism can help foster a sense of national unity and identity, which can be important for a country's stability and prosperity. It can also inspire individuals to work towards the betterment of their country and fellow citizens. However, excessive patriotism can lead to xenophobia, discrimination, and a blind acceptance of government policies.

"}},{"@type":"Question","name":"What is the importance of nationalism?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"

Nationalism is the belief that one's country is superior to others and should have control over its own affairs. It can be a powerful force for mobilizing people towards a common goal, such as independence or national pride. However, extreme nationalism can lead to conflicts with other countries and groups, as well as a disregard for human rights and international cooperation.

"}},{"@type":"Question","name":"What are the similarities between nationalism and patriotism?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"

Nationalism and patriotism both involve a love and loyalty towards one's country, as well as a desire to promote its interests and values. They can both inspire people to work towards the betterment of their country and fellow citizens. However, nationalism is often associated with a more aggressive and exclusive form of national pride, while patriotism is seen as a more inclusive and tolerant form of national pride.

"}},{"@type":"Question","name":"How does Orwell differentiate between nationalism and patriotism?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"

George Orwell famously wrote that \"Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism.\" He argued that nationalism involves a desire for power and domination over others, while patriotism involves a love and loyalty towards one's country without necessarily seeking to impose it on others. Orwell believed that nationalism was a dangerous force that could lead to war and oppression.

"}},{"@type":"Question","name":"What is the difference between nationalism and patriotism?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"

The main difference between nationalism and patriotism is the extent of one's loyalty and pride towards their country. Nationalism involves a belief in the superiority of one's country and a desire to promote its interests above those of others, often at the expense of international cooperation and human rights. Patriotism involves a love and loyalty towards one's country, but without necessarily believing it is superior to others or seeking to dominate them.

• Recent Posts

• Sometime vs. Some Time: Understanding the Difference - March 25, 2024
• Loss vs. Lose: Understanding the Key Differences - March 9, 2024
• Patriotism vs. Nationalism: Understanding the Key Differences - March 9, 2024

What is the difference between nationalism and patriotism?

Assistant Professor of Political Science, Westminster College

Disclosure statement

Joshua Holzer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

View all partners

During his presidency, Donald Trump said, “We’re putting America first … we’re taking care of ourselves for a change,” and then declared, “ I’m a nationalist .” In another speech , he stated that under his watch, the U.S. had “ embrace[d] the doctrine of patriotism .”

Trump is now running for president again. When he announced his candidacy, he stated that he “ need[s] every patriot on board because this is not just a campaign, this is a quest to save our country.”

One week later he dined in Mar-a-Lago with Nick Fuentes , a self-described nationalist who’s been banned from Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube and other platforms for using racist and antisemitic language .

Afterward, Trump confirmed that meeting but did not denounce Fuentes, despite calls for him to do so .

The words nationalism and patriotism are sometimes used as synonyms, such as when Trump and his supporters describe his America First agenda. But many political scientists , including me , don’t typically see those two terms as equivalent – or even compatible.

There is a difference, and it’s important, not just to scholars but to regular citizens as well.

Devotion to a people

To understand what nationalism is, it’s useful to understand what a nation is – and isn’t.

A nation is a group of people who share a history, culture, language, religion or some combination thereof.

A country , which is sometimes called a state in political science terminology, is an area of land that has its own government.

A nation-state is a homogeneous political entity mostly comprising a single nation. Nation-states are rare , because nearly every country is home to more than one national group. One example of a nation-state would be North Korea , where almost all residents are ethnic Koreans.

The United States is neither a nation nor a nation-state. Rather, it is a country of many different groups of people who have a variety of shared histories, cultures, languages and religions.

Some of those groups are formally recognized by the federal government, such as the Navajo Nation and the Cherokee Nation . Similarly, in Canada, the French-speaking Québécois are recognized as being a distinct “ nation within a united Canada .”

Nationalism is, per one dictionary definition, “ loyalty and devotion to a nation .” It is a person’s strong affinity for those who share the same history, culture, language or religion. Scholars understand nationalism as exclusive , boosting one identity group over – and at times in direct opposition to – others.

The Oath Keepers and Proud Boys – 10 of whom were convicted of seditious conspiracy for their role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol – are both examples of white nationalist groups, which believe that immigrants and people of color are a threat to their ideals of civilization.

Trump has described the events that took place on Jan. 6, 2021, as having occurred “ Peacefully & Patrioticly ”. He has described those who have been imprisoned as “ great patriots ” and has said that he would pardon “ a large portion of them ” if elected in 2024.

There are many other nationalisms beyond white nationalism. The Nation of Islam , for instance, is an example of a Black nationalist group. The Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center have both characterized it as a Black supremacist hate group for its anti-white prejudices.

In addition to white and Black racial nationalisms , there are also ethnic and lingustic nationalisms, which typically seek greater autonomy for – and the eventual independence of – certain national groups. Examples include the Bloc Québécois , the Scottish Nationalist Party and Plaid Cymru – the Party of Wales , which are nationalist political parties that respectively advocate for the Québécois of Québéc, the Scots of Scotland and the Welsh of Wales.

Devotion to a place

In contrast to nationalism’s loyalty for or devotion to one’s nation, patriotism is, per the same dictionary, “ love for or devotion to one’s country .” It comes from the word patriot , which itself can be traced back to the Greek word patrios , which means “of one’s father.”

In other words, patriotism has historically meant a love for and devotion to one’s fatherland , or country of origin.

Patriotism encompasses devotion to the country as a whole – including all the people who live within it. Nationalism refers to devotion to only one group of people over all others.

An example of patriotism would be Martin Luther King Jr.’s “ I Have a Dream ” speech, in which he recites the first verse of the patriotic song “ America (My Country ‘Tis of Thee) .” In his “ Letter from Birmingham Jail ,” King describes “nationalist groups” as being “ made up of people who have lost faith in America .”

George Orwell, the author of “ Animal Farm ” and “ Nineteen Eighty-Four ,” describes patriotism as “ devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life.”

He contrasted that with nationalism, which he describes as “the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests.”

Nationalism vs. patriotism

Adolf Hitler’s rise in Germany was accomplished by perverting patriotism and embracing nationalism. According to Charles de Gaulle , who led Free France against Nazi Germany during World War II and later became president of France, “ Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first .”

The tragedy of the Holocaust was rooted in the nationalistic belief that certain groups of people were inferior. While Hitler is a particularly extreme example , in my own research as a human rights scholar , I have found that even in contemporary times, countries with nationalist leaders are more likely to have bad human rights records.

After World War II, President Harry Truman signed the Marshall Plan , which would provide postwar aid to Europe. The intent of the program was to help European countries “ break away from the self-defeating actions of narrow nationalism .”

For Truman, putting America first did not mean exiting the global stage and sowing division at home with nationalist actions and rhetoric . Rather, he viewed the “principal concern of the people of the United States” to be “the creation of conditions of enduring peace throughout the world.” For him, patriotically putting the interests of his country first meant fighting against nationalism.

This view is in line with that of French President Emmanuel Macron , who has stated that “ patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism .”

“ Nationalism,” he says, “is a betrayal of patriotism .”

• US politics
• Human rights
• George Orwell
• Political science
• Nationalism
• Adolf Hitler
• Donald Trump
• Harry Truman
• Emmanuel Macron
• America First
• "America First"
• Marjorie Taylor Greene

Case Management Specialist

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

The Difference Between 'Patriotism' and 'Nationalism'

One of the many difficulties inherent in creating a dictionary that accurately reflects the language of any large group of people is that these people may not all view certain words and values as equal. Nationalism and patriotism present us with an appropriately problematic pair with which to illustrate this. Are these words synonymous? Is one an insult, and the other not? Can either of them mean different things to different people?

How does the speaker or writer define them?

Let’s take a few minutes to go over the respective histories of these two words to see where and when they shared meaning and in what senses they have drifted apart.

Patriotism is the older of the two words, with published written evidence dating back to the middle of the 17th century. Patriotism came from adding the suffix of - ism to the existing word patriot , which itself came into English from the French patriote , and may be traced back further to the Greek word patrios (“of one’s father”).

There is hardly any judicious man but knoweth, that it was neither learning, piety, nor  patriotism that perswaded any of that Nation to Presbytery…. —C.N., Reasons Why the Supreme Authority of the Three Nations (for the time) is not in the Parliament , 1653 There hath been in London, and repairing to it, for these many yeers together, a knot of Scotish bankers, collybists, or coinecoursers, of traffickers in Merchandise to and againe, and of men of other professions, who…hug all unto themselves; that, for no respect of vertue, honor, kinred,  patriotism, or whatever else…whereof those quomodocunquizing clusterfists and rapacious varlets have given of late such cannibal-like proofs, by their inhumanity and obdurate carriage towards some (whose shoos-strings they are not worthy to unty) that were it not that a more able pen then mine, will assuredly not faile to jerk them on all sides…. —Thomas Urquhart, Ekskybalauron , 1652

(Quick side note: the Urquhart citation above serves two purposes, being both our earliest written evidence of the word patriotism and a fine excuse for drawing the reader’s attention to the beautifully splenetic turn of phrase “quomodocunquizing clusterfists.” These two words are archaic enough to only be defined in the Oxford English Dictionary, which informs us that the former is “that makes money in any possible way,” and the latter is “a ‘close-fisted’ or grasping fellow.” Should you ever find yourself in need of an insult that is not hackneyed and stale we wholeheartedly recommend quomodocunquizing clusterfist . End of side note.)

We do not have any evidence of nationalism occurring until just before the 19th century, almost a hundred and fifty years after patriotism . And in its early use, from the end of the 18th century onward for a number of decades, nationalism appears to have been largely interchangeable with patriotism , with both words primarily being used to refer to a general love of one’s country.

Nationalism must involve the consecrated devotion of a responsive citizenship, sound policies must have universal faith and unsound vagaries must have universal condemnation. — The Marion County News (Hamilton, AL), 1 Jan. 1820 Modern France, instead of diminishing, has, if possible, encreased this nationalism . Removed from his oppression and atrocities, they see nothing but the magnificence, the success and the splendor of Bonaparte, and I assure you that every poor, ignorant, stupid Creole, when he hears of an achievement of this their Demi God, evinces a lively interest, an exultation as if some choice unlooked for gift of heaven had blessed his family. — Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia, PA), 11 Oct. 1811 If there be not Conservatism, and Nationalism, and Patriotism enough in the North to rise up and overwhelm with numbers the spirit that points to the the election of anybody but Fremont (or of Fremont) as the prelude to civil war, we had better seek to save as much fratricidal blood as possible in a peaceable line of immediate separation. — New York Daily News , 1 Jul. 1856

These two words may have shared a distinct sense in the 19th century, but they appear to have grown apart since. Or rather, it would be more accurate to say that only nationalism has grown apart, since the meaning of patriotism has remained largely unchanged. There are still obvious areas of overlap: we define patriotism as “love for or devotion to one’s country” and nationalism in part as “loyalty and devotion to a nation.” But the definition of nationalism also includes “exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.” This exclusionary aspect is not shared by patriotism .

A somewhat subtler difference between the two words may be found in their modifiers and the ideas to which each is connected. When we examine large bodies of recent text we see that patriotism is more often used in a general sense, often in conjunction with such words as bravery , valor , duty , and devotion . Nationalism , however, tends to find itself modified by specific movements, most frequently of a political bent.

In one respect, the insanities of 1947 are reverberating now with growing Hindu nationalism in a professedly secular India. – Kashmir Monitor , 14 Aug. 2017 Today, more than two decades into a democratic South Africa, Afrikaner nationalism has been severely diminished and along with it the standing of Afrikaans in the public sector. — The New Age (Johannesburg, South Africa), 2 May 2017 Canadian Nationalism emerged 150 years ago, and has always been defended and protected not only by the spoken word but also, if required, by a dedicated military. —Rosie Sanchez, Prairie Post East (Swift Current, Sask.), 7 Jul 2017 Founded in 2014—two years after Burma experienced religiously motivated riots largely targeting the Muslim minority—and now with sub-chapters across the country, Ma Ba Tha has become virtually synonymous with Buddhist nationalism. — Asia News Monitor (Bangkok), 7 Jul. 2017 Over the last few years, however, a strong contender in the form of Tamil nationalism has emerged because Tamil Nadu got into river water disputes with all the neighbouring states and the neighbours did not seem to care much for Dravidian niceties although Telugus, Kannadigas and Malayalis are putatively Dravidian. — The Times of India (New Delhi), 4 Mar. 2017 His defeat by Plaid Cymru’s Gwynfor Evans at Carmarthen in 1966 stemmed not from any upsurge in Welsh nationalism, but rather a sudden deterioration in the fortunes of Harold Wilson’s government. — The Telegraph (London, UK), 5 Apr. 2017

So now that we’ve briefly looked over the history of patriotism and nationalism can we draw any firm conclusions about whether one or the other is pejorative? The answer is: it depends. It seems certain that, at least with nationalism , it may mean different things to different people. Of the six different kinds of X nationalism cited just above, it is likely that most people would find some politically questionable, and others not. Patriotism is rarely used in these contexts.

In U.S. usage nationalism is now perhaps most frequently associated with white nationalism , and has considerably negative connotations.

Some of us imagined that we dented the nationalism, hatred and racism that roiled the world in the first half of the 20th century. —Jeanette Friedman-Sieradski (letter to editor), The Times-Tribune (Scranton, PA), 12 Mar. 2017 And while coded appeals to racism or nationalism aren’t new—two words: Southern strategy—overt calls to temporarily bar Muslims from entry to the United States or questioning a federal judge’s impartiality based on his Mexican heritage are new. —Jim Rutenberg, The New York Times , 8 Aug. 2016

As a dictionary, we must weigh all matters of semantic and regional difference. Therefore we can offer no firm guidance as to whether or not nationalism qualifies as an insult across the board. We can, however, advocate for the revival of the tradition of insult with precision.

May we again recommend quomodocunquizing clusterfist ?

Word of the Day

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Games & Quizzes

Commonly Confused

'canceled' or 'cancelled', 'virus' vs. 'bacteria', your vs. you're: how to use them correctly, is it 'jail' or 'prison', 'deduction' vs. 'induction' vs. 'abduction', grammar & usage, more words you always have to look up, 'fewer' and 'less', 7 pairs of commonly confused words, more commonly misspelled words, every letter is silent, sometimes: a-z list of examples, great big list of beautiful and useless words, vol. 4, 9 other words for beautiful, why jaywalking is called jaywalking, the words of the week - may 17, birds say the darndest things.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Patriotism raises questions of the sort philosophers characteristically discuss: How is patriotism to be defined? How is it related to similar attitudes, such as nationalism? What is its moral standing: is it morally valuable or perhaps even mandatory, or is it rather a stance we should avoid? Yet until a few decades ago, philosophers used to show next to no interest in the subject. The article on patriotism in the Historical Dictionary of Philosophy , reviewing the use of the term from the 16 th century to our own times, gives numerous references, but they are mostly to authors who were not philosophers. Moreover, of the few well known philosophers cited, only one, J. G. Fichte, gave the subject more than a passing reference – and most of what Fichte had to say actually pertains to nationalism, rather than patriotism (see Busch and Dierse 1989).

This changed in the 1980s. The change was due, in part, to the revival of communitarianism, which came in response to the individualistic, liberal political and moral philosophy epitomized by John Rawls’ Theory of Justice (1971); but it was also due to the resurgence of nationalism in several parts of the world. The beginning of this change was marked by Andrew Oldenquist’s account of morality as a matter of various loyalties, rather than abstract principles and ideals (Oldenquist 1982), and Alasdair MacIntyre’s argument that patriotism is a central moral virtue (MacIntyre 1984). Largely in response to MacIntyre, some philosophers have defended constrained or deflated versions of patriotism (Baron 1989, Nathanson 1989, Primoratz 2002). Others have argued against patriotism of any sort (Gomberg 1990, McCabe 1997, Keller 2005). There is now a lively philosophical debate about the moral credentials of patriotism that shows no signs of abating. A parallel discussion in political philosophy concerns the kind of patriotism that might provide an alternative to nationalism as the ethos of a stable, well-functioning polity.

1.1 What is patriotism?

1.2 patriotism and nationalism, 2.1 patriotism and the ethics of belief, 2.2 the moral standing of patriotism, 3. the political import of patriotism, other internet resources, related entries, 1. conceptual issues.

The standard dictionary definition reads “love of one’s country.” This captures the core meaning of the term in ordinary use; but it might well be thought too thin and in need of fleshing out. In the first philosophical book-length study of the subject, Stephen Nathanson (1993, 34–35) defines patriotism as involving:

• Special affection for one’s own country
• A sense of personal identification with the country
• Special concern for the well-being of the country
• Willingness to sacrifice to promote the country’s good

There is little to cavil about here. There is no great difference between special affection and love, and Nathanson himself uses the terms interchangeably. Although love (or special affection) is usually given expression in special concern for its object, that is not necessary. But a person whose love for her country was not expressed in any special concern for it would scarcely be considered a patriot. Therefore the definition needs to include such concern. Once that is included, however, a willingness to make sacrifices for one’s country is implied, and need not be added as a separate component. Identification with the country, too, might be thought implied in the phrase “one’s country.” But the phrase is extremely vague, and allows for a country to be called “one’s own” in an extremely thin, formal sense too. It seems that if one is to be a patriot of a country, the country must be his in some significant sense; and that may be best captured by speaking of one’s identification with it. Such identification is expressed in vicarious feelings: in pride of one’s country’s merits and achievements, and in shame for its lapses or crimes (when these are acknowledged, rather than denied).

Accordingly, patriotism can be defined as love of one’s country, identification with it, and special concern for its well-being and that of compatriots.

This is only a definition. A fuller account of patriotism is beyond the scope of this article. Such an account would say something about the patriot’s beliefs about the merits of his country, his need to belong to a group and be a part of a more encompassing narrative, to be related to a past and a future that transcend the narrow confines of an individual’s life and its mundane concerns, as well as social and political conditions that affect the ebb and flow of patriotism, its political and cultural influence, and more.

