Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Reclaiming Patriotism: Between Nationalism and Pessimism

Opinion

Reclaiming Patriotism: Between Nationalism and Pessimism

People gather over a giant Declaration of Independence

Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images.

As America approaches the 250th anniversary of its independence, I am more in the mood to protest than to celebrate. Does that make me unpatriotic? The answer depends on how we understand “patriotism.” For a nation that is founded in revolution, let’s affirm a deeper and more profound love of country, a civic patriotism celebrative of our larger ideals including pluralism, dissent, and a commitment to social change.

Two Types of Patriotism


Patriotism is often understood as demanding complete loyalty with no sign of dissent or critique, as in the saying, “America, right or wrong.” This commonly reflects a nationalistic or absolutist understanding of patriotism. At the other extreme, a person might feel so ashamed of America’s actions that democracy is perceived as being beyond repair. This could be called “democracy pessimism.” Despite some different perspectives, both reactions assume patriotism is incompatible with recognizing a nation’s flaws.

At its essence, patriotism means love of country. Absolutist patriotism is just one particular approach to patriotism. Within the nationalist paradigm, love is equated with unquestioning support and obedience, while dissent is equated with hatred. Critically, this absolutist understanding of patriotism extends far beyond the nation’s core ideals and traditions to include all of its actions, past or present. But love of country can take many forms beyond nationalistic patriotism.

Another type of patriotism is both possible and urgently needed. Rather than blind obedience, we can express love of country through commitment to social change and difficult conversations about the nation’s past. This patriotism equally affirms love of country, but in a way that includes and necessitates critique, dissent, protest, and even civil disobedience. In our personal relationships, we can support our friends and family members unconditionally while acknowledging their mistakes and holding them accountable for their actions. We can have very different moral, religious, and political beliefs. The strongest relationships are the ones that survive conflicts and mistakes. Nations are no different. They are not held together by blind obedience but by civic bonds that run across diverse viewpoints and identities.

When Dissent Is Patriotic

A common tactic in the authoritarian playbook is to weaponize patriotism and portray dissent as a form of hatred of country. This has been a frequent theme in President Trump’s description of his political opponents, such as when he described the left as “the enemy from within . . . more dangerous than China, Russia, all these countries.” Following last fall’s No Kings protests, President Trump said, “I looked at the people—they’re not representative of the country . . . I guess it was paid for by [George] Soros and other radical left lunatics.” The implication is that Americanness is determined by support for the president, protestors are less American than the president’s supporters, and dissent is a threat to America itself.

Dissent is built into America’s national DNA. July 4th commemorates the American spirit of rebellion against monarchy and independence from an imperial power. America has become stronger and more inclusive through successive periods of dissent and social change. The right to freedom of expression is enshrined in the First Amendment. Dissenting from a party in power or even from the majority opinion should not be confused with dissent from the idea of America itself. The exercise of such a fundamental right cannot possibly be anti-American when it is in fact central to America. As James Baldwin has written, “I love America more than any other country in the world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.”

In the tradition of patriotic dissent, Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech refers to America’s founding documents as “promissory notes” that have yet to be cashed. His call is for civil disobedience on behalf of American democratic ideals, not for their betrayal. Indeed, according to King, the Jim Crow South represents the perversion of America, while the movement for civil rights more truly represents the nation’s core values and ideals as stated in its founding documents. Avoiding the trap of pessimism, King expresses righteous indignation at America’s crimes and injustices but also great pride in its ideals and cautious hope for its future.

Pessimism, Patriotism, and History

The nationalist understanding of patriotism is perhaps most evident in debates around race and US history, including the teaching of the nation’s past in public schools and universities and the holdings of public libraries. Beginning in 2021, right-wing media exploded with constant mentions of “critical race theory.” An NBC article on the topic asked, “Can critical race theory and patriotism coexist in classrooms?” In all of these debates, the idea of patriotism is being weaponized to pressure public institutions from teaching or providing information regarding the nation’s past, as if recognizing structural racial inequality and the centrality of race in US history is incompatible with loving one’s country.

Focusing exclusively on the nation’s wrongs can produce an equally totalizing democratic pessimism, as if America is defined only by its historical crimes and injustices. From the point of view of excluded and marginalized groups, such pessimism is completely understandable. According to the 2025 Kettering-Gallup Democracy for All Project annual survey, only 15% of Black Americans believe American democracy is performing well (the lowest of any group), compared to 26% of White Americans (the highest of any group). How can groups experiencing discrimination and colonization have faith in an egalitarian, multiracial democracy that works for all when they have been under-served and disappointed at every turn throughout American history?

Critical patriotism can celebrate the nation’s ideals while acknowledging and reckoning with its crimes and injustices. In his 1852 speech “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July,” Frederick Douglass charges America with being a “sham” due to the practice of slavery, a deep indictment of the hypocrisy and injustice of slavery. However, his issue is not with American principles in themselves, but the failure to apply them fully for everyone: “Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us?” He further praises the Constitution as a “glorious freedom document” and predicts the end of slavery. The speech by Douglass is simultaneously a brilliant affirmation of America’s founding ideals and a harsh indictment of its practice. When we acknowledge the failings of our loved ones, or insist on accountability for their mistakes, our unconditional love for them does not change. Similarly, far from being less American or patriotic, Douglass expresses his patriotism as complex and authentic, and that’s what makes it compelling.

