patriotism in – From election rhetoric to civic education, Misryoum examines why “patriotism” is increasingly treated as political baggage—and what that does to American unity.
Patriotism is supposed to be the shared glue of a country, yet in the U.S. it often lands like a dare.
One reason is that “love of country” has been pulled into partisan combat.. In recent years. candidates and advocacy groups have used patriotic language to signal identity—loyalty to a leader. a party. or a grievance—rather than loyalty to institutions and democratic norms.. When patriotism becomes a badge that only one side claims. the other side learns to respond defensively. not because it dislikes the nation. but because it distrusts what patriotism is being used to defend.
That dynamic shows up in schools, public ceremonies, and everyday talk.. Civic language that once sounded like common ground—respecting the flag. honoring military service. learning the country’s history—can be reframed as a political test.. The result is a shrinking definition of what counts as “real” patriotism. and a growing fear of getting branded as the wrong kind of loyal.. Misryoum sees this as less about patriotism itself and more about the meaning of loyalty in an era when politics reaches into identity.
Patriotism as a partisan signal
Campaigns thrive on simple emotional signals, and patriotism is one of the most potent.. When a slogan wraps itself around the idea of “true Americans. ” it encourages citizens to read national symbols as proxies for culture wars.. Over time. that turns patriotic gestures into signals of alignment: who you voted for. what you protest. which media you trust. and what you refuse to acknowledge.
This is why some Americans react to the word “patriotism” the way others react to a slogan from a rival campaign.. They don’t deny the value of national unity; they reject the packaging.. In Misryoum’s view. the problem isn’t a lack of love for the country—it’s that the public sphere has made love of country indistinguishable from agreement with a particular political story.
What happens when “loyalty” is weaponized
The practical consequences show up in how citizens relate to government.. If loyalty is measured by whether people accept a party’s preferred version of events. then disagreement stops being disagreement and starts being treated as betrayal.. That can corrode trust in Congress. the White House. and even state governments—institutions that depend on citizens accepting outcomes they didn’t choose.
It also affects foreign policy.. A nation that cannot agree on what patriotism means at home struggles to speak with a consistent moral voice abroad.. When civic unity breaks into teams, international crises become opportunities for domestic scoring rather than collective strategy.. Misryoum argues that this reduces America’s flexibility: harder political consensus makes it easier for lawmakers to posture and harder for them to govern.
The deeper issue: civic identity
At the heart of the backlash is a cultural shift in how Americans define identity.. Many people now experience politics as a form of social belonging, not just governance.. If patriotism is treated as an identity marker. then people who feel excluded from that identity will reject the label—even if they support the underlying values.. The irony is that the rejection can be read as anti-national. when it may actually be a demand for a more inclusive definition of what the country stands for.
Misryoum also sees a policy angle here: civic education. public messaging. and the way government officials speak about dissent all shape the next generation’s assumptions.. When officials equate criticism with disloyalty, schools and communities take the hint.. Students learn that citizenship is conditional.. And when citizenship is conditional, national symbols become props instead of shared commitments.
There’s a competing vision of patriotism that focuses on civic duties rather than political alignment: voting. paying attention to policy. participating in local government. and holding officials accountable through elections and law.. That version can handle disagreement because it treats America as a project—imperfect, contested, and worth defending through democratic practice.. Misryoum believes restoring that meaning requires more than rhetoric; it requires a shift in incentives so that “loyalty” is connected to institutions and constitutional norms. not to a single party’s narrative.
A way out: broaden the definition
The quickest path is conceptual: separate love of country from love of party.. In practice. that means leaders—federal and state—using patriotic language to emphasize shared principles: constitutional rights. peaceful transfers of power. and respect for the rule of law.. It also means allowing dissent to be treated as a feature of democracy, not evidence of hostility.
For citizens, the challenge is similar.. Patriotism shouldn’t require surrendering your judgment.. If you can criticize government while still believing the country is worth defending. you’re already living the better version of civic loyalty.. Misryoum’s editorial bottom line is simple: when patriotism becomes a weapon, it stops uniting.. When it becomes a civic obligation, it can bring people back into the same room—even when they vote differently.