Discussions of both patriotism and nationalism are often marred by lack of clarity due to the failure to distinguish the two. Many authors use the two terms interchangeably. Among those who do not, quite a few have made the distinction in ways that are not very helpful. In the 19 th century, Lord Acton contrasted “nationality” and patriotism as affection and instinct vs. a moral relation. Nationality is “our connection with the race” that is “merely natural or physical,” while patriotism is the awareness of our moral duties to the political community (Acton 1972, 163). In the 20 th century, Elie Kedourie did the opposite, presenting nationalism as a full-fledged philosophical and political doctrine about nations as basic units of humanity within which the individual can find freedom and fulfilment, and patriotism as mere sentiment of affection for one’s country (Kedourie 1985, 73–74).

George Orwell contrasted the two in terms of aggressive vs. defensive attitudes. Nationalism is about power: its adherent wants to acquire as much power and prestige as possible for his nation, in which he submerges his individuality. While nationalism is accordingly aggressive, patriotism is defensive: it is a devotion to a particular place and a way of life one thinks best, but has no wish to impose on others (Orwell 1968, 362). This way of distinguishing the two attitudes comes close to an approach popular among politicians and widespread in everyday discourse that indicates a double standard of the form “us vs. them.” Country and nation are first run together, and then patriotism and nationalism are distinguished in terms of the strength of the love and special concern one feels for it, the degree of one’s identification with it. When these are exhibited in a reasonable degree and without ill thoughts about others and hostile actions towards them, that is patriotism; when they become unbridled and cause one to think ill of others and act badly towards them, that is nationalism. Conveniently enough, it usually turns out that we are patriots, while they are nationalists (see Billig 1995, 55–59).

There is yet another way of distinguishing patriotism and nationalism – one that is quite simple and begs no moral questions. We can put aside the political sense of “nation” that makes it identical with “country,” “state,” or “polity,” and the political or civic type of nationalism related to it. We need concern ourselves only with the other, ethnic or cultural sense of “nation,” and focus on ethnic or cultural nationalism. In order to do so, we do not have to spell out the relevant understanding of “nation”; it is enough to characterize it in terms of common ancestry, history, and a set of cultural traits. Both patriotism and nationalism involve love of, identification with, and special concern for a certain entity. In the case of patriotism, that entity is one’s patria , one’s country; in the case of nationalism, that entity is one’s natio , one’s nation (in the ethnic/cultural sense of the term). Thus patriotism and nationalism are understood as the same type of set of beliefs and attitudes, and distinguished in terms of their objects, rather than the strength of those beliefs and attitudes, or as sentiment vs. theory.

To be sure, there is much overlap between country and nation, and therefore between patriotism and nationalism; thus much that applies to one will also apply to the other. But when a country is not ethnically homogeneous, or when a nation lacks a country of its own, the two may part ways.

2. Normative issues

Patriotism has had a fair number of critics. The harshest among them have judged it deeply flawed in every important respect. In the 19 th century, Russian novelist and thinker Leo Tolstoy found patriotism both stupid and immoral. It is stupid because every patriot holds his own country to be the best of all whereas, obviously, only one country can qualify. It is immoral because it enjoins us to promote our country’s interests at the expense of all other countries and by any means, including war, and is thus at odds with the most basic rule of morality, which tells us not to do to others what we would not want them to do to us (Tolstoy 1987, 97). Recently, Tolstoy’s critique has been seconded by American political theorist George Kateb, who argues that patriotism is “a mistake twice over: it is typically a grave moral error and its source is typically a state of mental confusion” (Kateb 2000, 901). Patriotism is most importantly expressed in a readiness to die and to kill for one’s country. But a country “is not a discernible collection of discernible individuals”; it is rather “an abstraction … a compound of a few actual and many imaginary ingredients.” Specifically, in addition to being a delimited territory, “it is also constructed out of transmitted memories true and false; a history usually mostly falsely sanitized or falsely heroized; a sense of kinship of a largely invented purity; and social ties that are largely invisible or impersonal, indeed abstract …” Therefore patriotism is “a readiness to die and to kill for an abstraction … for what is largely a figment of the imagination” (907).

Some of these objections can easily be countered. Even if full-fledged patriotism does involve a belief in one’s country’s merits, it need not involve the belief that one’s country is better than all others. And the fact that a country is not a collection of “discernible individuals” and that the social ties among compatriots are “largely invisible or impersonal,” rather than palpable and face-to-face, does not show that it is unreal or imaginary. As Benedict Anderson, who coined the term “imagined community,” points out, “all communities larger than primordial villages of face-to-face contact … are imagined.” “Imagined community” is not the opposite of “real community,” but rather of community whose members have face-to-face relations (Anderson 1991, 6).

However, there is another, more plausible line of criticism of patriotism focusing on its intellectual, rather than moral credentials. Moreover, Tolstoy’s and Kateb’s arguments questioning the moral legitimacy of patriotic partiality and those highlighting the connection of patriotism with international tensions and war cannot be so easily refuted.

When asked “why do you love your country?” or “why are you loyal to it?”, a patriot is likely to take the question to mean “what is so good about your country that you should love it, or be loyal to it?” and then adduce what she believes to be its virtues and achievements. This suggests that patriotism can be judged from the standpoint of ethics of belief – a set of norms for evaluating our beliefs and other doxastic states. Simon Keller has examined patriotism from this point of view, and found it wanting.

Keller argues that whereas one’s love of and loyalty to a family member or a friend may coexist with a low estimate of the person’s qualities, patriotism involves endorsement of one’s country. If the patriot is to endorse her country, she must consider her beliefs about the country’s virtues and achievements to be based on some objectively valid standards of value and an unbiased examination of the country’s past and present record that leads to the conclusion that it lives up to those standards. However, the patriot’s loyalty is not focused on her country simply because it instantiates a set of virtues a country can have. If that were the case, and if a neighboring country turned out to have such virtues to an even higher degree, the patriot’s loyalty would be redirected accordingly. She is loyal to her country because that country, and only that country, is her country; hers is a loyalty “in the first instance.” Thus the patriot is motivated to think of the patria as blessed by all manner of virtues and achievements whether the evidence, interpreted objectively, warrants that or not. Accordingly, she forms beliefs about her country in ways different from the ways in which she forms beliefs about other countries. Moreover, she cannot admit this motivation while at the same time remaining a patriot. This leads her to hide from herself the true source of some of the beliefs involved. This is bad faith. Bad faith is bad; so is patriotism, as well as every identity, individual or collective, constituted, in part, by patriotic loyalty. This, in Keller’s view, amounts to “a clear presumptive case against patriotism’s being a virtue and for its being a vice” (Keller 2005, 587–88).

This portrayal does seem accurate as far as much patriotism as we know it is concerned. Yet Keller may be overstating his case as one against patriotism as such. When queried about one’s loyalty to one’s country, couldn’t one say: “This is my country, my home; I need no further reason to be loyal to it and show special concern for its well-being”? This might not be a very satisfactory answer; we might agree with J.B. Zimmermann that “the love for one’s country … is in many cases no more than the love of an ass for its stall” (quoted in Nathanson 1993, 3). But however egocentric, irrational, asinine, surely it qualifies as patriotism. (In a later statement of his argument (2007a, 80–81), Keller seems to be of two minds on this point.)

Many think of patriotism as a natural and appropriate expression of attachment to the country in which we were born and raised and of gratitude for the benefits of life on its soil, among its people, and under its laws. They also consider patriotism an important component of our identity. Some go further, and argue that patriotism is morally mandatory, or even that it is the core of morality. There is, however, a major tradition in moral philosophy which understands morality as essentially universal and impartial, and seems to rule out local, partial attachment and loyalty. Adherents of this tradition tend to think of patriotism as a type of group egoism , a morally arbitrary partiality to “one’s own” at odds with demands of universal justice and common human solidarity. A related objection is that patriotism is exclusive in invidious and dangerous ways. Love of one’s own country characteristically goes together with dislike of and hostility towards other countries. It tends to encourage militarism, and makes for international tension and conflict. Tolstoy’s and Kateb’s moral objections to patriotism, mentioned above, are in line with this position.

What, then, is the moral status of patriotism? The question does not admit of a single answer. We can distinguish five types of patriotism, and each needs to be judged on its merits.

2.2.1 Extreme patriotism

Machiavelli is famous (or infamous) for teaching princes that, human nature being what it is, if they propose to do their job well, they must be willing to break their promises, to deceive, dissemble, and use violence, sometimes in cruel ways and on a large scale, when political circumstances require such actions. This may or may not be relevant to the question of patriotism, depending on just what we take the point of princely rule to be. A less well known part of Machiavelli’s teaching, however, is relevant; for he sought to impart the same lesson to politicians and common citizens of a republic. “When the safety of one’s country wholly depends on the decision to be taken, no attention should be paid either to justice or injustice, to kindness or cruelty, or to its being praiseworthy or ignominious” (Machiavelli 1998 [1518], 515). The paramount interests of one’s country override any moral consideration with which they might come into conflict.

This type of patriotism is extreme, but by no means extremely rare. It is adopted much too often by politicians and common citizens alike when their country’s major interests are thought to be at stake. It is encapsulated in the saying “our country, right or wrong,” at least on the simplest and most obvious construal of this saying. Not much needs to be said about the moral standing of this type of patriotism, as it amounts to rejection of morality. “Our country, right or wrong ” cannot be right.

2.2.2 Robust patriotism

In his seminal lecture “Is Patriotism a Virtue?” Alasdair MacIntyre contrasts patriotism with the liberal commitment to certain universal values and principles. On the liberal view, where and from whom I learn the principles of morality is just as irrelevant to their contents and to my commitment to them, as where and from whom I learn the principles of mathematics is irrelevant to their contents and my adherence to them. For MacIntyre, where and from whom I learn my morality is of decisive importance both for my commitment to it and for its very contents.

There is no morality as such; morality is always the morality of a particular community. One can understand and internalize moral rules only “in and through the way of life of [one’s] community” (MacIntyre 1984, 8). Moral rules are justified in terms of certain goods they express and promote; but these goods, too, are always given as part and parcel of the way of life of a community. The individual becomes a moral agent only when informed as such by his community. He also lives and flourishes as one because he is sustained in his moral life by his community. “… I can only be a moral agent because we are moral agents … Detached from my community, I will be apt to lose my hold upon all genuine standards of judgment” (10–11).

If I can live and flourish as a moral agent only as a member of my community, while playing the role this membership involves, then my very identity is bound up with that of my community, its history, traditions, institutions, and aspirations. Therefore,

if I do not understand the enacted narrative of my own individual life as embedded in the history of my country … I will not understand what I owe to others or what others owe to me, for what crimes of my nation I am bound to make reparation, for what benefits to my nation I am bound to feel gratitude. Understanding what is owed to and by me and understanding the history of the communities of which I am a part is … one and the same thing. (16)

This leads MacIntyre to conclude that patriotism is not to be contrasted with morality; it is rather a central moral virtue, indeed the bedrock of morality.

The object of patriotic loyalty is one’s country and polity; but this does not mean that a patriot will support any government in power in her country. Here MacIntyre’s position is different from a popular version of patriotism that tends to conflate the two. The patriot’s allegiance, he says, is not to the status quo of power, but rather to “the nation conceived as a project ” (13). One can oppose one’s country’s government in the name of the country’s true character, history, and aspirations. To that extent, this type of patriotism is critical and rational. But at least some practices and projects of the patria , some of its “large interests,” must be beyond questioning and critical scrutiny. To that extent, MacIntyre grants that what he considers true patriotism is “a fundamentally irrational attitude” (13). But a more rational and therefore more constrained loyalty would be “emasculated,” rather than real patriotism.

This account of patriotism is exposed to several objections. One might question the communitarian foundations of MacIntyre’s case for patriotism: his view of the moral primacy of the community over the individual. One might find fault with the step from communitarianism to patriotism:

Even if his communitarian conception of morality were correct and even if the process of moral development ensured that group loyalty would emerge as a central virtue, no conclusion would follow about the importance of patriotism. The group to which our primary loyalty would be owed would be the group from which we had obtained our moral understanding. This need not be the community as a whole or any political unit, however. It could be one’s family, one’s town, one’s religion. The nation need not be the source of morality or the primary beneficiary of our loyalty. (Nathanson 1989, 549)

Yet another objection would focus on the fundamentally irrational character of robust patriotism: its insistence that “large interests” of the patria must be beyond questioning.

MacIntyre concedes that “on occasion patriotism might require me to support and work for the success of some enterprise of my nation as crucial to its overall project … when the success of that enterprise would not be in the best interests of mankind” (14). If so, this type of patriotism would seem to involve the rejection of such basic moral notions as universal justice and common human solidarity.

Tolstoy and other critics have argued that patriotism is incompatible with these notions – that it is egoism writ large, an exclusive and ultimately aggressive concern for one’s country, and a major cause of international tensions and war. This is not a fair objection to patriotism as such. Patriotism is defined as a special concern for one’s country’s well-being, and that is not the same as an exclusive and aggressive concern for it. But the objection is pertinent, and has considerable force, when brought up against the type of patriotism advocated by MacIntyre. MacIntyre’s patriot may promote his country’s interests in a critical, and therefore non-exclusive way, over a range of issues. But when it comes to those “large interests” of his country that are beyond criticism and must be supported in an irrational way, his concern will inevitably become exclusive, and most likely aggressive too. If justice is understood in universal, rather than parochial terms, if common human solidarity counts as a weighty moral consideration, and if peace is of paramount importance and war is morally permissible only when it is just, then this kind of patriotism must be rejected.

2.2.3 Moderate patriotism

Rejecting robust patriotism does not entail adopting sweeping impartialism that acknowledges no special obligations, and allows no partiality, to “our own.” Nor does it entail adopting the more restricted, cosmopolitan position, that allows no partiality to our own country and compatriots. There is considerable middle ground between these extremes. Exploring this middle ground has led some philosophers to construct positions accommodating both the universal and the particular point of view – both the mandates of universal justice and claims of common humanity, and the concern for the patria and compatriots.

One such position is “patriotism compatible with liberal morality,” or “liberal patriotism” for short, advocated by Marcia Baron (1989). Baron argues that the conflict between impartiality and partiality is not quite as deep as it may seem. Morality allows for both types of considerations, as they pertain to different levels of moral deliberation. At one level, we are often justified in taking into account our particular commitments and attachments, including those to our country. At another level, we can and ought to reflect on such commitments and attachments from a universal, impartial point of view, to delineate their proper scope and determine their weight. We can conclude, for example, “that with respect to certain matters and within limits, it is good for an American to judge as an American, and to put American interests first” (Baron 1989, 272). In such a case, partiality and particular concerns are judged to be legitimate and indeed valuable from an impartial, universal point of view. This means that with respect to those matters and within the same limits, it is also good for a Cuban to judge as a Cuban and to put Cuban interests first, etc. Actually, this is how we think of our special obligations to, and preferences for, our family, friends, or local community; this kind of partiality is legitimate, and indeed valuable, not only for us but for anyone.

In MacIntyre’s view, the type of partiality in general, and patriotism in particular, that is at work only at one level of moral deliberation and against the background of impartiality at another, higher level, lacks content and weight. For Baron, on the other hand, MacIntyre’s strongly particularistic type of patriotism is irrational and morally hazardous. Baron also finds problematic the popular understanding of patriotism which focuses on the country’s might and its interests as determined by whatever government is in power. She emphasizes concern for the country’s cultural and moral excellence. By doing so, she argues, our patriotism will leave room for serious, even radical criticism of our country, and will not be a force for dissension and conflict in the international arena.

Another middle-of-the-road view is “moderate patriotism” propounded by Stephen Nathanson (1989, 1993). He, too, rejects the choice between MacIntyre’s robust patriotism and cosmopolitanism, and argues that impartiality required by morality allows for particular attachments and special obligations by distinguishing different levels of moral thinking. A good example is provided by the Ten Commandments, a major document of Western morality. The wording of the commandments is for the most part universal, impartial; but they also tell us “honor your father and your mother.”

The kind of patriotism defended by Nathanson and Baron is moderate in several distinct, but related respects. It is not unbridled: it does not enjoin the patriot to promote his country’s interests under any circumstances and by any means. It acknowledges the constraints morality imposes on the pursuit of our individual and collective goals. For instance, it may require the patriot to fight for his country, but only in so far as the war is, and remains, just. Adherents of both extreme and robust patriotism will consider themselves bound to fight for their country whether its cause be just or not. Extreme patriots will also fight for it in whatever way it takes to win. Whether adherents of MacIntyre’s robust patriotism, too, will do so is a moot point. If they do not, that will be because the morality of their own community places certain constraints on warfare, whether of a particularistic type (“a German officer does not execute POWs”), or by incorporating some universalistic moral precepts (“an officer does not execute POWs”).

Moderate patriotism is not exclusive. Its adherent will show special concern for his country and compatriots, but that will not prevent him from showing concern for other countries and their inhabitants. Moreover, this kind of patriotism allows for the possibility that under certain circumstances the concern for human beings in general will override the concern for one’s country and compatriots. Such patriotism is compatible with a decent degree of humanitarianism. By contrast, both extreme and robust patriotism give greater weight to the (substantial) interests of one’s country and compatriots than to those of other countries and their inhabitants whenever these interests come into conflict.

Finally, moderate patriotism is not uncritical, unconditional, or egocentric. For an adherent of this type of patriotism, it is not enough that the country is her country. She will also expect it to live up to certain standards and thereby deserve her support, devotion, and special concern for its well-being. When it fails to do so, she will withhold support. Adherents of both extreme and robust patriotism, on the other hand, love their country unconditionally, and stand by it whatever it does as long as its “safety” or its “large interests” more generally are concerned.

Baron and Nathanson have found a middle ground between sweeping cosmopolitanism that allows for no attachment and loyalty to one’s country and compatriots, and extreme or robust patriotism that rejects universal moral considerations (except those that have become part and parcel of one’s country’s morality). They have shown that the main objections usually advanced against patriotism as such apply only to its extreme or robust varieties, but not to its “liberal” or “moderate” versions. The latter type of patriotism need not conflict with impartial justice or common human solidarity. It will therefore be judged morally unobjectionable by all except some adherents of a strict type of cosmopolitanism .

However, both Baron and Nathanson fail to distinguish clearly between showing that their preferred type of patriotism is morally unobjectionable and showing that it is morally required or virtuous, and sometimes seem to be assuming that by showing the former, they are also showing the latter. Yet there is a gap between the two claims, and the latter, stronger case for moderate patriotism still needs to be made.

2.2.4 Deflated patriotism

What is the case for the claim that moderate patriotism is morally mandatory – that we have a duty of special concern for the well-being of our country and compatriots, similar to special duties to family or friends?

