I think the first thing to do would be to define what the word means. It could mean that you love your country because you fell that you are supposed to. Or you just blindly accept that it must be great because someone said so. I would suggest that this is not really patriotism. Its state as religion. Now lets compare that to some other folks who pretty much everyone considers to be great patriots. The founding fathers. At the time their paradoxically was no country ( yet ). Sure their were states, but even they had been occupied by the British since day one. Yet, they were still patriots.. Not for a place, or even a people ( even then the 13 colonies were already more melting pot that just about anywhere in Europe. ).. They were patriots for ideas. When it came down to it they were fighting for self ownership and everything that goes with it.

patriotism

noun pa•tri•ot•ism \ˈpā-trē-ə-ˌti-zəm, chiefly British ˈpa-\
: love that people feel for their country : love for or devotion to one's country

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...

I find the dictionary definition is vague and wanting.

True Patriotism should be reserved for the founding ideals of the nation if good and to the people that share those values. Not to the politicians or form our government takes at any given time. Devotion to the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and other Patriots that uphold these ideals are those deserving of the title Patriot. Our founding was respectful of the individual rights, not the collective. As Mr. Cohen has articulated in the presentation khalling provided a link to, the common good is what is good for each individual. It is not something that is good for some and not for others. Redistribution, for example, is good for the recipients, but not so for those taken from. Patriotism is devotion to an ideal that protects and fosters the true common good in this context and protects the rights and liberty of the individual. Patriotism is devotion to the ideal not the present circumstance. It is doing what one can to preserve and promote that ideal.

I do not see "country" in terms of geographic boundaries but as an idea.I have a very strong allegiance to the "idea of America" which I disassociate with the government in it's present state. I start with believing that personal freedom is the ultimate value. Prior to our founding fathers, freedom was pretty much an abstract concept. It was much discussed but no one could see how to make it work and those in power did not want it to and actively fought it.

What the founding fathers did was light years ahead of anything done before but even they knew that they had not, or could not perfect the concept. They believed that they were pretty bright fellows but thought that future generations would have the intelligence to improve on their ideas and hoped they would do so. They also warned us about letting factions form that would pervert or paralyze our system.

I am patriotic (loyal) to the idea and would die for it but loathe the mess that we have made. As an objectivist, I do not think of patriotism being an opposite as long as it is not just blind faith.

I am quite willing to be patriotic if my government is anywhere near Objectivist, because in that case, both will be aligned with my self-interest. When my government has been adversarial to my self-interest since at least the Reagan years, I cease being patriotic. Back when Lee Greenwood recorded "I'm Proud to be an American", I was proud to be an American... but no longer. Mrs. Obama and I have both done 180's. Now I am no longer proud of my country.

I suppose that, before the United States existed,
there might be some reason to be patriotic towards
one's own country, as in the case of the Hundred
Years' War; French or English, the people were
going to be under tyranny; and I guess there was
a slight chance that a foreign tyrant would be
worse,being more likely to think of the subjects
of the conquered country as inferior, etc.; so,
given the medieval situation, it was slightly bet-
ter to be under your own tyrant than a foreign
one. (Still, the British judicial system is better
than the French--innocent until proven guilty,
etc.).
But, for an American, patriotism is patriotism
because of the ideas upon which this country
was founded;"That, to secure these rights, gov-
ernments are instituted among men..."

The notion that conscription is justifiable on
the grounds of "service to one's country", is a
sickening attempt to abrogate the rights of man.

As to this being a contradiction of Objectiv-
ism, far from it; Ayn Rand was very patriotic to
this country, often extolling it as the greatest
on earth. She made a remark once about peop-
ple who failed to distinguish between "rational
patriotism and blind, racist chauvinism".

I would like to distinguish between patriotism and nationalism to get a handle on this debate. Nationalism in holding the country as it is as a value. Patriotism is holding the values the country stands for as a value. I served in the Army and was proud to take the oath of allegiance to the Constitution as an expression of my highest values in politics. The expression in action of the values represented by the US is patriotism and I celebrate the opportunity to represent with pride my values in my country.
there are nationalist every where with no value higher than corrupt cultures. Patriots stood at Lexington and Concord not for a government but the idea of individual sovereignty. That is worth fighting for. thanks John Locke.

My patriotism if for the country that was America and is almost lost today. It stands for my desire to bring back that lost land. Patriotism for this America, and this government would be a joke.

Thanks for the thoughtful responses.

Iroseland's comment reminded me of something. I'm a descendant of Ethan Allen. In getting familiar with his life I was really moved by the obvious position he took of being true to his ideas, but being a rebel to the establishment. At that time it was the British, and he really drove them nuts. He just refused to comply. I, for better or worse, feel more apt to "go Galt". This is something I've been addressing lately...