Patriotism, then, depends not only on affection for the nation but also on how the nation is understood. The nationalist view assumes that America is the sum of its actions, so anything it does must be affirmed, even injustice and hypocrisy. But if America is its ideals and principles, then patriots are those who have fought and sacrificed for the faithful application of freedom, equality, and the rule of law. In that spirit, as Nikole Hannah-Jones argued in a discussion of patriotism on The Context podcast, Black Americans have been, “the greatest democratizing force in the United States.” Patriotism is standing for America’s ideals, whether the threat is the British Empire, Nazi Germany, or American slavery, segregation, and structural inequality. And those who would weaponize the symbols and language of American democracy in the suppression of dissent are not patriots but the opposite.

As we approach the nation’s historic milestone, I am struck that Douglass, Baldwin, King, and pro-democracy dissenters today exemplify faith in America’s core democratic principles, even as they contest the harsh reality that many Americans experience. True patriotism like theirs embraces complexity and imperfection, while strengthening democracy in the process. America’s milestone is an occasion to reclaim patriotism as a force for democracy and inclusion.

This article was originally published as part of From Many, We, a Charles F. Kettering Foundation blog series that highlights the insights of thought leaders dedicated to the idea of inclusive democracy.

Derek W. M. Barker is senior program officer for research initiatives at the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, a political theorist, and the lead editor of the foundation’s blog series From Many, We.


Read More

​Utah Governor Spencer Cox

Utah Governor Spencer Cox

Getty Images

Spencer Cox’s Off Ramp and Utah’s Tradition of Bipartisan Leadership

Utah has long impressed me as a place where governors take bipartisan leadership seriously, and my own experience confirms it. I first saw this more than a decade ago when I met former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman through No Labels. In January 2013, Huntsman, then a Republican, joined Democrat Joe Manchin as national co‑chairs of the organization, a partnership built on the belief that durable solutions require leaders willing to cross the aisle. Working with both of them during that period left a lasting impression on me. Their partnership embodied a simple but powerful truth: when leaders choose cooperation over contempt, they expand what’s possible for the country. Huntsman and Manchin worked deliberately to model cross‑partisan problem‑solving—demonstrating that principled disagreement can coexist with shared purpose.

That experience left a lasting impression on me, and it’s one reason Governor Spencer Cox’s new book Off Ramp: How to Be a Peacemaker in an Age of Contempt resonates so strongly with me today.

Keep ReadingShow less
Windows of a house

Low-angle view of two dormer windows protruding from townhouse roof

Grace Cary, Getty Images

Go Home

The distance from Washington, D.C., to my hometown of York, Pennsylvania, is 100 miles. When I worked as a Congressional staffer in D.C., I could get out of town and be back where I grew up in about an hour and a half, at least so long as I avoided rush hour traffic. Those last miles as I crossed the Pennsylvania-Maryland border brought a sense of gratitude for the relationships I would be keeping up. At my nephew’s soccer game, at an English-style pub with my long-time best friends, with my mother at the breakfast table having a local newspaper in her hands, life was ordinary.

I would return to work in D.C. feeling grounded. I felt better connected to

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol with a flag waving in front of it.

As Washington stalls, young bipartisan lawmakers in Alaska, Mississippi, and beyond are proving that cross-partisan collaboration still wins.

Douglas Rissing/Getty Images

The Politicians Who Can Fix America's Polarization Problem Will Win

Political predictions are notoriously unreliable, but here is one I am willing to stand behind: the elected officials who figure out how to govern across difference will dominate the next decade of American politics. With dysfunction and paralysis having become the status quo in Washington, elected officials who work together to get things done will turn heads, offering desperate voters a much-needed alternative to a broken system.

Consider what happened in Alaska last year. The state’s lawmaking structure does not encourage political independence. Alaska has the nation's highest veto-override threshold: three-quarters. So when a popular education bill promising smaller class sizes, a cellphone ban, and vocational training funding cleared the legislature, only to be vetoed twice by the governor, it looked dead in the water.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two children playing baseball during the Little League World Series Consolation Game at Howard J. Lamade Stadium on August 25, 2024 in South Williamsport, Pennsylvania.

Jonathan Landaeta #9 of the Latin America Region team from Barquisimeto, Venezuela slides into third base past Dylan Burke #9 of the Southwest Region team from Boerne, Texas in the fifth inning during the Little League World Series Consolation Game at Howard J. Lamade Stadium on August 25, 2024 in South Williamsport, Pennsylvania

Dylan Buell/Getty Images

For Two Weeks in August, Sports Still Belong to the Kids

Late August in America has a certain sound and scene. For me, it is an ESPN broadcast and the persistent drone of a camera somewhere above a baseball diamond in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. Beneath it: a collection of 11- and 12-year-olds doing something completely ordinary and, these days, increasingly extraordinary. They are playing baseball.

The Little League World Series, as I understood it as a kid, wasn't merely a sporting event. It was a fever dream. Kids from Seoul, Tokyo, Curaçao, and Texas suddenly occupied the same outfield. Different uniforms. Different languages. Same sweat. Same tears. Same inexplicable desire to chase a high fastball with two strikes.

Keep ReadingShow less