Gratitude is probably the most popular among the grounds adduced for patriotic duty. Echoing Socrates in Plato’s Crito (51c-51d), Maurizio Viroli writes: “… We have a moral obligation towards our country because we are indebted to it. We owe our country our life, our education, our language, and, in the most fortunate cases, our liberty. If we want to be moral persons, we must return what we have received, at least in part, by serving the common good” (Viroli 1995, 9).

Both Socrates and Viroli are exaggerating the benefits bestowed on us by our country; surely any gratitude owed for being born or brought up is owed to parents, rather than patria . But there are important benefits we have received from our country; the argument is that we are bound to show gratitude for them, and that the appropriate way to do so is to show special concern for the well-being of the country and compatriots.

One worry here is that considerations of gratitude normally arise in interpersonal relations. We also speak of gratitude to large and impersonal entities – our school, profession, or even our country – but that seems to be an abbreviated way of referring to gratitude to particular persons who have acted on behalf of these entities. A debt of gratitude is not incurred by any benefit received. If a benefit is conferred inadvertently, or advisedly but for the wrong reason (e.g. for the sake of the benefactor’s public image), gratitude will be misplaced. We owe a moral debt of gratitude (rather than the mere “thank you” of good manners) only to those who confer benefits on us deliberately and for the right reason, namely out of concern for our own good. And we cannot talk with confidence about the reasons a large and complex group or institution has for its actions.

Perhaps we can think of compatriots as an aggregate of individuals. Do we owe them a debt of gratitude for the benefits of life among them? Again, it depends on the reason for their law-abiding behavior and social cooperation generally. But there is no single reason common to all or even most of them. Some do their part without giving much thought to the reasons for doing so; others believe that doing so is, in the long run, the most prudent policy; still others act out of altruistic motives. Only the last group – surely a tiny minority – would be a proper object of our gratitude.

Moreover, gratitude is appropriate only for a benefit conferred freely, as a gift, and not as a quid pro quo . But most of the benefits we receive from our country are of the latter sort: benefits we have paid for by our own law-abiding behavior in general, and through taxation in particular.

The benefits one has received from her country might be considered relevant to the duty of patriotism in a different way: as raising the issue of fairness . One’s country is not a land inhabited by strangers to whom we owe nothing beyond what we owe to any other human being. It is rather a common enterprise that produces and distributes a wide range of benefits. These benefits are made possible by cooperation of those who live in the country, participate in the enterprise, owe and render allegiance to the polity. The rules that regulate the cooperation and determine the distribution of burdens and benefits enjoin, among other things, special concern for the well-being of compatriots which is not due to outsiders. As Richard Dagger puts it:

Compatriots take priority because we owe it to them as a matter of reciprocity. Everyone, compatriot or not, has a claim to our respect and concern … but those who join with us in cooperative enterprises have a claim to special recognition. Their cooperation enables us to enjoy the benefits of the enterprise, and fairness demands that we reciprocate. … We must accord our fellow citizens a special status, a priority over those who stand outside the special relationship constituted by the political enterprise. […] [Our fellow citizens] have a claim on us … that extends to include the notion that compatriots take priority. (Dagger 1985, 446, 443)

This argument conflates the issue of patriotism with that of political obligation , and the notion of a patriot with that of a citizen. Unlike informal cooperation among tenants in a building, for instance, cooperation on the scale of a country is regulated by a set of laws. To do one’s part within such a cooperative enterprise is just to obey the laws, to act as a citizen. Whether we have a moral duty to obey the laws of our country is one of the central issues in modern political philosophy, discussed under the heading of political obligation. One major account of political obligation is that of fairness. If successful, that account shows that we do have a moral duty to abide by the laws of our country, to act as citizens, and that this duty is one of fairness. To fail to abide by one’s country’s laws is to fail to reciprocate, to take advantage of compatriots, to act unfairly towards them. But whereas a patriot is also a citizen, a citizen is not necessarily a patriot. Patriotism involves special concern for the patria and compatriots, a concern that goes beyond what the laws obligate one to do, beyond what one does as a citizen; that is, beyond what one ought, in fairness , to do. Failing to show that concern, however, cannot be unfair – except on the question-begging assumption that, in addition to state law, cooperation on this scale is also based on, and regulated by, a moral rule enjoining special concern for the well-being of the country and compatriots. Dagger asserts that the claim our compatriots have on us “extends to include” such concern, but provides no argument in support of this extension.

Some philosophers seek to ground patriotic duty in its good consequences (see the entry on consequentialism ). The duty of special concern for the well-being of our country and compatriots, just like other duties, universal and special, is justified by the good consequences of its adoption. Special duties mediate our fundamental, universal duties and make possible their most effective discharge. They establish a division of moral labor, necessary because our capacity of doing good is limited by our resources and circumstances. Each of us can normally be of greater assistance to those who are in some way close to us than to those who are not. By attending first to “our own,” we at the same time promote the good of humanity in the best way possible.

Patriots will find this account of their love of and loyalty to their country alien to what they feel patriotism is all about. It presents the duty of special concern for the well-being of one’s country and compatriots as a device for assigning to individuals some universal duties. Patriotic duty owes its moral force to the moral force of those universal duties. But if so, then, as a proponent of this understanding of patriotism concedes, “it turns out that ‘our fellow countrymen’ are not so very special after all” (Goodin 1988, 679). They merely happen to be the beneficiaries of the most effective way of putting into practice our concern for human beings in general. The special relationship between the patriot and the patria and compatriots – the relationship of love and identification – has been dissolved.

There is also a view of patriotic duty that, in contrast to the consequentialist account, does not dissolve, but rather highlight this relationship. That is the view of patriotism as an associative duty (see the entry on special obligations , section 4). It is based on an understanding of special relationships as intrinsically valuable and involving duties of special concern for the well-being of those we are related to. Such duties are not means of creating or maintaining those relationships, but rather their part and parcel, and can only be understood, and justified, as such, just as those relationships can only be understood as involving the special duties pertaining to them (while involving much else besides). For instance, one who denies that she has an obligation of special concern for the well-being of her friend shows that she no longer perceives and treats the person concerned as a friend, that (as far as she is concerned) the friendship is gone. One who denies that people in general have a duty of special concern for the well-being of their friends shows that she does not understand what friendship is.

Andrew Mason has offered an argument for the duty of special concern for the well-being of compatriots based on the value embodied in our relationship to compatriots, that of common citizenship. By “citizenship” he does not mean mere legal status, but takes the term in a moral sense, which involves equal standing. Citizenship in this sense is an intrinsically valuable relationship, and grounds certain special duties fellow citizens have to one another. Now citizenship obviously has considerable instrumental value; but how is it valuable in itself?

Citizenship has intrinsic value because in virtue of being a citizen a person is a member of a collective body in which they enjoy equal status with its other members and are thereby provided with recognition. This collective body exercises significant control over its members’ conditions of existence (a degree of control which none of its members individually possesses). It offers them the opportunity to contribute to the cultural environment in which its laws and policies are determined, and opportunities to participate directly and indirectly in the formation of these laws and policies. (Mason 1997, 442)

Mason goes on to claim:

Part of what it is to be a citizen is to incur special obligations: these obligations give content to what it is to be committed or loyal fellow citizen and are justified by the good of the wider relationship to which they contribute. In particular, citizens have an obligation to each other to participate fully in public life and an obligation to give priority to the needs of fellow citizens. (442)

The first of these two special duties can be put aside, as it is not specific to patriotism, but rather pertains to citizenship. It is the second that is at issue. If we indeed have a duty of special concern towards compatriots, and if that is an associative duty, that is because our association with them is intrinsically valuable and bound up with this duty. The claim about the intrinsic value of our association might be thought a moot point. But even if it were conceded, one might still resist the claim concerning the alleged duty. If someone were to deny that she has a duty of special concern for the well-being of her country and compatriots, beyond what the laws of her country mandate and beyond the concern she has for humans and humanity, would she thereby cease to be a citizen (in the sense involving equal standing)? If she were to deny that citizens generally have such an obligation, would that betray lack of understanding of what citizenship (in the relevant sense) is? If she came across two strangers in a life-threatening situation and could only save one, would she have a prima facie moral duty to save the one who was a compatriot? Mason’s position commits him to answering “yes” in each case, but all three claims are implausible (Primoratz 2009).

All the main arguments for the claim that patriotism is a duty, then, are exposed to serious objections. Unless a new, more convincing case for patriotism can be made, we have no good reason to think that patriotism is a moral duty.

If not a duty, is patriotism morally valuable? Someone showing concern for the well-being of others well beyond the degree of concern for others required of all of us is considered a morally better person than the rest of us (other things equal), an example of supererogatory virtue. Patriotism is a special concern for the well-being of one’s country and compatriots, a concern beyond what we owe other people and communities. Isn’t a patriot, then, a morally better person than the rest of us (other things equal)? Isn’t patriotism a supererogatory virtue?

One standard example of such virtue is the type of concern for those in an extreme plight shown by the late Mother Theresa, or by Doctors Without Borders. But they are exemplars of moral virtue for the same reason that makes a more modest degree of concern for others a moral duty falling on all of us. The same moral value, sympathy for and assistance to people in need, grounds a certain degree of concern for others as a general moral duty and explains why a significantly higher degree of such concern is a moral ideal. This explanation, however, does not apply in the case of patriotism. Patriotism is not but another extension of the duty of concern for others; it is a special concern for my country because it is my country, for my compatriots because they are my compatriots. Unlike Mother Theresa and Doctors Without Borders, whose concern is for all destitute, sick, dying persons they can reach, the concern of the patriot is by definition selective; and the selection is performed by the word “my.” But the word “my” cannot, by itself, play the critical role in an argument showing that a certain stance is morally valuable. If it could, other types of partialism, such as tribalism, racism, or sexism, would by the same token prove morally valuable too.

If patriotism is neither a moral duty nor a supererogatory virtue, then all its moral pretensions have been deflated. It has no positive moral significance. There is nothing to be said for it, morally speaking. We all have various preferences for places and people, tend to identify with many groups, large and small, to think of them as in some sense ours, and to show a degree of special concern for their members. But however important in other respects these preferences, identifications, and concerns might be, they lack positive moral import. They are morally permissible as long as they are kept within certain limits, but morally indifferent in themselves. The same is true of patriotism (Primoratz 2002).

2.2.5 Ethical patriotism

All four types of patriotism reviewed so far seek to defend and promote what might be termed the worldly, i.e. non-moral, interests of the patria : its political stability, military power, riches, influence in the international arena, and cultural vibrancy. They differ with regard to the lengths to which these interests will be promoted: adherents of extreme and robust patriotism will ultimately go to any length, whereas those whose patriotism is moderate or deflated will respect the limits universal moral considerations set to this pursuit. Marcia Baron also calls for expanding patriotic concern for the flourishing of one’s country to include its “moral flourishing” (see 2.2.3 above).

Thus Baron’s position is half-way between the usual, worldly kind of patriotism, and what might be described as its distinctively ethical type. The latter would put aside the country’s well-being in a mundane, non-moral sense, and would focus instead on its distinctively moral well-being, its moral identity and integrity. A patriot of this sort would not express his love for the patria by seeking to husband the country’s resources and preserve its natural beauty and its historical heritage, or make it rich, powerful, culturally preeminent, or influential on the world scene. Instead, he would seek to make sure that the country lives up to moral requirements and promotes moral values, both at home and internationally. He would work for a just and humane society at home, and seek to ensure that the country acts justly beyond its borders, and shows common human solidarity towards those in need, however distant and unfamiliar. He would also be concerned with the country’s past moral record and its implications for the present. He would support projects exploring the dark chapters of the country’s history, acknowledging the wrongs perpetrated in the past and responding to them in appropriate ways, whether by offering apologies or making amends, and by making sure such wrongs are not perpetrated again.

A patriot of this, distinctively ethical type, would want to see justice done, rights respected, human solidarity at work at any time and in any place. But her patriotism would be at work in a concern that her country be guided by these moral principles and values which is more sustained and more deeply felt than her concern that these principles and values should be put into practice generally. She would consider her own moral identity as bound up with that of her country, and the moral record of the patria as hers too. Unlike a patriot of the more worldly type, she might not feel great pride in her country’s worldly merits and achievements. She would be proud of the country’s moral record, when it inspires pride. But her patriotism would be expressed, above all, in a critical approach to her country and compatriots: she would feel entitled, and indeed called, to submit them to critical moral scrutiny, and to do so qua patriot.

While we have no moral reason to be patriots of the more usual, mundane kind, we do have reason to show special concern for our own country’s moral well-being. As a rule, when someone is wronged, someone else benefits from that. When a country maintains an unjust or inhumane practice, or enacts and enforces an unjust or inhumane law or policy, at least some, and sometimes many of its citizens reap benefits from it. Sometimes such a practice, legislation or policy affects people beyond the country’s borders; in such cases, the population as a whole may benefit. The responsibility for the injustice or lack of basic human solidarity lies with those who make the decisions and those who implement them. It also lies with those who give support to such decisions and their implementation. But some responsibility in this connection may also devolve on those who have no part in the making of the decisions or in their implementation, nor even provide support, but accept the benefits such a practice, law or policy generates.

A degree of complicity may also accrue to those who have no part in designing or putting into effect immoral practices, laws or policies, do not support them or benefit from them, but do benefit in various ways from being citizens of the country. One may derive significant psychological benefit from membership in and identification with a society or polity: from the sense of belonging, support and security such membership and identification afford. If one accepts such benefits, while knowing about the immoral practices, laws or policies at issue, or having no excuse for not knowing about them, that, too, may be seen as implicating him in those wrongs. To be sure, he makes no causal contribution to those wrongdoings, has no control over their course, and does not accept benefits from them. But in accepting benefits from his association with the wrongdoers, he may be seen as underwriting those wrongs and joining the class of those properly blamed. His complicity is lesser and the blame to be laid at his door is lesser too – but he still bears some moral responsibility and deserves some moral blame on that account. He cannot say in good faith: “Those wrongs have nothing to do with me. I am in no way implicated in them.”

If this is correct, we have reason to develop and exercise a special concern for the moral identity and integrity of our country. By doing so, we will be attending to an important aspect of our own moral identity and integrity. While patriotism of the more usual, worldly kind is neither morally required nor virtuous, but at best morally permitted, ethical patriotism can, under certain fairly common circumstances, be a moral duty (Primoratz 2006).

While moral philosophers debate the standing of patriotism as an instance of the problem of reconciling universal moral considerations with particular attachments and loyalties, political theorists are primarily interested in patriotism as an ethos of the well-ordered polity and an antidote to nationalism. Since the rise of the nation-state, it has been widely held that some form of nationalism is indispensable as a pre-political basis of the unity of the state that makes for solidarity among citizens and provides them with motivation to participate in public life and make sacrifices for the common good. As Roger Scruton put it, “for a liberal state to be secure, the citizens must understand the national interest as something other than the interest of the state . Only the first can evoke in them the sacrificial spirit upon which the second depends” (Scruton 1990, 319). But in the course of the 20 th century nationalism was deeply compromised. That has led political theorists to look for alternatives. Some have argued that an emphatically political patriotism could perform the unifying function of nationalism while avoiding its perils. This “new patriotism” puts aside, or at least de-emphasizes, pre-political ties such as common ancestry, language, or culture, and enjoins love of, and loyalty to, one’s political community, its laws and institutions, and the rights and liberties they make possible.

In view of the disastrous record of national socialism, it is not surprising that German thinkers in particular should be suspicious of patriotism as long as it has not been dissociated from nationalism. As early as 1959, political theorist Dolf Sternberger called for a new understanding of the concept of fatherland. “The fatherland is the ‘republic,’ which we create for ourselves. The fatherland is the constitution, to which we give life. The fatherland is the freedom which we truly enjoy only when we ourselves promote it, make use of it, and stand guard over it” (Sternberger 1990, 12). In 1979, on the 30 th anniversary of the Federal Republic, he coined the term “constitutional patriotism” ( Verfassungspatriotismus ) to describe the loyalty to the patria understood in these terms (13–16). The term was later adopted by Jürgen Habermas in the context of a case for overcoming pre-political, i.e. national and cultural, loyalties in public life, and supplanting them with a new, postnational, purely political identity embodied in the laws and institutions of a free and democratic state. Habermas argues that this identity, expressed in and reinforced by constitutional patriotism, can provide a solid foundation for such a state, given the ethnic and cultural heterogeneity characteristic of most countries in western Europe. It can also facilitate further European integration, and provide an antidote to the “chauvinism of affluence” tempting these countries (Habermas 1990).

Constitutional patriotism is the most widely discussed, but not the sole variety of “new patriotism.” Another is “covenanted patriotism” advocated by John H. Schaar as appropriate for countries whose population is much too ethnically and culturally heterogeneous to allow for “natural patriotism.” Schaar’s paradigmatic example is the United States, whose citizens “were bonded together not by blood or religion, not by tradition or territory, not by the walls and traditions of a city, but by a political idea … by a covenant, by dedication to a set of principles and by an exchange of promises to uphold and advance certain commitments” (Schaar 1981, 291). Still another variety is the “patriotism of liberty” propounded by Maurizio Viroli, who calls for a return to what patriotism used to be before it was harnessed in the service of the nation-state and submerged in nationalism: love of the laws and institutions of one’s polity and the common liberty they make possible (Viroli 1995).

This new, emphatically political version of patriotism has been met with both sympathy and skepticism. Those sympathetic to it have been discussing the prospects of a European constitutional patriotism (see Müller 2007, 93–139). Skeptics have argued that patriotism disconnected from all pre-political attachments and identities can generate only much too thin a sense of identity and much too weak a motivation for political participation – that, thus understood, “patriotism is not enough” (Canovan 2000).

