Patriotism is Not the Best Criterion | The Hundred River Review

Image Credit: Adam Chou 周海榮

by Wang Huanci 王奂辞

Patriotism holds a unique status in the moral systems of citizens, who use patriotism as a consideration when they view national and international affairs. But citizens hardly agree on what exact role patriotism should play in their moral systems. To redefine patriotism’s role, one first needs to define patriotism. In her essay “Why I Am Not A Patriot,” Carol Nicholson points out “two distinct components of patriotism”: “a feeling of love as well as an active expression of that devotion” (23). In other words, patriotism is an intention to protect and benefit one’s country. Defenders such as Richard Rorty call patriotism “an absolutely essential component of citizenship” (Rorty, Par. 5), and take patriotism as one of the most needed human qualities that motivates citizens’ to improve their countries. Opponents like Carol Nicholson do not see patriotism as a virtue but “a dangerous extreme” (25) that tears the international community apart. However, because citizens with different nationalities are unavoidably subjective and biased, patriotism does not necessarily help citizens to fairly view their own country. While patriotism is an important criterion, citizens should not prioritize patriotism when they view national and international events. Instead, citizens should take a global view and weigh the overall loss and gain of all people’s well-being.

Patriotism is a valuable criterion because it can make people judge events based on the well-being of a community bigger than themselves. This holds true as long as citizens are not blinded by their love and as long as the community’s interest does not contradict others’ interest. Carol Nicholson goes too far in accusing patriotism of being “a dangerous extreme” (25). Her reason is that “fixing love on an abstraction such as ‘country’ leads to the erroneous conclusion that one’s country is better than all others, which is a recipe for intolerance, hate and war” (25). She equates “love” with “egoism” in her conclusion, claiming that hatred and war are the only consequences of patriotism. Here, Richard Rorty, the author of “The Unpatriotic Academy,” argues that “a nation cannot reform itself unless it takes pride in itself” (Rorty, Par. 6). Although Rorty over-praises patriotism, he points out patriotism’s positive attribute that is ignored by Nicholson. Love for a country stimulates citizens to improve the country and its people’s well-being. Instead of excluding other countries, patriotism can also lead to a just and efficient solution to the problems a country faces. Patriots consider it a matter of pride to protect their home country from invasions, and they also take pride in punishing the offenders within the country that harm the masses. When people cheer for a just verdict on corruption, this is patriotism at work, telling them not to let parasites in the country go unpunished. In such cases, although all citizens are not directly affected by the court ruling, any improvement in social justice contributes to the common good from which all citizens benefit. Therefore, when people look out for their fellow citizens’ well-being, patriotism is a valid consideration.

In fact, patriotism is not completely biased, even in global consideration. When many countries share the same losses and gains, patriotism must also base itself on other countries’ interests. During the Second World War, a citizen’s intention to protect one’s home country and strike the Nazis could be beneficial for his or her allies as well as the larger global community. In the era of environmental degradation, all countries share the same fragile environment, and there is no way to consider one’s own country without considering others’ well-being. With patriotism, the intention to protect and benefit one’s own country, there can not only be improvement of the country itself but also collective progress among all countries. Thus, patriotism is sometimes a valid consideration because it can also show love for a community beyond selves.

On the other hand, patriotism is not the best criterion. Patriotism is unavoidably subjective, and it sometimes means exclusion, selfishness, and blindness. Consequently, citizens should not consider whether a deed is patriotic as more important than whether it is just and beneficial for the global community. Rorty neglects the destructive possibility for actions driven by patriotism. He advocates for joint goals and joint power of American citizens for the country’s reform. He states that “a sense of national identity is … an absolutely essential component of citizenship, of any attempt to take our country and its problems seriously” (Rorty, Par. 5). Rorty stresses the constructive power of national pride, but he ignores the fact that taking pride in one’s country means not only changing the country for the better, but also prioritizing the country’s interest in the case of national conflict. In her rebuttal, Nicholson writes that patriotism will make “nation against nation in a deadly battle for dominance” (25). Although she goes to extremes to completely neglect the positive outcomes of patriotism, Nicholson is right that there can be selfishness or exclusion derived from patriotism. Citizens must realize that patriotism does not guarantee benefits for the human community as a whole.

