OP-ED: A look at patriotism in 2026
What better way to capture the spirit of 2026 than to attempt to define and to discuss patriotism? In this 250th
year of our nation’s existence, what did the concept mean to our founding fathers? Today, with our antagonistic tribal politics, who can lay claim to being a patriot? How can we shape an inclusive, forward-looking patriotism for future generations?
According to Wikipedia, “Patriotism is the love, support, and defense of one’s country. It represents an emotional attachment and loyalty to a nation, encompassing dedication to its principles, its people, and the betterment of society … It fosters a sense of unity and shared responsibility among fellow citizens.”
Before the Revolution, American patriots were in the minority. Estimates by historians of those colonists who favored independence hover around 40%. About 20% remained loyal to the crown, and the rest were undecided. The founders consistently tried to drum the idea of liberty into the heads of the uncommitted. Ironically, promises that slavery would remain and that indigenous lands would be opened for settlement helped the cause.
Over time, traditions, and institutions began to coalesce into an American patriotism. My personal view is that modern patriotism should ignore the pronouncements of pompous leaders and highlight examples of pluralism, tolerance, and cooperation.
America has a complicated history, including racism, sexism, and the ill-treatment of native Americans. The Trump administration is wrong to stress that patriotism embodies the concept, “Imperfection is for losers, and America is a winner.” The Constitution was never perfect. American history is full of both spectacular advances and moral backsliding.
In my view, the better approach was advanced by journalist Arthur Krystal in his excellent New Yorker article, “How Problematic is Patriotism?” Krystal asserts that “just as obsessive love in a relationship can warp intimacy, so excessive national pride can debase the nation that one is trying to protect … Patriotism cannot trade in ignorance.”
As a baby boomer who grew up in the Vietnam era, I also agree with Krystal on his view of patriotism and war. His opinion is that “The impulse to come to the aid of one’s country ought to match the justice and urgency of the call. While patriotism is essential to the national defense, it should never blind us to the human toll of warfare.”
A recent op-ed in this newspaper had me scratching my head on the subject of what modern American patriotism looks like. Rich Lowry wrote about “The Democrats’ Patriotism Gap.” He complained that the percentage of Americans who “are extremely or very proud of America” has dropped dramatically, “driven largely by Democrats.”
Equating “proud of America” with “patriotism” is a mistake in itself. Accusing Democrats of not being patriotic is a cheap shot that misrepresents what patriotism means in today’s charged political climate. When Donald Trump and MAGA are considered, Lowry has reversed the script on patriotism.
As I considered Lowry’s assertions, I remembered the famous line in the Russian novel, The Brothers Karamazov, “The more I love humanity in general, the less I like man in particular.” Democrats who love their country in general, despise the individuals who are now in charge. Democrats know that their great nation, with its incompetent, mean-spirited leadership, is collapsing into idiocy, or worse.
Democrats admire and honor the abstract concepts found in our original patriotic document, the Declaration of Independence. They are not proud of authoritarian officials who attack the founding concepts of equality and liberty. Democrats who challenge the “out of control” executive branch are the true patriots.
To illustrate my point, consider the memoir of the Russian dissident, Alexi Navalny. Published after his death, likely at the hands of Vladimir Putin, the recent book, “Patriot: A Memoir,” describes patriotism very well, indeed.
Navalny, Putin’s most outspoken antagonist, died at age 47 in a Siberian prison under mysterious circumstances. He refused to become an émigré and returned to Russia, knowing that Putin would permanently jail and probably kill him. Navalny was the head of a small but dedicated opposition. The group was loyal not to Putin but to the patria, Russia. (Patriotism is a derivative of the Greek, Patris, meaning “fatherland” or “native country.”)
Navalny informed his followers that to not return to his homeland would have been “unpatriotic and a concession to impotence.” Navalny detested Russian leadership and did not support its actions in Ukraine, which he termed “criminal and immoral.” Instead, he was determined to show his countrymen that it was possible to be a politician and a person of moral integrity. His memoir should inspire public-spirited Russians (and Americans) to honor his example of patriotism.
I will end with a thought on Trumpism and the future of patriotism. Trump has chosen to honor our 250 years as a constitutional republic, forged by a nation of patriotic immigrants, with a vision that sends the country back to the white nationalist impulses of the early 20th century. If he succeeds, our next generation will inherit a vision of patriotism based on exclusion and hate, not on unity and shared responsibility.
Our president has failed to grasp that to be a patriot is not to become an enemy of the rest of humankind. Trump’s imperial, authoritarian state gives those who support it a sense of superiority. It demands surrender to its trappings. In such an environment, there is no dignity, and patriotism is diminished.
Gary Stout is a Washington attorney.