• Acton, Lord, 1972, “Nationality,” Essays on Freedom and Power , Gloucester: Peter Smith, 141–70.
• Addams, Jane, 2004, “Patriotism in Time of War,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 28: 102–18.
• Anderson, Benedict, 1991, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism , rev. ed., London: Verso.
• Anderson, John P., 2003, “Patriotic Liberalism,” Law and Philosophy , 22: 577–95.
• Appiah, Kwame Anthony, 2005, The Ethics of Identity , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Archard, David, 1995, “Three Ways to Be a Good Patriot,” Public Affairs Quarterly , 9: 101–13.
• –––, 1999, “Should We Teach Patriotism?” Studies in Philosophy and Education , 18: 157–73.
• Arneson, Richard J., 2005, “Do Patriotic Ties Limit Global Justice Duties?” Journal of Ethics , 9: 127–50.
• Audi, Robert, 2009, “Nationalism, Patriotism, and Cosmopolitanism in an Age of Globalization,” Journal of Ethics , 13: 365–81.
• Axinn, Sidney, 1986, “Honor, Patriotism and Ultimate Loyalty,” in Avner Cohen (ed.), Nuclear Weapons and the Future of Humanity , Totowa: Rowman & Allanheld, 273–88.
• –––, 1987, “Loyalty and the Limits of Patriotism,” in Kenneth Kipnis and Diana T. Meyers (eds.), Political Realism and International Morality , Boulder: Westview Press, 239–50.
• Bader, Veit, 1999, “For Love of Country,” Political Theory , 27: 379–97.
• –––, 2005, “Reasonable Impartiality and Priority for Compatriots: A Critique of Liberal Nationalism’s Main Flaws,” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 8: 83–103.
• Baron, Marcia, 1989, “Patriotism and ‘Liberal’ Morality,” in D. Weissbord (ed.), Mind, Value, and Culture: Essays in Honor of E.M. Adams , Atascadero: Ridgeview Publishing Co., 269–300. Reprinted with a postscript in Primoratz (ed.), 2002.
• Billig, Michael, 1995, Banal Nationalism , London: Sage Publications.
• Blattberg, Charles, 2003, “Patriotic, Not Deliberative, Democracy,” CRISPP: Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy , 6: 155–74.
• Boutros, Victor, 2003, “Patriotism and International Aid: An Analysis of Alasdair MacIntyre’s ‘Is Patriotism a Virtue?’,” Contemporary Philosophy , 25: 9–16.
• Boxill, Bernard B., 2009, “Frederick Douglass’s Patriotism,” Journal of Ethics , 13: 301–17.
• Breda, Vito, 2004, “The Incoherence of the Patriotic State: A Critique of ‘Constitutional Patriotism’,” Res Publica , 10: 247–65.
• Brighouse, Harry, 2006, “Justifying Patriotism,” Social Theory and Practice , 32: 547–58.
• Busch, Hans Jürgen, and Ulrich Dierse, 1989, “Patriotismus,” in Joachim Ritter and Karlfried Gründer (eds.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie , Basel: Schwabe & Co., Vol. 7: 207–17.
• Cafaro, Philip, 1995, “Patriotism as an Environmental Virtue,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics , 23: 185–302.
• Callan, Eamon, 2006, “Love, Idolatry, and Patriotism,” Social Theory and Practice , 32: 525–46.
• –––, 2010, “The Better Angels of Our Nature: Patriotism and Dirty Hands,” Journal of Political Philosophy , 18: 249–70.
• Canovan, Margaret, 2000, “Patriotism Is Not Enough,” British Journal of Political Science , 30: 413–32. Reprinted in Primoratz (ed.), 2002.
• Cohen, Joshua (ed.), 1996, For Love of Country: Debating the Limits of Patriotism , Boston: Beacon Press.
• Coons, Christian, 2002, “Wellman’s ‘Reductive’ Justification for Redistributive Policies that Favor Compatriots,” Ethics , 111: 782–87.
• Cronin, Ciaran, 2003, “Democracy and Collective Identity: A Defence of Constitutional Patriotism,” European Journal of Philosophy , 11: 1–28.
• Dagger, Richard, 1985, “Rights, Boundaries, and the Bonds of Community: A Qualified Defense of Moral Parochialism,” American Political Science Review , 79: 436–47.
• Dombrowski, Daniel, 1992, “On Why Patriotism Is not a Virtue,” International Journal of Applied Philosophy , 7: 1–4.
• Fullinwider, Robert K., 1992, “The New Patriotism,” in Claudia Mills (ed.), Values and Public Policy , Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 449–54.
• –––, 1996, “Patriotic History,” in Robert K. Fullinwider (ed.), Public Education in a Multicultural Society: Policy, Theory, Critique , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 203–28.
• Gaffney, James, 1993, “Patriotism: Virtue or Vice?” Philosophy and Theology , 8: 129–47. A revised version is reprinted in Igor Primoratz (ed.), 2007, Politics and Morality , Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Gilbert, Margaret, 2009, “ Pro Patria : An Essay on Patriotism,” Journal of Ethics , 13: 319–46.
• Gomberg, Paul, 1990, “Patriotism Is Like Racism,” Ethics , 101: 144–50. Reprinted in Primoratz (ed.), 2002.
• –––, 2000, “Patriotism in Sports and in War,” in Torbjorn Tannsjo and Claudio Tamburrini (eds.), Values in Sport , London: Taylor & Francis, 87–98.
• Goodin, Robert E., 1988, “What Is So Special about Our Fellow Countrymen?” Ethics , 98: 663–86. Reprinted in Primoratz (ed.), 2002.
• Gordon, Rupert H., 2000, “Modernity, Freedom, and the State: Hegel’s Concept of Patriotism,” Review of Politics , 62: 295–325.
• Habermas, Jürgen, 1992, “Citizenship and National Identity: Some Reflections on the Future of Europe,” Praxis International , 12: 1–19. Reprinted in Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy , William Rehg (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998.
• Hand, Michael, 2011, “Should We Promote Patriotism in Schools?” Political Studies , 59: 328–47.
• Hughes, Martin, 1989, “Is Patriotism a Virtue?” Cogito , 3: 98–104.
• Hulas, Maciej, and Stanislaw Fel (eds.), 2015, Intricacies of Patriotism: Towards a Complexity of Patriotic Allegiance , Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
• Kateb, George, 2000, “Is Patriotism a Mistake?” Social Research , 67: 901–24; reprinted in G. Kateb, Patriotism and Other Mistakes , Ithaca: Yale University Press, 2006.
• Kedourie, Elie, 1985, Nationalism , 3 rd edition, London: Hutchinson.
• Keller, Simon, 2005, “Patriotism as Bad Faith,” Ethics , 115: 563–92.
• –––, 2007a, The Limits of Loyalty , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2007b, “Are Patriotism and Universalism Compatible?” Social Theory and Practice , 32: 609–24.
• –––, 2009, “Making Nonsense of Loyalty to Country,” in Bodewijn de Bruin and Christopher S. Zurn (eds.), New Waves in Political Philosophy , Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 87–104.
• Khan, Carrie-Ann Biondi, 2003, “The Possibility of Liberal Patriotism,” Public Affairs Quarterly , 17: 265–90.
• Klampfer, Friderik, 1998, “Can the Appeal to the Intrinsic Value of Citizenship Really Help Us Justify Special Duties to Compatriots?” in P. Kampits, K. Kokai and A. Weiberg (eds.), Applied Ethics: Proceedings of the 21st International Wittgenstein Symposium (Volume 1), Kirchberg am Wechsel: Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society, 358–63. 
• Kleingeld, Pauline, 2000, “Kantian Patriotism,” Philosophy & Public Affairs , 29: 313–41.
• –––, 2003, “Kant’s Cosmopolitan Patriotism,” Kant–Studien , 94: 299–316.
• Kleinig, John, Simon Keller, and Igor Primoratz, 2015, The Ethics of Patriotism: A Debate , Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
• Kodelja, Zdenko, 2011, “Is Education for Patriotism Morally Required, Permitted or Unacceptable?” Studies in Philosophy and Education , 30: 127–40.
• Königs, Peter, 2012, “Patriotism: A Case Study in the Philosophy of Emotions,” Grazer Philosophische Studien , 85: 299–309.
• Macedo, Stephen, 2011, “Just Patriotism?” Philosophy and Social Criticism , 37: 413–23.
• Machiavelli, Niccolò, 1998 [1518], The Discourses , B. Crick (ed.), L.J. Walker (trans.), Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
• MacIntyre, Alasdair, 1984, Is Patriotism a Virtue? (The Lindley Lecture), Lawrence: University of Kansas. Reprinted in Primoratz (ed.), 2002.
• Mason, Andrew, 1997, “Special Obligations to Compatriots,” Ethics , 107: 427–47.
• McCabe, David, 1997, “Patriotic Gore, Again,” Southern Journal of Philosophy , 35: 203–23. Reprinted in Primoratz (ed.), 2002.
• McHugh Griffin, Michelle, 2007, “As a Woman I Have No Country,” Peace Review , 10: 255–59.
• Michelman, Frank I., 2001, “Morality, Identity and Constitutional Patriotism,” Ratio Juris , 14: 253–70.
• Miller, David, 2005, “Reasonable Partiality towards Compatriots,” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 8: 63–81.
• Miller, Richard W., 1997, “Killing for the Homeland: Patriotism, Nationalism and Violence,” Journal of Ethics , 1: 165–85.
• Müller, Jan-Werner, 2007, Constitutional Patriotism , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Montague, Phillip, 1994, “Patriotism and Political Obligation,” Journal of Social Philosophy , 25: 44–56.
• Moore, Margaret, 2009, “Is Patriotism an Associative Duty?” Journal of Ethics , 13: 383–99.
• Nathanson, Stephen, 1989, “In Defense of ‘Moderate Patriotism’,” Ethics , 99: 535–52. Reprinted in Primoratz (ed.), 2002.
• –––, 1993, Patriotism, Morality, and Peace , Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
• –––, 2009, “Patriotism, War, and the Limits of Permissible Partiality,” Journal of Ethics , 13: 401–22.
• –––, 2016, “Immigration, Citizenship, and the Clash Between Partiality and Impartiality,” in Ann Cudd and Win-chiat Lee (eds.), Citizenship and Immigration , New York: Springer, 137–52.
• Nussbaum, Martha, 2012, “Teaching Patriotism: Love and Critical Freedom,” University of Chicago Law Review , 79: 215–51.
• Oldenquist, Andrew, 1982, “Loyalties,” Journal of Philosophy , 79: 173–93. Reprinted in Primoratz (ed.), 2002.
• Orwell, George, 1968, “Notes on Nationalism,” Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters , Sonia Orwell and Ian Angus (eds.), London: Secker & Warburg, vol. 3, 361–80.
• Papastephanou, Marianna, 2017, “Patriotism and Pride beyond Richard Rorty and Martha Nussbaum,” International Journal of Philosophical Studies , 25: 484–503.
• Primoratz, Igor, 2002, “Patriotism: A Deflationary View,” Philosophical Forum , 33: 443–58.
• –––, 2006, “Patriotism: Worldly and Ethical,” in Igor Primoratz and Aleksandar Pavković (eds.), Identity, Self-Determination and Secession , Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 91–106.
• –––, 2009, “Patriotism and the Value of Citizenship,” Acta Analytica , 24: 63–67.
• Primoratz, Igor (ed.), 2002, Patriotism , Amherst: Humanity Books.
• Primoratz, Igor, and Aleksandar Pavković (eds.), 2007, Patriotism: Philosophical and Political Perspectives , Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
• Sardoc, Mitja (ed.), 2020, Handbook of Patriotism , Cham: Springer.
• Schaar, John H., 1981, “The Case for Patriotism,” Legitimacy in the Modern State , New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 285–311. Reprinted in Primoratz (ed.), 2002.
• Scruton, Roger, 1990, “In Defence of the Nation,” The Philosopher on Dover Beach , Manchester: Carcanet, 299–328.
• Shue, Henry, 1988, “Mediating Duties,” Ethics , 98: 687–704.
• Singer, Peter, 2002, One World: The Ethics of Globalization , New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Somerville, John, 1981, “Patriotism and War,” Ethics , 91: 568–78.
• Soutphommasane, Tim, 2012, The Virtuous Citizen: Patriotism in a Multicultural Society , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Sternberger, Dolf, 1990, Verfassungspatriotismus ( Schriften , Vol. 10), Frankfurt/M.: Insel Verlag.
• Tan, Kok-Chor, 2004, Justice without Borders: Cosmopolitanism, Nationalism and Patriotism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Tolstoy, Leo, 1987, “On Patriotism” and “Patriotism, or Peace?” Writings on Civil Disobedience and Nonviolence , Philadelphia: New Society Publishers, 51–123, 137–47.
• Toth, Szilard Janos, 2019, “Justifying Republican Patriotism,” Philosophy and Society , 30: 287–303.
• Van Hooft, Stan, 2009, “Political Patriotism,” Journal of Applied Ethics and Philosophy , 1: 20–29.
• Vandevelde, Toon, 1997, “Communitarianism and Patriotism,” Ethical Perspectives , 4: 180–90.
• Vincent, Andrew, 2009, “Patriotism and Human Rights: An Argument for Unpatriotic Patriotism,” Journal of Ethics , 13: 347–64.
• Viroli, Maurizio, 1995, For Love of Country: An Essay on Patriotism and Nationalism , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Weil, Simone, 1952, The Need for Roots , trans. A.F. Wills, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Wellman, Christopher Heath, 2000, “Relational Facts in Liberal Political Theory: Is there Magic in the Pronoun ‘My’?” Ethics , 110: 537–62.
• –––, 2001, “Friends, Compatriots, and Special Political Obligations,” Political Theory , 29: 217–36.
• White, John, 2001, “Patriotism without Obligation,” Journal of Philosophy of Education , 35: 141–51.
• Woolf, Virginia, 1938, Three Guineas , London: Hogarth Press.
• Zmora, Hillay, 2004, “Love of Country and Love of Party: Patriotism and Human Nature in Machiavelli,” History of Political Thought , 25: 424–45.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

communitarianism | consequentialism | cosmopolitanism | egoism | impartiality | loyalty | nationalism | obligations: special | political obligation | responsibility: collective

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Simon Keller, Stephen Nathanson, and Thomas Pogge for helpful comments on a draft of this article.

Copyright © 2020 by Igor Primoratz < igorprim @ gmail . com >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Nationalism vs. Patriotism

What's the difference.

Nationalism and patriotism are often used interchangeably, but they have distinct differences. Nationalism is an intense loyalty and devotion to one's nation, often accompanied by a belief in its superiority over others. It emphasizes the promotion and protection of a nation's interests, culture, and identity. On the other hand, patriotism is a love and support for one's country, without the sense of superiority or aggression towards others. It focuses on the values and principles that a country stands for, such as freedom, justice, and equality. While both concepts involve a sense of pride and attachment to one's country, nationalism can sometimes lead to exclusionary and divisive attitudes, whereas patriotism tends to foster unity and inclusivity.

Further Detail

Introduction.

Nationalism and patriotism are two concepts often used interchangeably, but they have distinct attributes that set them apart. Both ideologies involve a deep love and loyalty towards one's country, but they differ in their focus, motivations, and implications. In this article, we will explore the characteristics of nationalism and patriotism, highlighting their similarities and differences.

Definition and Scope

Nationalism can be defined as an ideology that emphasizes the interests, culture, and identity of a nation-state. It often promotes the belief that the nation's interests should be prioritized above others, and can sometimes lead to exclusionary or aggressive behavior towards other nations. Patriotism, on the other hand, is a sentiment of love, devotion, and loyalty towards one's country. It is rooted in a sense of pride for the nation's achievements, values, and ideals, without necessarily advocating for superiority or aggression towards others.

Emotional Connection

Both nationalism and patriotism involve a strong emotional connection to one's country. Nationalism often evokes intense feelings of pride, unity, and belonging among its adherents. It can foster a sense of collective identity and solidarity, especially during times of crisis or conflict. Patriotism, similarly, generates a deep emotional bond with the nation, but it tends to be more inclusive and less prone to divisive tendencies. It encourages individuals to celebrate their country's achievements and values, fostering a positive and unifying sentiment.

Focus and Motivations

One key distinction between nationalism and patriotism lies in their focus and motivations. Nationalism places a strong emphasis on the nation-state as a political entity, often seeking to protect and promote its interests, sovereignty, and power. It can be driven by a desire for self-determination, independence, or the preservation of cultural heritage. Patriotism, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with the well-being and progress of the country's people. It aims to contribute positively to society, uphold democratic values, and work towards the common good.

Implications and Actions

The implications and actions associated with nationalism and patriotism can also differ significantly. Nationalism, when taken to extreme levels, can lead to ethnocentrism, xenophobia, and even aggressive behavior towards other nations. It may prioritize the interests of one's own nation at the expense of international cooperation and understanding. Patriotism, on the other hand, promotes a more inclusive and cooperative approach. It encourages citizens to actively participate in their country's development, contribute to social progress, and engage in peaceful dialogue with other nations.

Relationship with Diversity

Another important aspect to consider is how nationalism and patriotism relate to diversity within a country. Nationalism, at times, can be associated with a desire for homogeneity and the exclusion of minority groups. It may foster a sense of superiority based on ethnicity, religion, or language. In contrast, patriotism recognizes and celebrates the diversity within a nation. It values the contributions of all citizens, regardless of their background, and seeks to build a harmonious society that respects and appreciates different cultures, beliefs, and perspectives.

Role in History

Throughout history, both nationalism and patriotism have played significant roles in shaping nations and societies. Nationalism has been a driving force behind independence movements, revolutions, and the formation of new countries. It has helped mobilize people towards a common cause and establish a sense of national identity. Patriotism, on the other hand, has often been instrumental in times of war or crisis. It has united citizens, boosted morale, and inspired acts of bravery and sacrifice for the nation's well-being.

In conclusion, while nationalism and patriotism share similarities in terms of love and loyalty towards one's country, they differ in their focus, motivations, implications, and relationship with diversity. Nationalism tends to prioritize the interests of the nation-state and can sometimes lead to exclusionary or aggressive behavior. Patriotism, on the other hand, emphasizes the well-being of the country's people and promotes inclusivity, cooperation, and respect for diversity. Understanding these distinctions is crucial in fostering a healthy and constructive relationship with one's country and the global community.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

• Organizations
• Planning & Activities
• Product & Services
• Structure & Systems
• Career & Education
• Entertainment
• Fashion & Beauty
• Political Institutions
• SmartPhones
• Protocols & Formats
• Communication
• Web Applications
• Household Equipments
• Career and Certifications
• Diet & Fitness
• Mathematics & Statistics
• Processed Foods
• Vegetables & Fruits

Difference Between Nationalism and Patriotism

• Categorized under Ideology , Language , Politics | Difference Between Nationalism and Patriotism

Nationalism and patriotism both show the relationship of an individual towards his or her nation. The two are often confused and frequently believed to mean the same thing. However, there is a vast difference between nationalism and patriotism.