Patriotism is one of the more dissonant subjects we have here in the Gulch. Here is an Atlas Society Summit talk by Alexander Cohen where he makes an argument for patriotism as a Virtue. I expect we can get a lively discussion going. Thanks for the interesting post, Abaco.
http://www.atlassociety.org/as/john-galt...

To make a distinction between nationalism and patriotism: nationalism is devotion to a geographical area - 'my country, right or wrong'; patriotism is devotion to certain principles. Does that make sense?

Since this is a site dedicated to the thinking of Ayn Rand; here is what she had to say about patriotism from the Ayn Rand Lexicon;"ISOLATIONISM is the attitude of a person who is interested only in his own country and is not concerned with the rest of the world. The real meaning was: Patriotism and national self interest."
For the complete explanation I suggest you look it up in the Lexicon.
A final thought, can you today come up with a definition of patriotism that would be true for all of the citizens of the country?

I have recently been studying the founders as individuals and as elected representatives to a congress. It strikes me that they walked the razors edge between their own best interest and the interests of the "collective" states or colonies. Say what you will, but these men and their ladies truly understood the long term significance of what they were doing. By the way, much of what I have learned is that the women who stedfastly encouraged and supported their menfolks had a major impact on the outcome. I think you can act both in your interest and in the interest of the principles of the DOI and the Constitution (Patriotism) if and only if you BELIEVE in those principles.

Some very good comments here, and a very good subject.

I think that patriotism is, or has become, overrated. Maybe it always was. I use the "qualifier", I think, because, as OA said, "the dictionary definition is vague and wanting": "love that people feel for their country : Love for or devotion to one's country". By today's standards this would imply a blind dedication of one's life to the support of the country and by all accounts this is the way it is used and normally understood. If you refuse to stand and recite the pledge of allegiance you are being unpatriotic. (I prefer to remind people that a country that is worth pledging allegiance to needs no pledge of allegiance.)

But from Francisco's money speech we know that to love something is to understand it's nature. This is the step that is forgotten or deemed unnecessary. The Germans under Hitler were said to be patriotic for supporting and/or fighting for their country. I find it hard to believe that more than a few actually understood the nature of Nazi Germany.

If the word was hijacked like so many others it would be difficult to say when so, perhaps, it was coined with the purpose of blurring lines with the sole purpose of manipulating people. Either way, it should not be confused with being an American, and what it means to be an American.

I was browsing through my Ayn Rand books looking for some unrelated info the other day and got caught up in the last chapter of "Philosophy: Who Needs It" called "Don't let it go". Worth re-reading for everybody. She talks about sense of life and specifically the American sense of life. IE; what it means to be an American. Too much to fit here but this paragraph seemed particularly fitting;
"A European is disarmed in the face of a dictatorship: he may hate it, but he feels that he is wrong and, metaphysically, the State is right. An American would rebel to the bottom of his soul. But that is all that his sense of life can do for him. It cannot solve his problems."

Now, re-think what you know of the riots in Baltimore. Generations living under the thumb of the state. More and more and more intrusion into their lives. More and more controls. They don't know why, or how to fix any of it. They have generations of conditioning and yet they resist. They Will Not Live Under A King! I think that Ayn Rand would say that that is a uniquely American sense of life. Even if they are completely bass-akward about it.

I think one way to restate your question is to ask the following: where do your loyalties lie? Do they lie with the principles established by our Founding Fathers and the Constitution, or with what this nation has been morphed into by a century or more of political chicanery?

I believe in the principles our nation were founded on: liberty of thought, protection of personal rights, and freedom to pursue ideas. My patriotism extends to those. It does not extend to those who currently occupy the seat of government.

I believe it is a mischaracterization or misnomer to state that one is patriotic to one's country, because when you ask anyone to explain, they never talk about lines on a map, but ideals. Quantify the ideals you have in mind and whether or not you identify with them as being "American" ideals one can be "patriotic" to and you will answer your own question.

Patriotism need not proceed from any blind faith. It can have its basis in a quite reasonable evaluation of one's country as supportive of a code that has a proper standard of value.

Great question, and the excellent comments here have established that patriotism and Objectivism are profoundly related and not antithetical.

"Patriotism" is rooted in the word "pater", father, the fatherland. And the concept of fatherland is rooted in territorial possessions that a group of people, whether clan, tribe or nation-state, declare as theirs. The land on which their survival depends, where their settlements are built and their food is grown, is a powerful center of "belonging" and loyalty.