For example, the Japanese invasions of China from 1937 to expand Japan’s territory for its economic benefit was an eight-year nightmare for Chinese citizens. Today, President Donald Trump’s “America First” policies are notorious for being selfish and shortsighted because it isolates America and neglects the good of human beings as a whole. If people view such policies based on whether they are patriotic, or in other words, whether they benefit the American people, then the answer may well be yes, since the economic tariffs and strong national defense might increase domestic jobs and improve national safety. A Politico/Morning Consult poll conducted in 2017 shows that 65% of Americans gave a positive response to this policy (Politico). However, if people consider the well-being of the global community, they will notice that a country that excludes others can hardly contribute anything to the global economy, global environment, or global safety. America’s trade war with China damages other countries’ economies. Moreover, if America fails to take part in the global effort to construct a better trading environment, its voice might become less and less influential in the global society. At the Council of Councils (CoC) annual conference last year, delegates from twenty-two countries decided to make their future trade plans without America. It turns out that a policy motivated by patriotism ends up impairing its country. Although those who execute patriotic policies consider their beliefs beneficial to their country, they fail to first weigh the overall impact on the globalized society. Voting based on patriotism alone not only reduces the total profit globally but can also harm the country itself.

Moreover, patriotism can make citizens blind when the love for a country becomes excessive and makes citizens ignore domestic problems. In “Nationalism with Chinese Characteristics,” Chengpeng Li demonstrates the case where citizens only see the external conflicts between China and other countries while failing to advocate for punishing corrupt officials or to push the government for solutions to food safety issues (Li). In this case, citizens’ patriotism is incomplete and blind. Patriotism makes them see China as a unique nation distinguishable from the rest of the world but not a community responsible for protecting its citizens. Patriotism has even become a cover-up for the country’s internal problems and challenges. If patriotism is the only criterion for citizens, then internal justice might be neglected. Patriotism makes it hard to see the deficiencies of one’s beloved country.

Rorty and Nicholson provide two ways to comprehend love for one’s country. Patriotism can be both a constructive force when citizens show their responsibility towards social construction, and a destructive one when citizens turn a blind eye to interests beyond those of their own country. Patriotism is one of the possible criteria for viewing national and international events, for it is love for a community, but it is not thorough enough to abandon selfishness and blindness. Citizens should not prioritize patriotism over universal human interests. Weighing global losses and gains, on the other hand, divests patriotism of its subjectiveness that makes it selfish and blind. Take the refugee crisis as an example: if citizens prioritize their own country’s benefit, it is plausible for them to reject refugees, based on their perception that refugees might be a financial burden or pose safety threats. This is exactly what many people believe today, and the refugees who are mostly harmless are deprived of their opportunity to live peaceful lives. However, when citizens do not prioritize patriotism and carefully examine the situation, they will notice that some countries with extreme domestic inequality and poverty need to focus on improving their domestic conditions while others are powerful enough to contribute their resources to refugees for their well-being and world peace. This contribution is mutually beneficial in the long run. In this case, citizens are no longer blind and selfish when they carefully examine global issues including their native country’s situation and make their best judgment after weighing the outcomes.

Patriotism is love towards one’s country. It can either be in alliance with selflessness and justice or become closer to selfishness and egoism depending on its application. Judgments based on patriotism can lead to—but do not guarantee—a fair and globally efficient outcome. Compared to patriotism, it is more rational to consider the well-being of humanity as a whole as far as national and international affairs are concerned. In a highly globalized world, this is beneficial to not only the global community but also the country itself in the long run. Therefore, when discussing a policy, an agreement, or other major issues concerning other countries in the world, citizens should base their decisions on considerations of the overall benefits to the world rather than merely act on the basis of patriotism. Patriotism is never the best criterion.