Nationalism means to give more importance to unity by way of a cultural background, including language and heritage. Patriotism pertains to the love for a nation, with more emphasis on values and beliefs.

When talking about nationalism and patriotism, one cannot avoid the famous quotation by George Orwell , who said that nationalism is ‘the worst enemy of peace’. According to him, nationalism is a feeling that one’s country is superior to another in all respects, while patriotism is merely a feeling of admiration for a way of life. These concepts show that patriotism is passive by nature and nationalism can be a little aggressive.

Patriotism is based on affection and nationalism is rooted in rivalry and resentment. One can say that nationalism is militant by nature and patriotism is based on peace.

Most nationalists assume that their country is better than any other, whereas patriots believe that their country is one of the best and can be improved in many ways. Patriots tend to believe in friendly relations with other countries while some nationalists don’t.

In patriotism, people all over the world are considered equal but nationalism implies that only the people belonging to one’s own country should be considered one’s equal.

A patriotic person tends to tolerate criticism and tries to learn something new from it, but a nationalist cannot tolerate any criticism and considers it an insult.

Nationalism makes one to think only of one’s country’s virtues and not its deficiencies. Nationalism can also make one contemptuous of the virtues of other nations. Patriotism, on the other hand, pertains to value responsibilities rather than just valuing loyalty towards one’s own country.

Nationalism makes one try to find justification for mistakes made in the past, while patriotism enables people to understand both the shortcomings and improvements made.

Patriot: Expresses the emotion of love towards his country in a passive way

Nationalist: Strives for independence and the interests and domination of a nation and expresses his love or concern for the country in an active political way.

• Recent Posts
• Difference Between CNBC and Fox Business - October 3, 2011
• Difference Between Distilled Water and Boiled Water - September 30, 2011
• Difference Between McDonalds and Burger King - September 30, 2011

Sharing is caring!

• Pinterest 105

Search DifferenceBetween.net :

• Difference Between Communism and Nationalism
• Difference Between Race and Nationality
• Difference Between Nation and Country
• Difference Between Ethnicity and Nationality
• Difference Between Beautiful and Hot

Cite APA 7 S, P. (2018, February 26). Difference Between Nationalism and Patriotism. Difference Between Similar Terms and Objects. http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-nationalism-and-patriotism/. MLA 8 S, Prabhat. "Difference Between Nationalism and Patriotism." Difference Between Similar Terms and Objects, 26 February, 2018, http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-nationalism-and-patriotism/.

95 Comments

Nationalism, aggressive?

Nationalism IS NOT Fascism. Do not get the two mixed up; if you do you end up with communist idiots like yourself writing sub-par pseudo-political articles such as this.

Here’s an ‘Difference between’ for you good sir, the difference between this and other articles is that this is laughably shite; shite of the utmost shitest quality.

Try harder, little red writer !

Craig McCulley,

My thoughts exactly. You are a Nationalist and a Patriot, as am I! I salute you and your country! Live long and prosper!

You are stuck in the 50s faggot.

Nationalism is a disease preventing mankind’s progression into the future. This coupled with religion spells our fate as a doomed species.

Your country is a land mass which you just happened to be born on. Your implemented barriers promote isolation and foster ignorance of other cultures and leads to friction.

Enjoy jerking it to your flag buddy, while your government robs you of whatever “freedom” you have left.

Hahahahaha poor baby.

Nationalism is the disease killing the world? Nationalism isn’t even a strong force in the modern world! Seriously, I think you’re the one thinking in cold war terms here bro. Nationalism ( Which isn’t Fascism, as I explained in my original post, but you seem to have difficulty understanding) has no real power in today’s globalist society and mist certainly isn’t preventing anyone advancing anywhere.

It’s people like you who hinder mankinds progression, ultra-liberal atheist fundamentalists ( Worse than Nazis in my opinion). You say I, as a nationalist am ignorant of other cultures, yet your own ideology promotes the destruction of national identities and cultures all over the world, you also actively discriminate people on their religious beliefs on a scale never taken upon by any religion ever seen in the past. Really, it is you, who is ignorant of culture and hinders the progression of man kind.

Finally, your argument of my country is just where I happened to be born, is hilarious! People don’t just appear in random nations across the world, that’s not how childbirth works LOL!! I didn’t appear anyway, I can trace my ancestry in Scotland back to 500sAD, around the time Celtic prehistory ended. Thus indicating the line could go even farther back in time. I didn’t just ‘happen’ to be born here, my genes, my lineage, has been here for thousands of years, it is my land, my heritage

Your argument is as retarded as the ideology you follow. If I were you, I would bite my tongue when conversing with followers of an higher ideology – and oh, if you’re trolling (which I hope you are, the thought of people like you actually voting sends shivers down my spine!) then please, don’t do it again, your not very good at it!

LOLOL other than McCarthy and the whole civil rights thing, what exactly do you find wrong with the 50’s?

LOLOLOL….Joe McCarthy was RIGHT about all the commies in government. Just look at what they have done to our great nation

Typical of the Christians, shifting the blame onto non-believers. Next thing you’ll know they’ll claim that the Muslims and Christians were all Atheists were all Atheists who wanted to make religion look bad.

Nationalism is what the “N” stands for in NAZI. The American National Socialist party defines itself as the American Nazi party and say they are “committed to bringing American National Socialism out of the past.”

Leslie, as you yourself demonstrate the “N” DOESN’T stand for “Nationalism”!

It stands for “NATIONAL”!!

As in “National SOCIALISM”!!!

There is NO “famous quotation by George Orwell, who said that nationalism is ‘the worst enemy of peace’.”

There is an essay by Orwell in which he discusses something for which there is NO word in English that he contrasts with Patriotism.

And therefore borrows the word “Nationalism” as shorthand for this concept within the essay (only).

Therefore, “According to him,” the ACTUAL word “nationalism is” NOT “a feeling that one’s country is superior to another in all respects”!

Furthermore, this concept he labels “Nationalism” for the purposes of the essay, he applies to things like religions, political movements, including Communism and Trotskyism, and even negative things such as hatred of a country, INCLUDING ONE’S OWN.

And he specifically disparages the way English intellectuals often are “Nationalists” in their love of the USSR and/or hatred of England, Britain and/or the United States.

If you actually bothered to read his Essay (without bias) you would have realised that it perfectly describes todays “Nationalists” (of his essay):

US “Democrats”, “liberals”, Greens, Environmentalists, UK Europhiles, Islamophiles…

Read his actual essay without blinkers, and see for yourself!

Oh, and if:

“In patriotism, people all over the world are considered equal”

How on earth can it be possible to claim: “Patriotism pertains to the love for a nation”?!

Sir, you just made my day. I knew there were wise people like you, and I hope that everyone would be like you and have the skill to right as beautifully as you do. Have a really good day sir(/ma’am) =)

Excuse me Mr. McCully. Why do you asume that someone bashing religion and nationalism has to be an atheist. I am a Christian, and I’ve read in the New Testament that the Gospel of Jesus is NOT pride for country, or love for money, or hate against others who think any different, but LOVE!!! If you are not a Christian, please ignore my comment altogether, for I respect whatever you believe, since Jesus NEVER condemned anyone, not even the romans who tortured and killed him. He even asked the Father to forgive them. But if you ARE a “Christian”, in the name of Jesus I rebuke you! For being the exact example of why so many souls are being twrown to hell, since for “Christian” examples like yours, they turn atheists or satanists. The Bible itself teacher that “thou shalt judge them by their fruit”. What fruit are you giving??? The one of hate, pride (Lucifer’s sin) and violence??? Jesus said that the foremost commandment was to love God with all you mind, heart and strength and your neighbor as yourself.

I agree Nationalism is not Fascism, but is it any better? The English Empire murdered thousands, yet, it wasn’t Fascism. Nevertheless, it is the doorway to it. Do you think the German soldiers who died in WWII had any different reasons for fighting than any other “nationalist”? They did so for “God, Freedom and Country”, as they were indoctrinated. Just like the poor American kids being sent to a war were they’re taught to kill a satanized enemy, causing millions of innocent deaths.

I’m sorry if I offend you, and I’m sorry if I’ve hurt your heart, but please learn to discern from the lies of Satan and the world. This is the TRUE gospel: Love. If you don’t love, please don’t call yourself a Christian. I’ll pray for you, and leave you with 1 Corinthians 13 New International Version (NIV)

13 If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Read more: Difference Between Nationalism and Patriotism | Difference Between | Nationalism vs Patriotism http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-nationalism-and-patriotism/#ixzz2JzinPe5n

I think you’ve misunderstood assas’s arguement about being born into a particular society or culture.. lol.

You have to be a troll. I refuse to believe people are this dumb. I especially found the part where you said you can trace your heritage to 500 AD, that’s good stuff.

This may shock you Scott. But just because you cannot trace your line back that far within your own country doesn’t mean I cannot either.

Ever heard of records? Good stuff.

He is not a troll, he is a big standard Nationalist. Judges the world on nationality (an accident of birth) and not on action or a desire for peace and unity. They project their fantasies onto a blank canvas (in the Scottish case, independence from a 300 year old union with the rest of their island.) and when mixed with Scotland’s humungous Irish population, you can see why 35.5% of registered voters (49.9% of who turned up to vote) got behind the populist SNP.

Scottish Nationalists have proven themselves to be among some of the most bitter and conspiratorial of Nationalists.

They are like a BNP or Front Nationale, but with left wing rhetoric and faux-progressivism.

I think it is really just an engrained hatred of the English from “true Scot” nationalists, and just anti-British bigotry & hatred from Scots Irish who are raised on a diet of one sided misrepresented Irish Republican propaganda.

Dont be fooled. Einstein was right.

The measles of mankind……..highly infectious and entirely destructive.

Scotland used to be known as the fun part of the UK, good with money, built the British empire, led the way in finance, medicine and technology as the newly formed UK allowed wealth to flood into Scotland (who were bankrupt at the time).

All Nationalist Scot’s have is clinging to misrepresented data about oil revenues over the last 30 years…..with no thought AT ALL to the English, N.Irish and Welsh who have supported and bailed them out at various times over the last 300 years!

Not to mention the ultimate fight against fascism. And I mean actual fascism, not the fascism that Scots Irish attribute to the most diverse and internationalist country on Earth, the UK.

There is a pettyness and insecurity (and a lack of ACTUAL historic knowledge on their part) from Scottish Nationalists.

Scotland was known as the “wee” conscious and brains behind the British Empire and the UK’s ascension to a world power, now, they look like a divided parochial “wee” mess of Irish Republicans, conspiracy theorists, radical socialists, conspiracy theorists, far-left radicals and bitter Nationalists.

Luckily, the numbers show they are a minority who only dominate their politics because 64% of Scottish voters either vote other parties or chose not to vote.

Sad. Watching a once global titan, failing to see 1) what they have and 2) trying to run away, scrap all their national defences, create a one party state and hand over more autonomy to the EU than the UK even has.

Maybe the majority will get through to the loud minority one day.

I think another referendum in the next 2 years will be needed to put it to bed once and for all.

Staggering that 55% of individual votes, a 10% double-digit gap and 28 out of 32 regions rejecting separation was STILL no enough to get through to Nationalists.

Alba Gu Brath and all that.

You sound like a blood, soil and thunder Nationalist. Slightly unhinged, emotionally hysterical and you actually fit the caricature listed in the article here, the article that you decry, lol. You are Scottish, so you should know the dangers of Nationalism. The majority of Scotland chose economic, defensive and societal security in their recent referendum. Scottish Nationalists characterize it as “cowardice” “brainwashed by bias media” etc etc. Rather than the fact that many Scots made it clear, in the post ref polling, that they voted No for security, economic protection and national security.

In fact, your Nationalist party took 49.9% of a 71% turnout (yet somehow got 90% of UK Govt Scottish WM seats!), so only 35.5% of registered voters even voted your all powerful Nationalist party, lol.

Check the numbers and see how failed an endeavour Scottish Nationalism REALLY is. Ignore your media and the propaganda conspiracy blogs that SNP supporters seem to quote at every turn –

Yes voters – 1.6 million No voters – 2.1 million

Yes vote by council – 4/32 No vote by council – 28/32

SNP vote share in 2015 – 49.9% 2015 GE Scottish turnout – 71% Registered Voters in Scotland – 4.1 million Total Scottish Voter share – 35.5%

Voted SNP – 1.4 million Voted opposition parties – 1.4 million Registered voters who chose not to vote for any party – 1.3 million.

So in short, in Scotland –

Scottish Nationalists – 1.4 million definite, rising to 1.6 million at referendum.

Non-Nationalists – 2.7 million definite, around 2.1 million rejecting independence at referendum.

Not all Yes voters were Nationalists and not all No voters were Unionists.

I know this will probably be met with anger, rage, emotion, misdirection and hysteria……but these are the simple, documented, factual numbers.

But then being a Nationalist…..you will probably wail a lot and yell “conspiracy” or one of the usual misdirections.

Have a great day.

This guy is the perfect example as to why the average person now realises that nationalists aren’t capable of reasoning. Surely you nationalists can do better than “ultra-liberal atheists are worse than nazis, also it is YOU that is ignorant!”.

And five years later we have trump, an anti intellectual nationalist (which is redundant). And you see the anger and fear he has brought out in people. Unfortunately, it is a force now.

I have a dream, that one day, We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism.

Globalism will never be even remotely viable in the presence of the ideological disease that is Islam.

While I am not a nationalist and am an atheist, I am a liberal and I’d like to say that leftists are the people that have always been against nationalism.

Me thinks thou doth protest too much…

You are the same as those who crowd into city streets and chant “end racism, end prejudice!!!” whenever any law that considers anything that may possibly affect immigration in such a way so as to reduce it; or whenever a law meant to wedge your nation’s borders open as wide as possible meats any scant opposition. You are simply a maggot; a clone of the many millions of brainless fools just like you.

I think your nation is not falling fast enough as you want- you should go and hasten its demise as your kind so desperately strive to do.

Why use the term “faggot”? It shows maybe you are stuck in the 50s with a homophobic attitude. You clearly have not read the article through properly but have chosen to launch an attack on the writer and attemted to insult with a homophobic term.

@assas Hahahahahaha, you call someone faggot and tell THEM to go back to the 1950s. That is beyond rich.

Oh, and there’s also your eye-rolling commenton religion. Pick that one up at a Reddit “Post your fedora” thread? Also your delusional comment on increasingly tyrannical government. Both indicate you’re an edgelord who loves that immensely unfunny hack George Carlin.

That, or you’re an Alt-Rightist from 4/8-chan. Either way, not a good look.

If you live in a country other than the U.S. your government or dictatorship has already taken yours.

Excuse me Sir. Why do you asume that someone bashing religion and nationalism has to be an atheist. I am a Christian, and I’ve read in the New Testament that the Gospel of Jesus is NOT pride for country, or love for money, or hate against others who think any different, but LOVE!!! If you are not a Christian, please ignore my comment altogether, for I respect whatever you believe, since Jesus NEVER condemned anyone, not even the romans who tortured and killed him. He even asked the Father to forgive them. But if you ARE a “Christian”, in the name of Jesus I rebuke you! For being the exact example of why so many souls are being twrown to hell, since for “Christian” examples like yours, they turn atheists or satanists. The Bible itself teacher that “thou shalt judge them by their fruit”. What fruit are you giving??? The one of hate, pride (Lucifer’s sin) and violence??? Jesus said that the foremost commandment was to love God with all you mind, heart and strength and your neighbor as yourself.

I agree Nationalism is not Fascism, but is it any better? The English Empire murdered thousands, yet, it wasn’t Fascism. Nevertheless, it is the doorway to it. Do you think the German soldiers who died in WWII had any different reasons for fighting than any other “nationalist”? They did so for “God, Freedom and Country”, as they were indoctrinated. Just like the poor American kids being sent to a war were they’re taught to kill a satanized enemy, causing millions of innocent deaths.

I’m sorry if I offend you, and I’m sorry if I’ve hurt your heart, but please learn to discern from the lies of Satan and the world. This is the TRUE gospel: Love. If you don’t love, please don’t call yourself a Christian. I’ll pray for you, and leave you with 1 Corinthians 13 New International Version (NIV)

If you want to be this kind of Christian then please continue to do what you do and please preach this to more Christians. This is totally cool with me. You’re not putting your beliefs on anyone else and who knows…maybe you’ll win some of us over. Kudos to you.

Thanks, I have an keep doing it. God bless you.

I agree and salute (not in the nationalist sense) your message. This is the right way to bring meaning to Jesus’ message.

That is confusing I understood a couple of sentences Is it bad to love someone that does not believe in religion God wants us to love but he wants us to worship him to?

Question #1:

“Is it bad to love someone that does not believe in religion”

I think you should ask yourself: “Is is bad to love someone who does not LOVE God”, and if it is so, the answer is yes. It is bad, because that person will bring you away from Him, or will eventually become a thorn on your back. The Bible states:

2 Corinthians 6:14 New Living Translation (NLT) The Temple of the Living God

14 Don’t team up with those who are unbelievers. How can righteousness be a partner with wickedness? How can light live with darkness?

You shouldn’t believe in religion to start with. The word “Christian” is already tainted, stained with the evils of religion. Think of yourself as a follower, an imitator of Jesus. If you read your Bible, and obey the New Testament, trying to keep yourself sin-free; and if you keep a personal relationship with the Father, keeping Him as #1, and ignore the world’s hate and criticism against you, then you are a Jesus follower, and NOT a religious person.

If you’re just a church goer who lets his/her religious leader (Priest or Pastor) do the thinking and Bible reading for you, and just follow what everyone else does, adopt a religious jargon, and keep appearances, but live a sinful life as soon as you leave the temple, but criticize and condemn anyone who thinks different than you, then you ARE a religious person, and another hypocrite, for atheists and satanists to blaspheme against our Father.

Question #2: “God wants us to love but he wants us to worship him to?”

Yes, he does. But worshipping Him is nothing more that loving Him as #1 in your life, nothing ritualistic about it.

Matthew 22:34-40 New Living Translation (NLT) The Most Important Commandment

34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees with his reply, they met together to question him again. 35 One of them, an expert in religious law, tried to trap him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the most important commandment in the law of Moses?”

37 Jesus replied, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.”

God bless you.

