Kathmandu— The question of whether one can be both a progressive and a patriot has long been debated, but is gaining renewed attention as political divides deepen. Traditionally defined as love of country – an affection for one’s birthplace and people – patriotism today often manifests as prioritizing the interests of fellow nationals above all others. This raises fundamental questions about inclusivity, global responsibility, and whether true national allegiance requires defending a nation's actions regardless of their impact on the wider world.

Historical Definitions Of Patriotism

Sir Walter Scott, over two centuries ago, described patriotism as an inherent love for one’s homeland. In his poem “The Lay of the Last Minstrel,” he contrasted those who cherish their community with individuals solely focused on self-interest, suggesting that isolation from neighbors leads to a life devoid of recognition and respect. This concept of affection for one's national 'neighborhood' forms a foundational understanding of patriotism.

Progressive Redefinition Of National Loyalty

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez offers a contemporary progressive perspective, arguing that loving one’s country means working to improve it and advocating for all its people. She defines this love not through ethnicity but through class solidarity, asserting that true patriotism lies in fighting for the well-being of working Americans – ‘bartenders and factory workers.’ This view connects U.S. history with movements for social justice like abolitionism and women’s suffrage, emphasizing economic freedom as a core American value.

The Conflict Between National And Global Interests

Beyond sentimental affection, patriotism often translates into prioritizing the rights and interests of one's own nation over those of others. In a world frequently characterized by competition between nations, this can lead to zero-sum scenarios where aiding one country may come at the expense of another. This prioritization extends to economic prosperity and national security, raising questions about whether loyalty demands defending ‘our’ people even at the cost of harming ‘theirs.’ The author recalls debates with his father regarding Israel, highlighting the tension between caring for one's own community and recognizing universal human rights.

Patriotism And U.S. Foreign Policy

The article critiques the application of patriotism to U.S. foreign policy, particularly in relation to conflicts like the Vietnam War and recent tensions with Iran. It notes that criticism of these wars often focuses on tactical errors rather than fundamental moral objections, and points out a growing awareness within the Democratic Party that supporting Israel’s military actions may serve U.S. imperial interests rather than genuine American needs. The author argues that true patriotism should not involve sanctioning or killing others to maintain national supremacy.

A Universalist Alternative

Ultimately, the author proposes a shift in allegiance from nation to humanity, asserting that the needs of all people should be considered equal. This perspective challenges the notion that serving and protecting ‘our’ nationals justifies harming others, suggesting that communal self-defense is distinct from the supremacist ideology often associated with patriotism. The author concludes by questioning whether progressive leaders like Ocasio-Cortez can embrace a platform grounded in both social justice and universal human rights.

The debate over progressive patriotism remains ongoing, with implications for how nations define their values and engage with the world. Whether it is possible to reconcile national loyalty with a commitment to global equality will likely shape future political discourse.

(With inputs from CounterPunch)

More from the source

Originally published on abcnews.com.np.