These grew from local regions to fiefdoms and kingdoms, carrying with them the bond among their populace. Blood ties were strongest, though overcrowding and feuds begat splits, with some groups abandoning the old loyalties and moving away to new lands.

Group allegiances were strengthened by cultural ties, and dependence on the soil kept people united in common purpose. Obedience to a chief was hardwired behavior, in exchange for protection from outsider aggressions. Most wars come out of wanting to take others' land by force.

When huge migrations took place, tribal ties among people were stronger than the attachment to geography. "Kin survival" is built in. And had those ancient peoples engaged in philosophy, they might even have said that their self-interest lay in group protection and collaboration, whether "in unity there is strength" or "all for one, one for all" or "e pluribus unum".

Fast forward to the 20th century, of which I am an eye witness. Schools indoctrinated with pledges and loyalty to the status quo defined by the dominant politics. In high school in the 1950s we wrote essays for The Voice of America, expressing our love for democracy that could be broadcast to the nations we were trying to win over to our ways of thinking, in opposition to the seductive promises of communism. Foreign immigrants were quickly brought into the "melting pot" and Americanized into American values and being proud to be an American. The patriotism expected of all of us was to that ideal of America as the bastion of freedom in the world, separate from the reality on the ground. Respect for all "officials" and "authority", and being law-abiding, was a given.

Looking at it with the eyes of a Martian anthropologist, patriotism describes the dynamic of a great attractor at the core of a culture that pulls all of its members into a homogeneous mass. Small, beleaguered groups tend to be stronger in their mutual adherence. Large, diverse groups readily break into ethnic or generational subgroups, each with its own gravitational field. Every group clamors for its special privileges so as not to feel discriminated against. It makes for an interesting hierarchical chart of subdivisions. The major group these days that throws the word "patriot" around assertively is the Christian Right, assisted by the conspiracy theorists and survivalists.

In her passionate defense of the individual, Ayn Rand spurned tribalism. Against all historical precedent, the evolution of societal values defending the sovereign individual was a magnificent accomplishment of the Enlightenment era and America's founders. It is fully congruent with Objectivist values. "Don't let it go." That is the real patriotism.

Definitely not, particularly if you believe that the system we have offers better opportunity to employ Objectivism than others.

If one took patriotism to the limit (e.g. Fascism) then one would have to set aside Objectivism to participate. There is not reason to avoid supporting the US in general just because it is not perfect in the face of Objectivism.

A few years ago, government in this nation took over as the largest employer in America. (By 'government' I am lumping together all it's forms...city, county, state and federal.). To me, patriotism will always mean a loyalty to an ideal, in our case the ideal would be to the people of our constitution form of nation, and not to whatever pogue or REMF happens to infest the halls of power. By that definition, any who believe the same now find ourselves at odds with our government.

Not a happy situation at all.

Love of my country is unconditional because it is love of the principles of its founding. Love of my government, however, is highly conditional, according to its fealty to those founding principles.

well said. . . . but, read my latest book:::

http://www.amazon.com/Unsustainable-Tuck...

actually, I'm the "executive editor" -- but the theme
is this::: the flyover States secede from the others
and, being self-sustaining, watch the others melt
down. . . and, eventually, offer them a solution:::
change your ways and sign on with our new
constitution and our new laws, to make the New
U.S.A. . . it's Rand, on a State level. -- j
.

To be short, Patriotism can be rational. One simply should not defend his country for non-rational reasons.

It boils down to definition. Ayn Rand herself was highly supportive of her concept of America, for instance, and it would be difficult to argue that she simply didn't understand Objectivism. Would we call that "Patriotism?" Perhaps, but digging deeper it seems her affection for the concept of America was based on its adherence to or support for her philosophy.

And then we must ask, does any patriot actually support what his or her country /is/, or what they believe it ought to be?

If we look around the world, at all the countries, how would the US rate? Are there any other countries that are better? Worse? We'd clearly want to be in the US or in another country that we considered to be better (which might suggest that we're planning on leaving the US, just like the immigrants did to get here). Objectively, since we're in the US, we consider the US to be the superior option. Given that, our loyalty should be to the US and to no one else. That is patriotism. If we have stronger loyalties somewhere else, we should leave the US and go there. Otherwise, we might be tempted to become traitors to the US. What is it about the US that demands our loyalty? It clearly isn't just a piece of real estate. The IDEA of the US, as defined in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers is what should hold our loyalty, and out fidelity to those documents is the strongest indication of our patriotism; any deviation from that is not patriotism.

Patriotism in America is love of a country that protects my freedoms. Like the old saying goes, I may not like what you say but I will protect your right to say it. If that is gone, so is my country. I find the left uses patirotism as a nagative and associates it with blind faith like they have with their leaders.