An “imitator of Jesus” would practice Judaism, worship the Torah and celebrate passover. The last supper was Jesus and his disciples getting together to celebrate passover.

To “Jesus OPPOSED Religion”:

Firstly, I want to congratulate you on your beautiful, beautiful understanding of faith and the world. Indeed, faith and religiousness are NOT the same. Faith is personal, and as such it should be respected but should also respect the personal beliefs of others, even if they are different. Religion is cult, it is group-minded. It requires that you abandon your thinking and, as you said, let the leader do the thinking and the Book-reading for you. And the leader, as faithful as he may be is human, has flaws and, as any human who gets too close to power, is prone to not acting on the best interests of those who lead.

I am an agnostic, but I respect and support personal faith completely. I do have some concerns with religion, and those are the same concerns I have in respect to nationalism: extreme partialness, group-mindedness, closed-mindedness, pride, lack of respect for people outside their nation, religion or group.

I urge everyone to take notice of one thing: these are the very same vices that those nationalists and religious people accuse communism* of having. The pot calls the kettle black. The world doesn’t have enough space for two different extremist doctrines, but so as to avoid acknowledging their hipocrisy, they rationalize this by accusing each other of the only thing they have in common.

There’s just one thing I didn’t understood in your descriptions of your faith: at one point, you say that it is indeed bad to love an unbeliever and even remarks that “righteousness [can’t] walk together with unrighteousness”. Afterwards, you quote the Bible (I don’t remember the exact words): “judge men by their fruit” and “love thy neighbor as you do yourself”. Pardon me if I’m misunderstanding, but isn’t that a contradiction? When you wrote that it’s bad to love the “unfaithful”, that came across to me as the very same kind of separation and judging that nationalists and religious people make. I know that there ARE idiot atheists hell-bent on harassing the faithful in the name of “rationalism”, but I feel offended when you suggest that EVERY unbeliever WILL “bring [a faithful person] away from the path of God”. As I said, I am completely supportive of personal faith and freedom of belief, and I would never get in the way of someone’s faith. And I assure you that most agnostics and atheistics, or at least those I know, are like me. Intolerance and pride aren’t charateristic of us.

—————————

*about “communism”:Extreme left leaders such as Stalin and Mao have been derogatorily called “nationalist socialists” by other leftists and non-authoritarian socialists who disagreed with the authoritary, proud and intolerant behavior of them. “Communism” refers to these such ideologies, but the problem is that it eventually became a derogatory catch-all term for any kind of socialism and even for anyone to the left of center, such as me.

I’d like to remind people here that authoritarism, close-mindedness and pride are NOT intrinsic characteristics of the Left, and most of us condone this kind of behavior/ideology too. Even most socialists (save for Stalinists and the like, obviously) recognize that trying to solve social inequalities by force won’t work and that this is ultimately why the URSS failed. So, please, don’t try to put every leftist in the “communism” box. This kind of namecalling throws away any chance of civilized debate and promotes hate and conflict.

I don’t think it’s bad to love someone who doesn’t love God. God told us to love one another. He doesn’t specify which others. He wants us to love people where they are. You don’t need to love their beliefs or practices, just love them as a fellow human being. This can be very difficult to do, as many, MANY people are hard to love,and we may not want to love them, but we must try, as it is what God commanded. God loves even those who do not love Him, so why shouldn’t we? To not do so would be to imply we are higher than Him and can judge others better than Him.

Just my opinion.

u people need to grow up

This article writer is confused a bit. They are correct about Nationalism; it is a belief that ones Nation and way of life is superior or exceptional in the world. Patriotism, however, is the love of one’s culture, history and customs, as well as a love of the principle of Sovereignty; the right of a people to make their own decisions for themselves.

Patriots of the American Revolution quietly (couldn’t jump in and support because they had just won a war with the support of the French Crown) supported the patriots of the French Revolution because they were fighting for political sovereignty and democracy.

Nationalism IS one of the pillars of Fascism by the way. Along with Conservative-traditional social values (different depending of the Nation) an elevation of the Soldier, superiority of ones culture and or race, and a corporate alliance or dominance of government.

Read a book, don’t just regurgitate talking points.

Yeah Hitler was a Nationalist socialism and he fucking lost World War 2 with his stupid nationalist ideology. Hitler even had a private army of Muslims fighting for him. Nationalism sucks and Hitler just proved it.

nationalism IS fascism… it is a fictitious imaginary boundary you make to justify your ‘love’ of the land and segregate yourself from others. ofcourse there are cultural and socioeconomic differences but to LOVE it? to be prideful of it!?…. is to make oneself superior.

What bullshit subjective morality or ethics is backing your tearful statement that to feel, think and be superior is wrong? Everyone loves Nietzsche so follow the logic, Übermensch.

Hitler was a nationalist…….. name a few more.

Well, you proved the writer’s point perfectly.

Lest we forget, hitler rose to power from the support he received by nationalists. Nationalism can lead to fascism.

Merriman-Webster Dictionary:

These two words may have shared a distinct sense in the 19th century, but they appear to have grown apart since. Or rather, it would be more accurate to say that only nationalism has grown apart, since the meaning of patriotism has remained largely unchanged. There are still obvious areas of overlap: we define patriotism as “love for or devotion to one’s country” and nationalism in part as “loyalty and devotion to a nation.” But the definition of nationalism also includes “exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.” This exclusionary aspect is not shared by patriotism.

You “sir”, term used loosely here, are the idiot. Nationaism is destroying this country and your response is just vindicating what the author was saying. Grow up and wise moron.

Was not all convinced by the article. All I read was the difference between “nationalism” and “nationalism-lite”.

I like the way and the points you differentiated the two:nationalism and patriotism

I like the answer

the differences displayed between nationalism and patriotism was simple and easily understandable!!!! superb!!!

Yes, but completely false. I am an nationalist, but now way am I aggressive, nor do I think others are inferior. But yes, I would like Finland to be mostly for Finnish people, and I think Finnish heritage is way superior to somali, jews or gypsies.

If you feel your way of life is superior, than you think other’s way of life is inferior. There is no way around it. You are simply a Nationalist. But I do happen to agree that your country has many superior qualities to my own (usa).

This article misunderstands ‘nationalism’ and confuses it with ‘chauvinism.’

With “I think,” I mean to say that I use my brain before I speak. Not like most of the people who also commented here.

I’d say the majority here think the article is also incorrect. So you cannot have thought that hard before you commented.

You’re a tad obnoxious, aren’t you? 🙂

I thought it was well written but it’s obvious you view nationalists as the enemy and patriots as benevolent. I’m a nationalist, so many I’m biased but it’s more centred on the strength of a nation than it is about butting heads with other countries and those who don’t agree with us. I think the fact we target nations we perceive to be threats to the state is what gives us a bad name. For instance, I would be in favor of annulling debt to china and sealing trade, but only because they are flooding our economy.

Patriotism is live for your country for what it have done. Nationalism is love for your country no matter what it has done. Patriots defend their country loyally even if it wrong. A nationalist defends its country so he can be proved right.

I personally believe Patriotism is the ideology of the original patriots AKA the Congress-men. The ideology between the nation and the individual is best described not in the constitution, but in the declaration of independence.

The belief that government is only legitimate with the consent of the governed. It’s highest priority is upholding the liberties outlined in that document. In addition is the strong belief that when a government fails to uphold those liberties, it is no longer a legitimate nation of said patriots.

They are not Nationalists in any way really, the two are actually almost opposites. Patriots are Libertarians by nature, the nation ain’t worth a damn if it takes those liberties.

Nationalists believe in the supremacy of the nation, this necessitates liberties being sacrificed for the benefit of the nation. Liberties themselves only exist to secure the rights of individuals. This doesn’t mean they aren’t important to every Nationalist, but when the choice is exclusive, they place The Nation above Individual Liberties. They can really place anything anywhere, as long as the nation reigns as the top priority.

In addition as a few others have indicated the nation is defined by a group of people with shared heritage. This can be ethnocentric, racial, and/or cultural. It can be set in stone de jure, or even as loose as a “way of life”.

i am 31 years old

I think nationalism can be defined as supporting your country whether what it’s doing is right or wrong.

I agree with other commenters that this article misses the mark, and is really just describing chauvinism. Far too simplistic an interpretation. What of civic nationalism? What of nationalists behind separatist movements (Scotland, Quebec, Catalonia, etc)–movements born more out of a want for self-determination than a sense of inherent superiority? Similarly, nationalism under occupation or aggression, like French nationalism during WW2, Native American nationalism during European/US expansionism, or contemporaneous Tibetan nationalism.

This article is very illogical and shallow, as are many of the comments afterward. A reflection of public discourse in general in America right now? I think so. Very disappointing and sad.

To say that Patriotism is “passive” is an insult to every POW, every veteran, and every soldier who has a white cross for a headstone or is represented by the Tombs of the Unknown Soldiers anywhere in the world.

Some cultures ARE better than others. Any culture that makes it’s women wear burkas and takes them out of school seems to me to be inferior to ones where people of any race and gender can attend school and achieve on the basis of merit.

No culture or heritage is ALL bad or ALL good, but some definitely are tipped toward the good side, including the one I live in now, The Republic of Texas.

As far as Nationalism goes, it is good to have healthy boundaries, especially when facing other nations who want to kill you.

When a culture, including America’s, does engage in something immoral, it should be checked and stopped. But that doesn’t mean everything about it is always “bad”. People are too emotional and reactionary, and the discussion on this thread is a perfect example.

I think some people on this thread just enjoy imagining chaos and anarchy. I think these same people also enjoy the wishful thinking that our enemies are really our friends. Question: If you people who hate Nationalism do get everything you want politically, do you think the chaos will make you happy?

Fences make good neighbors. Read Mending Wall sometime.

j.B, I don’t think you can classify cultures as “good” or “bad”, or even as better or worse.

Cultures aren’t set in stone. They are like breathing, living things. They change. Like people, they can work to correct their flaws, and, like people, all they have to do to start autocorrecting is acknowledging their flaws.

You mention burkas. Yeah, I do agree with you that the Middle East currently has a bad streak of sexism, as well as authoritarism, extremism and such. But we must not overlook the fact that there’s a large number of Muslims who are opposed to thas as well, and frequently even more than we are. And a curiosity about burkas: many Muslim women actually choose to wear them out of their own free will. They are patriots and, since they consider the burka to be a symbol of their culture, wear it proudly. There has been an event where a government proposal against burkas in England (I think) was actually met with animosity from the Muslim women.

Marjane Satrapi immediately comes to mind. She’s an Iranian writer, and her autobiography provides insight into lots of aspects of Islam, but most importantly, it shows how the FUNDAMENTALISTS that are currently in power DO NOT exactly have lots of popular support. They maintain power through FORCE. They’re dictators. And it’s outright ABSURD to judge a culture by the things its dictators do.

And an important fact is that the fundamentalists weren’t always there. That is to say, Islamic countries weren’t always like that. Shit happened when RELIGION and POLITICS got mixed up. They were mixed up in Medieval Europe as well and, surprise, that time is caled the Dark Ages for a reason.

Sexism and authoritarism are NOT components of Islam. They come from the INTERPRETATION of Islam done by the fundamentalists, not from Islam itself.

And I have to remind you: our very own WESTERN CULTURE has corrected itself through the ages. A few examples follow.

Please remember that a thousand years ago the Church conducted the Incquisition and te Crusades. One was a hunt for the healers, women that had “too much knowledge”. The other was a series of unwarranted attacks on the East and there was even a “Children’s Crusade” where thousands of kids were sent to die. Both of these atrocities were commited in the name of Christ, but based on what little I know of the man, this seems like the kind of stuff he would condemn with all His might. Please remember that a few CENTURIES ago the daughters of nobility had no say at all on their lives and were sold into marriage for dowry and/or political alliances. Frequently, it was 15 year old girls being sold do adult men and they were seen as less human and more breeding machines, necessary ONLY for their capacity to produce male heirs. Please remember that a few DECADES ago the US was’t unlike the African Apartheid in its treatment of people of color, and women weren’t allowed to vote or work. Please remember the KKK and Hitler, who used Christianism to rationalize their actions.

Do all these things mean our culture is bad? OF COURSE NOT. Every culture has critical flaws, and these can ALWAYS be corrected. And it may seem to you like our culture is “way ahead” of the Middle East because these issues are things of the past now, but that’s only because they’re being oppressed by theocratic dictators.

Please don’t judge a culture by its flaws before knowing more about it. I know it may seem to us like all Muslims are like that, but it really isn’t so, not even close. The fundamentalists hurt their own people even more than they hurt us.

Also, I jut read Mending Wall. It seems to m that Frost is questioning the notion that “fences make good neighbors”, not just presenting it. He asks himself “why is that?” many times, and by the end it just seems like he goes “oh well, I can’t find an answer for it, but heck, it’s just the way it is, right?” It seems to me that he’s not quite stating that that is HIS chosen answer to the question, but just questioning how people just go with it and never even bother to stop and think WHY, just like his neighbor. You know, sometimes when poets write “I”, they’re not really talking about themselves. This is one of the many quirks that make poetry beautiful.

I WOULD LIKE SOMETHING MORE IMPORTANT WITH REGARD TO BOTH WORDS ,THAT IS THE RELATIOSHIP COMBINING THEM ,,,THE MORE INEQUILIBRIUM IN VALUES THE LESS PATRIOTISM &MORE NATIONALISM ,,THE WHOLE MATTER HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE IDEOLOGIES ,,,A PERFECT ,SOUND IDEOLOGY THAT IS IN HARMONY WITH THE HUMAN NATURE MEANS RISE&FLOURISHMENT IN PATRITISM ,THE REVERSE LEADS TO THE EMERGENCE OF NATIONALISM ,,,,NATIONALISM IS NOT NEEDED ,,WHAT IS NEEDED FOR ANY NATION IS PATRITISM

I like this article, contrary to all y’all.

Right? It seems to me like most of the people that disagree here are really patriots who think they’re nationalists.

What is d difference between home and house?

yes, it’s a little simplistic. and it basically describes ethnic-nationalism, not other kinds, but it is a good summary of nationalism vs. patriotism. the only people who hate this article are nationalists (in fact many have said so right here) who are probably too far gone in their inferiority complexes and hatred to admit any truth in the article.

Trae gets it…All the Nationalists with Napoleon complexes and small d** are the ones who oppose this article. In other words all the Trump supporters. Nationalists to the end. Ignorant, (mostly white males) angry, gun toting, belly aching, uneducated blowhards just like the POTUS. They still want us to live like we did in the 1800’s where they can degrade their wives and all women for that matter with no recourse, have slaves, where white sheets over their ugly mugs, and chant USA, USA, USA all while feeling inferior on the inside. Blasphemous behavior if you ask the rest of us PATRIOTIC Americans.

Hannah , what if God is a ‘her’ not a ‘he’. I would probably trust someone more who does not think you should ‘love’ god and he/she loves us. Nationalism combined with religious dogma is rarely a happy mix nor does it make for a happy ending. If this ‘god’ does love us, he/she has a very funny way of showing it.

even though i love Orwell, i have to disagree with him on this because sometimes civil society maintains a facade of peace under an oppressive rule. it’s stagnation and not peace. nationalism isn’t about a sense of superiority…i’m not sure how developed countries live it out but in my developing country nationalism means striving towards a better society and overcoming despotism. creation goes hand in hand with destruction. setting up new tables and getting rid of old ones does entail violence but it’s a necessity.

You raise a good point. My parents worked in Ghana just after its independence. An optimistic mood of Ghanian natonalismm helped forge different tribes together the build one of Africas most successful nations. South African nationalism galvinised the country in a post aparthide indentity.

No need to disagree with Orwell.

Read the essay.

He borrows the word Nationalism for a concept for which no word exists.

He isn’t defining, or even redefining, nationalism.

But using it as shorthand for another concept he takes a long essay to explain.

Oh, and “his” “nationalism” today would apply to “Democrats”, “liberals”, Western “intellectuals” and academics, and the like!

“nationalism is a feeling that one’s country is superior to another in all respects”

And your contention is, what? You deny that the US is superior to a third world toilet? If so, what are your reasons? Amazingly we are taught the superiority of the pedigree of a dog or horse and many other aspects of nature but when it comes to man the Marxist ceases the scientific method of observation of what is greater and lesser and fly’s a banner of blind equality. If we did not acknowledge the pedigree of our species then would nature progress us to new evolutionary heights? Without pedigree, what sense is there in words such as “progress” or “evolution”? These words are preceded by concepts that are built upon the truth that something can be greater or lesser. So cut the crap, a nation of people can be greater or lesser than another.

“And your contention is, what?”

I obviously can’t speak for the authour here, but my contention is that it is an idiotically complacent attitude to have towards one’s country! For you to feel this “pride”, it require that people before you had to put in a tremendous amount of work to make the US the way it is today.

What if instead it was the US that was a third world shit hole? Are you still going to be full of pride, refusing to see the flaws and issues that need fixing?

Nationalism CAN be static and complacent. It CAN be a position of arrogance hindering people from improving themselves, unless self improvement is hard wired straight into the ethos of the nation, like in Japan for example(at least from the looks of it). Even then, I would say it’s not good enough.

What if you happen to migrate to another country? Are you suddenly going to act like a slime ball on account of no longer living in the country you were born to? Or are you going to be someone who will still look to care and be protective of the country you’ve migrated to? I would assume it’s the later.

Don’t mistake Nationalism for fascism. The only reason why nationalism is labelled as such is because fascists use the term nationalism to describe their hateful intentions. Though it is true that they are practicing nationalism, they are practicing it extremely and in an unhealthy manner. Going back, nationalism is more on loving and preserving your own culture. Take for example. a dying culture in a certain region because of modernization. This is not to imply that you hate modernization, but rather, you want to preserve their culture by letting other people know, even if they are modernized already.

Recently non-Scots who classed as ‘nationalists’ and even ‘Nazis’ the Scots who voted ‘Yes’ during Scotland’s failed latest attempt to gain independence will have chosen to ignore that Brexit shows that they are no different from said Scots. Give a man enough rope and he’ll hang himself. Let him talk for long enough and his tongue will replace the rope.

There were really only two sides to that referendum: Scottish nationalists/separatists vs British nationalists/loyalists.

