Column by Zachary Kiser

I will pose a simple question to begin this column; nothing too hard, just a straightforward question. The question is: What is patriotism? Webster’s defines the word as, “love for or devotion to one’s country,” yet in this case, the definition does not even begin to answer the question. How does one define love, when it involves loving a country? How strong or blind is that devotion mentioned in the definition? These are questions that are being debated ad nauseum, whether it is on a 24-hours news network, or in the White Hall Classroom Building. It looks as if that straightforward question I mentioned isn’t so straightforward after all. But, alas, I will try to search through the rhetoric to find a definition and explanation for this mysterious word.

Let’s first address the love aspect of the Webster’s definition. We first must decide what exactly constitutes this love. What kind of love is it? Are we talking about the kind of love I hold for science and learning? Are we talking about the kind of love by which Joanie loved Chachi? I believe we can best describe the love mentioned in the definition as platonic love. Platonic love is the kind of love we share with our family and best friends, in which there is deep connection but no sexual connection. This kind of love can be very strong, but it is not above reproach. For example, I have a platonic love for my good friend Elizabeth Knifely, but if Elizabeth was doing something wrong, I would have no problem calling her on it for her own sake. American leaders of current and past have tried to tell us that calling America and its leaders on their wrongdoings is contrary to patriotism. I am here to tell you that in our love for America, duty bounds us to call out the wrong doings of our leaders. Would we allow our family members and friends, who we care deeply about, to tread down a path that brings about harm?

The second aspect of the Webster’s definition deals with the idea of devotion to one’s country. Devotion, like love, takes on many forms and varying levels of intensity; it is up to us to again decipher this vague word. It seems that since Sept. 11, many have come to view devotion as something that must be taken to an extreme level. When they speak of devotion, they speak of a blind, unquestioning following of one’s country and leaders. To speak out against the actions of one’s government and country, under this form of devotion, is considered to be unpatriotic and bordering on treasonous. But I would propose that Webster’s definition suggests a different form of devotion. Devotion is defined by Webster’s as, “the fact or state of being ardently dedicated and loyal;” this is far from the definition proposed by modern day conservatives and other nationalists. When one is dedicated to something, the object of devotion being our country, one seeks the best outcome and conditions for this object. Yet, when discussion and intellectual dissent is labeled as treasonous or seditious, no one is able to voice their opinions on what would be best for the object of devotion; i.e. America. Devotion is not a blind following; it is an active intellectual process that requires the highest levels of thought and participation.

Through this analysis of the definition of patriotism, I believe we can come to a sensible conclusion on what exactly patriotism is. Patriotism is more than placing your hand over your heart, singing songs, waving flags, and setting off fireworks on Independence Day. Patriotism is also more than going with the flow and being a “yes man” during a time of crisis. Patriotism is a constant quest to improve the country that we care for so much. Patriotism is a constant intellectual process in which we analyze how our country works, and what we could do to make it better; even if that isn’t what is popular.