Overall good Analysis -but dont agree with the Summary Part – Patriot can fight for independence as it happend in India – The Nationalist’s stayed away from the Independence movement while the Patriots like Gandhi fought for freedom –

“Indian nationalism refers to the many underlying forces that defined the principles of the Indian independence movement, and strongly continue to influence the politics of India” from the page “Indian nationalism” on Wiki. If you’re a nationalist towards India it’d be self-contradictory to support British occupation, that would make you a loyalist. A nationalist response is more along the lines of what Gandhi or Infantry Regiment 950 did.

who wrote this article defining a patriot as someone who expresses love toward his country in a passive way:

Tell that to Paul Revere and the millions of Americans who died for this country considering it the greatest country on Earth.

I’m a patriot and I love this country… that makes me a nationalist. I also happen to be white so that makes me a white nationalist… OMG!

Leftist commucrats and globalists (like the writer of this article) are trying to make nationalism a pejorative… a dirty word. They’re trying to subtly replace the term “white supremacy” with “white nationalism.”

Going on this article, I am a patriot and not a nationalist because I seek to better our nation by addressing and correcting its flaws and to progress to a more just and equal nation rather than blindly supporting it without questioning it.

Remind me to never get stuck in a foxhole with you, Mr. Question Man Commucrat. Nationalists don’t blindly support anything, but if you don’t have a country what DO you have, genius? What you should question instead of your country is why the hell you’re still living here if you don’t support your country. There’s no difference in being a patriot and a nationalist. Like I already said. The leftist lunatic globalists want to make it a dirty word to believe in nationalism. Get an education, pal.

This article is full of gross generalizations. I did however like the first definition provided for Patriotism and Nationalism. I’ll focus my comment on Nationalism for now, as it appears to be the most controversial. First, what defines a nation is contested. Thus, the same issue applies to a greater degree for nationalism. Nationalism can be Rightwing, Leftwing, centrist, traditionalist, and perhaps in many more forms. Let us take the Fascist Nationalism of Benito Mussolini as a case study. In this context Nationalism is defined by violence and imperialism. Let us take the Nationalism of India for a contrast. Indian nationalism of the 30s-40s aimed to liberate India. Nehru’s Indian nationalism was statist, Gandhi’s was rural/village centric, Savarkar was culture centered, Sardar Patel’s was tradition centered, and so on. In fact Nationalism is a normal part of discourse in India. There is moderate, extreme, and other forms of nationalism in India. Even many communists in India profess nationalism (some as deceit for votes and support while others, rarely, genuinely are nationalistic). Nelson Mandela was a Nationalist who opposed apartheid. Hitler was a Nazi nationalist who used it to promote racism and genocide. There was Bismark, who through realism, sought to establish a German state, which is an example of nationalism. It is a shame that many on this comment section have become militant in their support and opposition to this very broad and undefined category. Nationalism isn’t like Capitalism, Marxism, Islam, Christianity, etc. It is a word with fluid meaning. It is diverse and undefined. It grows shrinks and so on.

My po*p smells help, i think it may be because I’m a nationalist what should i do

yo i agree you bugging homie

Your definitions and distinctions were helpful, but I object to your calling patriotism passive. Patriotism – love of the fatherland – inspires actions that benefit the nation and its inhabitants.

Love is to patriotism as Pride is to nationalism.

Clarification

This is totally wrong. There is nothing in nationalism that implies the notion that once own nation/people would be superior to any other nation. I would say that that notion rather is linked to patriotism, as patriotism is artificial.

Nationalism is based on the notion that kinship gives affinity, a notion everyone know is true. Patriotism is based on the notion that a set of beliefs could replace kinship bonds, something that is practically impossible to do. Where nationalism and an nation state (e.g. the old Sweden) can lead to a harmonic society that don’t feel the need to overcome internal strifes by waging wars on other countries, a patriotic country often does not.

A patriotic country on the other hand can consist of several different peoples that tries to overcome their cultural differences and different background through a artificial set of beliefs that everyone is supposed to abide too. The US is a perfect example of a patriotic country that has waged war on country after country to cover up the fact that it is an artificial country with grave internal contradictions between people that are not related to each other, doesn’t share a cultural background etc.

This is very annoying, I hate all of you.

Leave a Response

Name ( required )

Email ( required )

Please note: comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Written by : Prabhat S. and updated on 2018, February 26 Articles on DifferenceBetween.net are general information, and are not intended to substitute for professional advice. The information is "AS IS", "WITH ALL FAULTS". User assumes all risk of use, damage, or injury. You agree that we have no liability for any damages.

Advertisments

More in 'ideology'.

• Difference Between Colonialism and Imperialism
• Difference Between Collectivism and Individualism
• Difference Between Absolutism and Totalitarianism
• Difference Between Labor Day and Memorial Day
• Difference Between Whistleblower and Leaker

More in 'Language'

• Difference Between IELTS and TOEFL
• Difference Between Fear and Anxiety
• Difference Between Center and Centre
• Difference Between Editing and Proofreading
• Difference Between Then and Than

More in 'Politics'

• Difference Between Authoritarian and Dictator
• Difference Between Authoritarian and Democracy
• Difference Between Authoritarian and Libertarian
• Difference Between Autocracy and Dictatorship

Top Difference Betweens

Get new comparisons in your inbox:, most emailed comparisons, editor's picks.

• Difference Between MAC and IP Address
• Difference Between Platinum and White Gold
• Difference Between Civil and Criminal Law
• Difference Between GRE and GMAT
• Difference Between Immigrants and Refugees
• Difference Between DNS and DHCP
• Difference Between Computer Engineering and Computer Science
• Difference Between Men and Women
• Difference Between Book value and Market value
• Difference Between Red and White wine
• Difference Between Depreciation and Amortization
• Difference Between Bank and Credit Union
• Difference Between White Eggs and Brown Eggs

• IAS Preparation
• Difference Between Articles

Difference between Nationalism and Patriotism

Difference between Nationalism and Patriotism is explained here in detail. The difference between nationalism and patriotism 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 difference between Nationalism vs Patriotism given here can help the UPSC Civil Service exam aspirants to understand the basics better and know their comparisons thoroughly.

Aspirants would find this article very helpful while preparing for the IAS Exam .

Difference between Nationalism and Patriotism – UPSC Notes:- Download PDF Here

The differences between Nationalism and Patriotism are:

These are the main differences between Nationalism and Patriotism.The differences given in the above table can help the UPSC Civil Service Exam aspirants to answer any related questions easily in the exams.

After learning about the Nationalism and Patriotism difference, it is better to know the details of Political Science and International Relations syllabus, optional books and the strategies for UPSC Civil Service Exam. Visit the below-given links to learn about Causes of Indian National Movement, Moderate phase of Indian National Movement, Extremist Period of Indian National Movement in detail, along with other information. Also refer the links given below, for NCERT Notes on Modern Indian History, Medieval Indian History and Ancient Indian History. Also refer to the links of Sociology syllabus for UPSC Civil Service Exam and understand the differences between Political Science and Sociology.

• Political Science and International Relations Optional – Syllabus for UPSC Mains Exam
• Political Science and International Relations – Strategy, Book List etc
• NCERT Notes: Moderate Phase of Indian National Movement
• NCERT Notes: Causes of Indian National Movement
• NCERT Notes: Indian National Movement – Extremist Period
• NCERT Notes: Revolutionary Movement in Indian Freedom Struggle
• NCERT Notes – Modern Indian History
• NCERT Notes – Ancient Indian History
• NCERT Notes – Medieval Indian History
• Sociology Syllabus for UPSC Exam
• Difference between Sociology and Political Science
• Complete List of Difference between Articles – History, Polity, Economics, Geography and more

The above details would help candidates prepare for  UPSC 2024 .

Frequently Asked Questions on Difference between Nationalism and Patriotism

Q 1. what is the main difference between nationalism and patriotism, q 2. are patriotism and nationalism synonyms.

Related Links

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

Download the ultimate guide to upsc cse preparation.

• Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

• Presidential Search
• Editor's Pick

Progressive Labor Party Organizes Solidarity March With Harvard Yard Encampment

Encampment Protesters Briefly Raise 3 Palestinian Flags Over Harvard Yard

Mayor Wu Cancels Harvard Event After Affinity Groups Withdraw Over Emerson Encampment Police Response

Harvard Yard To Remain Indefinitely Closed Amid Encampment

HUPD Chief Says Harvard Yard Encampment is Peaceful, Defends Students’ Right to Protest

Protest and Patriotism

A few years ago, I had the opportunity to spend time as an exchange student in Germany, traveling with a group of students from across the United States. Part of traveling is a constant comparison between home and abroad: Public transportation? Germany wins. Sports? Toss-up. Food? Home. The reflex is natural for travelers, but some of my friends took it to extremes. Any positive experience they had had in America was dust in the Bavarian wind; Germany offered a superior alternative to every American system. The disposition, like our time abroad, proved temporary. But what was temporary among a bunch of Yankee tourists seems to have become a cultural default stateside.

The current intellectual mode is critical analysis and re-evaluation of important American moments and figures. Recurring tragedies of injustice understandably dampen any celebration of our history. And so the pendulum has swung harshly away from American exceptionalism, rejecting the “city on a hill” mythos and adopting a more cynical narrative: American inferiority. It reaches from high-profile academic work to popular protests, and leaves little room for patriotism. In a jungle of political connotations, that sentiment has been identified as a clawed and aggressive predator of the same genus as savage nationalism.

And yet — what if we need patriotism? American inferiority, while it rightfully points out some errors of the exceptionalist mindset, hides a dangerous nihilism.

A revolutionary air hangs over the moment. The philosophy of American inferiority demands change, and its intellectual dissent has grown into physical revolt. There are two sides to any movement: the change and the ideal. The change is the force of action; the ideal is the goal. Each balances the other, change bringing ideal into actuality, and ideal keeping change from anarchy. Every movement skews one way or the other, never completely balanced. An overly philosophical movement is inert. But an overly aggressive movement is destructive. As protests sweep America, buildings burn down and bullets steal lives. Amid this frightening outbreak of violence, it is clear that this movement does not skew toward inaction. Yet without firm temperance, activism devolves into chaotic upheaval; focus upon the construction of a more just republic descends into rage against the ancien régime; societal progress becomes a euphemism for the tumbril rolling to the guillotine. “Rash enthusiast of Change, beware!”

In every era, change has needed some guiding ideal to ascend to the height of progress. What ideal will guide this movement? The right of the people is a popular suggestion — symbolized by the anonymous raised fist of humanity, ubiquitous in Portland, Minneapolis, and Washington, D.C. A fine sentiment, but an unspecific assertion. Modern America, more mosaic than melting pot, responds, “Which people?” Our nation divides itself cleanly not even along political lines. With such diversity, the “right of the people” cannot possibly mean more than the right of each person; and the right of each person, carried to its furthest, is no more than anarchy. The people are the object, but are not the sort of thing — a right, a virtue, an idea — that can guide change.

Past protests had patriotism to guide them. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his most famous speech beside an American flag, overlooking a sea of red, white, and blue signs holding America accountable to its founding dream. Likewise, the civil rights marchers followed a platoon of American flags into Montgomery. If patriotism is unpopular now, it is because we have misunderstood America. Our history has its flaws. Too often the flag has witnessed the oppression and suffering of its own people. But whereas other nations base identity on dates and bloodlines and locations, America is not, at heart, a history. What is America? More than anything, she is an idea — a dream of equality in the form of a republic. America is a social covenant, a commitment to the equality and unalienable rights written in the Declaration of Independence and applied through the Constitution. Patriotism is not a flag blindfolding the patriot to injustices. It is hope for this idea’s ever-increasing realization; it tethers change to the transcendent ideals that form America.

Nevertheless, today one is as likely to find a flag flying as to find it upside down or burning in protest cities. Decrying an inherently corrupt America, the protests across the nation are all but void of national symbols. Consider athletes kneeling for the national anthem, a forerunner of today’s demonstrations. The players’ action is rooted in the fact of unjust killings at the hands of the law, but what does its symbolism mean? For the civil rights movement, the flag was a symbol of hope — they held onto that flag, letting go of equality for all men for nothing. Disregarding the flag or the national anthem, then, speaks to a nihilism about America. The nation will never be more than the worst of its history; there is no hope in a transcendent American ideal. Herein lies the danger of American inferiority. Far enough away to see the nation’s faults, it remains too close to see anything but the faults.

Patriotism cannot solve our nation’s problems. It cannot fix a wage gap. It cannot stop unjust killings. It cannot abolish injustice. But we cannot realize the sublime idea of America without patriotic hope. Otherwise all we have is American inferiority’s nihilistic vision of a stumbling nation. Our eyes darkened, we may advocate and legislate, but we will be forever tossed upon the whims of the moment — always reacting, never progressing. Our untethered change will create the stumbling nation we feared, and America will mean nothing more than a history or a place. Without patriotism, we will lose America, for we will have given up on the idea.

Joseph McDonough ’23 lives in Kirkland House.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Populism and Nationalism: An Overview of Similarities and Differences

• Published: 15 June 2021
• Volume 56 , pages 131–147, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Ashutosh Varshney 1  

5204 Accesses

9 Citations

14 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Both populism and nationalism are rooted in the idea of popular sovereignty. They look alike when populism gravitates towards the right, identifying “the people” with an ethnic or racial majority, and when nationalism turns against the minorities. But populism can also go towards the left, embracing the low-income citizenry as the nation’s “true people,” just as nationalism can include ethnic and racial diversity under its umbrella. Some other key differences are also noteworthy. Populism is inevitably defined as an anti-elitist doctrine, whereas nationalism is often led by the elites. Moreover, embedded as it normally is in state institutions, laws, school textbooks, museums and maps, nationalism can be a state ideology, taking routinized forms. In contrast, populist politics thrives on a virtually relentless mobilization of popular energy. Nationalism acquires this fervent form mainly under two conditions: when it is secessionary, trying to break states up, or when it becomes majoritarian, attacking internal minorities. Otherwise, nationalism can easily exist in a quieter register.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Patriotism, Nationalism, and Populism: The New Playground

Populism Beyond the Nation

Ding, Slater, and Zengin (this issue).

Bonikowski, Bart. 2017 .

If the poor come entirely, or preponderantly, from one ethnic or racial community, then ethnicity/race and class can coincide, and such lower-class populism can also take an ethnic/racial form. Such systems are called vertical ethnic orders by Horowitz ( 1985 ). Bolivia under Evo Morales is an example.

Most of these articles were initially presented as papers at the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association (August 2019) and the Social Science History Association (November 2019).

Brubaker 2017 and 2020 ; de la Torre 2017 ; Moffitt 2016 .

There is also an argument that populism should be viewed in strategic terms, not in ideational terms at all. See Weyland 2017 .

Brubaker 2020 ; Levitsky and Loxton  2013 ; Mudde 2004 ; Laclau 2005 ; Mastropaolo 2008 ; Ostiguy 2017 .

Another objection to populism’s alleged anti-elitism takes a different form. According to some scholars, if the business elites support populist regimes, as they often do, then they can be called anti-political establishment, but not anti-elite. This objection depends on how the term “elite” is defined. See Evans ( 2020 ) and Heller ( 2020 ).

Jenne et al. (this issue).

Ding et al. (this issue).

In a similar vein, De Cleen ( 2017 ) says that populism has a “down/up” structure where people are presented as underdogs and elites at the top as illegitimately privileged, whereas nationalism has an “in/out” structure, castigating non-nationals or non-citizens as adversaries, not the elites.

It can certainly be argued that when it was first born as an ideology, nationalism was anti-elite in that it was against empires and imperial rulers were the elite then. See Anderson ( 1983 ).

de laTorre 2017 , 7.

Hawkins 2009 , 1044.

See Jenne et al. (this issue).

Betz 1994 .

See also the discussion in Varshney, 2002 , Ch. 3.

Singh, this issue.

Schmitt 1996 , 28.

Muller, 2018 , 61.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v36Zj5NAIiA (translated from Hindi). For a fuller discussion of Modi as a populist, see Varshney 2019 .

Singh (this issue), citing Plotkin 2010 and de la Torre 2017 .

See the account in Muller ( 2016 ). Also see Mishra ( 2016 ).

Rousseau, 1985 , The Government of Poland, 11–12.

Rousseau, 1968 , 23.

Laclau ( 2005 ), however, argues that populism does not have to privilege visceral impulses. It can be based on deliberation.

Canovan 1999 , 10.

Rousseau 1968 , 23.

Rousseau 1985 , 35.

See, however, Tang 2016 . Also noteworthy is Bell ( 2016 ), who calls China a meritocracy, not a democracy, participatory, or Schumpeterian. Perry ( 2015 ) does use the term “populist dream,” but she appears to equate local participation with populism.

Ibid , 16, emphasis added.

For the various ways in which national identities have been historically defined, see Varshney 2002 , Ch.3.

See, however, Kedourie ( 1960 ) and Connor ( 1994 ).

Mao Zedong might have disagreed with this claim, at least partly. The mobilization-heavy cultural revolution lasted 10 years (1967–76), following not so long after the Great Leap Forward (1958–61). See Gurley 1970 .

Singh (this issue) explains this at length.

For an application of this idea to India, see Varshney ( 2013 ); for America, in different ways, see Huntington ( 1981 ) and Morone ( 1990 ).

Mounk, 2018 , 44–45. Also see Pappas ( 2019 )

Also, see Jenne et al. and Singh (this issue).

On democratic backsliding, see Levitsky and Ziblatt ( 2018 ).

Those who do not subscribe to the liberal conception of democracy would not find this kind of erosion necessarily undemocratic. See Laclau ( 2005 ).

For how this was calculated, see Sachs and Warner ( 1995 : 22).

Ibid., 22–23.

In a roughly analogous vein, Esping-Anderson ( 1990 ) wrote about three different welfare regimes in Europe, and the explanation of such divergence was how those states came to view the relationship between nationhood and citizenship.

Anderson B. Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso books; 1983.

Google Scholar  

Bell D. The China model: political meritocracy and the limits of democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2016.

Book   Google Scholar  

Betz HG. Radical right-wing populism in Western Europe. New York: St. Martin’s Press; 1994.

Bonikowski B. Ethno-nationalist populism and the mobilization of collective resentment. Br J Sociol. 2017;68(1).

Brubaker R. Citizenship and nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1998.

Brubaker R. Why populism? Theory Soc. 2017;46(5).

Brubaker R. Populism and nationalism. Nations and Nationalism. 2020;26(1).

Canovan M. Trust the people! Populism and the two faces of democracy. Polit Stud. 1999;47(1).

Connor W. Ethnonationalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1994.

De Cleen B. Populism and nationalism. In: Kaltwasser CR, Taggart P, Espejo PO, Ostiguy P, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Populism. Oxford University Press; 2017.

de la Torre C. Populism and nationalism in Latin America. Javnost-The Public. 2017;24(4).

Esping-Anderson G. Three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1990.

Evans P. Introduction: the rise of 21 st century exclusionary regimes. Int Sociol. 2020;35(6):581–9.

Article   Google Scholar  

Gellner E. Nations and nationalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 1983.

Gurley J. Maoist economic development: the new man in the New China. Rev Radic Polit Econ. 1970.

Hawkins KA. Is Chavez populist? Measuring populist discourse in comparative perspective. Comp Polit Stud. 2009;42(8).

Heller P. The age of reaction: retrenchment populism in India and Brazil. Int Sociol. 2020;35(6):590–609.

Horowitz D. Ethnic groups in conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1985.

Huntington SP. American politics: the promise of disharmony. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1981.

Kalyvas S. What democracies can learn from Greece’s failed populist experiment. The Atlantic, May 4. 2017.

Kedourie E. Nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers; 1960.

Laclau E. On populist reason. London: Verso; 2005.

Levitsky S, Loxton J. Populism and competitive authoritarianism in the Andes. Democratization. 2013;20(1):107–36.

Levitsky S, Ziblatt D. How democracies die. New York: Penguin Press; 2018.

Mastropaolo A. Politics against democracy: party withdrawal and populist breakthrough. In: Albertazzi D, McDonnell D, editors. Twenty-First Century Populism: The Spectre of Western European Democracy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2008.

Mishra P. How Rousseau predicted Trump. The New Yorker, August 1. 2016.

Moffitt B. The global rise of populism: performance, political style, and representation. Stanford University Press; 2016.

Morone JA. The democratic wish. New York: Basic Books; 1990.

Mounk Y. The people vs democracy. Harvard University Press; 2018.

Mudde C. The populist Zeitgeist. Gov Oppos. 2004;39(4).

Muller J-W. What is populism? Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; 2016.

Muller J-W. Homo orbanicus. New York Review of Books, 5 April. 2018.

Ostiguy P. Populism: a socio-cultural approach. In: Kaltwasser CR, Taggart P, Espejo PO, Ostiguy P, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Populism. Oxford University Press; 2017.

Pappas, Takis S. 2019. Populism and Liberal Democracy. Oxford University Press.

Perry E. The populist dream of Chinese democracy. J Asian Stud. 2015;74(4).

Plotkin M. Final reflections. In: Karush M, Oscar Chamosa O, editors. The New Cultural History of Peronism. Duke University Press; 2010. p. 271–287.

Rodrik D. The globalization paradox. New York: W.W. Norton and Co; 2011.

Rousseau JJ. The social contract. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Classics; 1968.

Rousseau JJ. The government of Poland. Cambridge, MA: Hacket Classics; 1985.

Sachs JD, Warner A. Economic reforms and the process of global integration. Brook Pap Econ Act. 1995;1995(1).

Schmitt C. (1923). The crisis of parliamentary democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1988.

Schmitt C. 1925. The concept of the political: University of Chicago Press; 1996.

Smith R. Civic ideals: contesting visions of citizenship in US History. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1997.

Tang W. Populist authoritarianism: Chinese political culture and regime sustainability. New York: Oxford University Press; 2016.

Taylor C. Nationalism and modernity. In: McKim R, McMahan J, editors. The Morality of Nationalism. Oxford University Press; 1997.

Varshney A. Ethnic conflict and civic life: Hindus and Muslims in India. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 2002.

Varshney A. Battles half won: India’s improbable democracy. Delhi: Penguin Press; 2013.

Varshney A. The emergence of right-wing populism in India. In: Jayal N, editor . Re-Forming India. Penguin Viking Press; 2019.

Weyland K. Populism: a political strategic approach. In: Kaltwasser CR, Taggart P, Espejo PO, Ostiguy P, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Populism. New York: Oxford University Press; 2017.

Wimmer A. Nationalist exclusion and ethnic conflict. Cambridge University Press; 2002.

Wimmer A. Nation building: why some countries come together while others fall apart. Princeton University Press; 2018.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful for the comments and suggestions made on earlier drafts of this essay by Peter Evans, Ricarda Hammer, Patrick Heller, Barbara Stallings, and the two reviewers for this journal. A grant from the Azim Premji Foundation facilitated the writing of this essay. The standard disclaimers apply.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Brown University, Providence, RI, USA

Ashutosh Varshney

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashutosh Varshney .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Varshney, A. Populism and Nationalism: An Overview of Similarities and Differences. St Comp Int Dev 56 , 131–147 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-021-09332-x

Download citation

Accepted : 05 May 2021

Published : 15 June 2021

Issue Date : June 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-021-09332-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Nationalism
• Ethnopopulism
• Majoritarianism
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

‘The Seeds Had Been Planted. Trump Didn’t Do It Himself.’

By Thomas B. Edsall

Mr. Edsall contributes a weekly column from Washington, D.C., on politics, demographics and inequality.

Over the past 30 years, authoritarianism has moved from the periphery to the center, even the core, of global politics, shaping not only the divide between left and right in the United States but also the conflict between the American-led alliance of democratic nations and the loose coalition of autocratic states including Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.

Marc Hetherington , a political scientist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and a co-author of “ Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics ,” has tracked the partisanship of white voters in this country who are in the top 15 percent on measures of support for dictatorial rule.

Replying by email to my inquiry, Hetherington wrote:

In 1992, those whites scoring at the top of the authoritarianism scale split their two-party vote almost evenly between Bush and Clinton (51 to 49). In 2000 and 2004, the difference becomes statistically significant but still pretty small. By 2012, those high-authoritarianism white voters went 68 to 32 for Romney over Obama. In both Trump elections it was 80 to 20 among those voters. So from 50 Republican-50 Democrat to 80 Republican-20 Democrat in the space of 24 years.

The parallel pattern of conflicting values and priorities that has emerged between nations is the focus of a paper published last month, “ Worldwide Divergence of Values ” by Joshua Conrad Jackson and Dan Medvedev , both at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. The two authors analyzed data from seven studies conducted by the World Values Survey in 76 countries between 1981 and 2022.

Jackson and Medvedev found that over those years, “Values emphasizing tolerance and self-expression have diverged most sharply, especially between high-income Western countries and the rest of the world” and characterized this split as a clash between “emancipatory” values and values of “obedience.”

I asked Medvedev whether authoritarianism represents the antithesis of a regime based on emancipatory principles, and he wrote back, “It certainly does seem that authoritarian regimes tend to reject values that we categorize as emancipative.”

He said he would prefer to use the word “traditional” but “that’s just my preference — I don’t think it’s incorrect to use ‘authoritarian.’”

Jackson and Medvedev found that “the rate of value divergence” could be determined using seven questions producing “the highest divergence scores.” Those were:

(1) justifiability of homosexuality, (2) justifiability of euthanasia, (3) importance of obedience of children, (4) justifiability of divorce, (5) justifiability of prostitution, (6) justifiability of suicide and (7) justifiability of abortion.

I wrote Jackson and Medvedev, asking about this divergence:

There has been a lot of speculation lately about new global divide pitting democracies led by the United States against a coalition including China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. Does this divide show up in your data on values differences between countries? Are there values differences between democratic countries and autocratic countries?

“The short answer is yes,” Jackson and Medvedev wrote back and provided a detailed analysis in support of their reply.

Their data shows that the citizens in authoritarian countries tend to “believe that homosexuality and divorce are not justifiable” while those living in the United States, Japan, Germany and Canada “tend to believe that homosexuality and divorce are justifiable and disagree that obedience is an important value to teach their children.”

More important, Jackson and Medvedev found that over those years, Russia, China and Iran have moved in an increasingly authoritarian direction while the democratic countries have moved in an emancipatory direction.

“These cultural differences were not always so stark; they have emerged over time,” Jackson and Medvedev wrote. “These two groups of countries are sorting in their emancipative values over time. For example, Russia and the United States used to be quite similar in their values, but now the United States is closer to Germany in its values, and Russia is closer to Iran.”

There is a debate among scholars of politics over the level of centrality that authoritarianism warrants and the forces that have elevated its salience, especially in American politics, where high levels of authoritarianism are increasingly linked to allegiance to the Republican Party.

What is clear is that authoritarianism has become an entrenched factor in partisan divisions, in global conflicts between nations and in the politics of diversity and race.

Rachel Kleinfeld , a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment, wrote that the embedded character of authoritarianism in America “is like a barnacle attached to our affective polarization, a side effect of a political realignment being run through the uniquely polarizing effects of our first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system and primary structure.”

In an email, Kleinfeld argued that the Great Recession played a pivotal role in stressing the importance of authoritarianism in American politics:

In 2008, the financial crisis created a great deal of anger and a desire for more government intervention. At the same time, an identity revolution was taking place in which group identity gained increased salience, especially in America. Together these movements opened space for a political realignment: a long-dissatisfied group of voters who were pro-economic redistribution, but only to their “deserving” group, found political voice. These “more for me, less for thee” voters who hold left-wing redistributive economic ideas and socially conservative views formed Trump’s primary base in 2016, and moved firmly into the Republican camp in 2020.

The two-party system in the United States, Kleinfeld contended, strengthens authoritarianism by failing to provide a vehicle specifically dedicated to the agenda of the disgruntled electorate. As a result, these voters turned en masse in 2016 to an autocratic leader, Donald Trump, who, in his own words, became their “ retribution .”

This newly mobilized, angry electorate, Kleinfeld continued, is “not choosing the antidemocratic behavior — they are choosing their tribe, and the behavior comes with it. Authoritarian behavior is happening in America, not in Europe, because of our political structures.”

In support of her argument, Kleinfeld cited a January report issued by the Democracy Fund, “ Democracy Hypocrisy : Examining America’s Fragile Democratic Convictions,” that shows how Americans can endorse democratic principles and simultaneously support autocratic behavior by fellow partisans.

Among the report’s conclusions:

While a vast majority of Americans claimed to support democracy (more than 80 percent said democracy is a fairly or very good political system in surveys from 2017 to 2022), fewer than half consistently and uniformly supported democratic norms across multiple surveys.

Support for democratic norms softened considerably when they conflicted with partisanship. For example, a solid majority of Trump and Biden supporters who rejected the idea of a “strong leader who doesn’t have to bother with Congress and elections” nonetheless said their preferred U.S. president would be justified in taking unilateral action without explicit constitutional authority under several different scenarios.

About 27 percent of Americans consistently and uniformly supported democratic norms in a battery of questions across multiple survey waves, including 45 percent of Democrats, 13 percent of Republicans and 18 percent of independents.

In contrast to an overwhelming and consistent rejection of political violence across four survey waves, the violent events of Jan. 6, 2021, were viewed favorably by many Republicans. Almost half of Republicans (46 percent) described these events as acts of patriotism, and 72 percent disapproved of the House select committee that was formed to investigate them.

While much of the focus on authoritarianism in the United States has been on Republican voters, it is also a powerful force in the Democratic electorate.

In their 2018 paper “ A Tale of Two Democrats : How Authoritarianism Divides the Democratic Party,” five political scientists — Julie Wronski , Alexa Bankert , Karyn Amira , April A. Johnson and Lindsey C. Levitan — found that in 2016 “authoritarianism consistently predicts differences in primary voting among Democrats, particularly support for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.” More specifically, “as a Democrat in the Cooperative Election Study survey sample moves from the minimum value on the authoritarianism scale to the maximum value, the probability of voting for Clinton increases from 0.33 to 0.76.”

Wronski and her colleagues determined that “Republicans are significantly more authoritarian than Democrats” but “the variation in authoritarianism is significantly higher among Democrats than Republicans.” Put another way: The level of authoritarianism among the top half of Democrats is almost the same as it is among Republicans; the bottom half of Democrats demonstrates lower levels of authoritarianism than all Republicans.

One of the more intriguing discoveries is that growing racial diversity activates authoritarianism.

In their 2017 article “ Racial Diversity and the Dynamics of Authoritarianism ,” Yamil Ricardo Velez and Howard Lavine , political scientists at Yale and the University of Minnesota, determined that racial diversity “magnifies the political impact of individual differences in the psychological disposition of authoritarianism.”

“In white areas with minimal diversity, authoritarianism had no impact on racial prejudice, political intolerance and attitudes toward immigration,” they wrote. “As diversity rises, however, authoritarianism plays an increasingly dominant role in political judgment. In diverse environments, authoritarians become more racially, ethnically and politically intolerant and nonauthoritarians less so.”

Velez and Lavine defined authoritarianism as

a stable propensity concerned with minimizing difference and maximizing the “oneness and sameness” of people, ideas and behaviors or, more simply, as a preference for social conformity over individual autonomy. The worldview of authoritarians stresses conformity and obedience, as well as the belief that too much individual autonomy — and diversity in general — will result in social rebellion and instability of the status quo.

Authoritarians, Velez and Lavine wrote, “find diversity threatening, and they react to it with increasing racial resentment, anti-immigration beliefs and political intolerance. By contrast, nonauthoritarians react to diversity by becoming more politically tolerant and by embracing African Americans and immigrants.”

As issues “related to race and ethnicity, crime, law and order, religion and gender” have gained centrality, according to Velez and Lavine, “two fundamental changes have occurred in the nature of partisanship.”

The first is the creation of “an alignment between political identity and authoritarianism, such that high authoritarians have moved into the Republican Party and low authoritarians have moved into the Democratic Party.”

The second is that “the notion of partisan identities as social identities — defining what Democrats and Republicans are stereotypically like as people — has intensified, leading the two partisan groups to hold increasingly negative feelings about each other.”

As a result, the authors argued:

given that authoritarianism is (a) strongly linked to partisanship and (b) activated by ethnoracial diversity, it is likely that some of the “affective polarization” in contemporary American politics can be traced to authoritarianism. That is, perceptions of “us” and “them” have been magnified by the increasing alignment between party identification and authoritarianism.

Ariel Malka , a political scientist at Yeshiva University, contended in an email that there are further complications. “Public attitudes in Western democracies,” Malka wrote, “vary on a sociocultural dimension , encompassing matters like traditional versus progressive views on sexual morality, gender, immigration, cultural diversity and so on.”

Recently, however, Malka continued:

some evidence has emerged that the anti-immigrant and nativist parts of this attitude package are becoming somewhat detached from the parts having to do with gender and sexuality, especially among younger citizens. Indeed, there is a meaningful contingent of far-right voters who combine liberal attitudes on gender and sexuality with nativist and anti-immigrant stances.

What do these trends suggest politically? According to Malka:

As for how this relates to democratic preferences, citizens who hold traditional cultural stances on a range of matters tend, on average, to be more open to authoritarian governance and to violations of democratic norms. So there is some basis for concern that antidemocratic appeals will meet a relatively receptive audience on the right at a time of inflamed sociocultural divisions.

I asked Pippa Norris , a political scientist at Harvard, about the rising salience of authoritarianism, and she provided a summary of her forthcoming book, “ The Cultural Roots of Democratic Backsliding .” In a description of the book on her website, Norris wrote:

Historical and journalistic accounts often blame the actions of specific strongman leaders and their enablers for democratic backsliding — Trump for the Jan. 6 insurrection in America, Modi for the erosion of minority rights in India, Netanyahu for weakening the powers of the Supreme Court in Israel and so on. But contingent narratives remain unsatisfactory to explain a general phenomenon, they fail to explain why ordinary citizens in longstanding democracies voted these leaders into power in the first place, and the direction of causality in this relationship remains unresolved.

Her answer, in two steps.

Deep-rooted and profound cultural changes have provoked a backlash among traditional social conservatives in the electorate. A wide range of conventional moral values and beliefs, once hegemonic, are under threat today in many modern societies. Value shifts are exemplified by secularization eroding the importance of religious practices and teachings, declining respect for the institutions of marriage and the family and more fluid rather than fixed notions of social identities based on gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, community ties and national citizenship. An extensive literature has demonstrated that the “silent revolution” of the 1960s and 1970s has gradually led to growing social liberalism, recognizing the principles of diversity, inclusion and equality, including support for issues such as equality for women and men in the home and work force, recognition of L.G.B.T.Q. rights and the importance of strengthening minority rights.

These trends, in turn, have “gradually undermined the majority status of traditional social conservatives in society and threatened conventional moral beliefs.”

Authoritarian populist forces further stoke fears and exploit grievances among social conservatives. If these political parties manage to gain elected office through becoming the largest party in government or if their leaders win the presidency, they gain the capacity to dismantle constitutional checks and balances, like rule of law, through processes of piecemeal or wholesale executive aggrandizement.

For a detailed examination of the rise of authoritarianism, I return to Hetherington, the political scientist I cited at the start of this column. In his email, Hetherington wrote:

The tilt toward the Republicans among more authoritarian voters began in the early 2000s because the issue agenda began to change. Keep in mind, so-called authoritarians aren’t people who are thirsting to do away with democratic norms. Rather they view the world as full of dangers. Order and strength are what, in their view, provide an antidote to those dangers. Order comes in the form of old traditions and conventions as well. When they find a party or a candidate who provides it, they support it. When a party or candidate wants to break from those traditions and conventions, they’ll oppose them. Until the 2000s, the main line of debate had to do with how big government ought to be. Maintaining order and tradition isn’t very strongly related to how big people think the government ought to be. The dividing line in party conflict started to evolve late in the 20th century. Cultural and moral issues took center stage. As that happened, authoritarian-minded voters, looking for order, security and tradition, moved to the Republicans in droves. When people talk about the Republicans attracting working-class whites, these are the specific working-class whites that the G.O.P.’s agenda attracted. As such, the movement of these voters to the G.O.P. long predated Trump. His rhetoric has made this line of conflict between the parties even sharper than before. So that percentage of high-scoring authoritarian voters for Trump is higher than it was for Bush, McCain and Romney. But that group was moving that way long before 2016. The seeds had been planted. Trump didn’t do it himself.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here's our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Thomas B. Edsall has been a contributor to the Times Opinion section since 2011. His column on strategic and demographic trends in American politics appears every Wednesday. He previously covered politics for The Washington Post. @ edsall