And what isn't patriotic about participating in democracy? How is my saying "they're both participating in the government, and therefore being patriotic about it," invalid? To some extent, most things a citizen can do to be patriotic involves political participation; voting, petitioning the government, and addressing concerns to representatives are all avenues a citizen can take to alter a government they feel is not doing what is right for their country.
If patriotism is about 'the people,' where does participation in government come into it? I don't think that it does, but then again I don't buy into the whole democracy shebang anyway. Surely participation in government is about supporting a political viewpoint? It sounds dangerously like you're making patriotism something meaningless; by casting a vote, you're somehow 'helping your country,' regardless of whether you give a damn about it in the first place. Also, what about patriots of countries which aren't democratic? How are they patriots, if they are at all?
I'm not saying participation in the government automatically or is the sole reason for making one a patriot. As you said, people can vote and not give a damn about the process (especially in compulsory service/voting nations, like Australia), and then there are those who vote and care. The latter group can be further divided down into two categories: the natural rights crowd, and the civic virtue crowd. Those who vote with their own benefit and well-being at the absolute forefront would qualify for the natural rights group. The civic virtue crowd would include those who may vote without their personal good at the forefront of their mind in order to push a candidate or group they see as being the best for their nation as a whole. There can be some gray area betwen the two, but I digress.
As for other nations where citizens aren't granted immediate political rights, the greatest patriotism they can display at the time is to push for greater rights for themselves. While it may sound somewhat selfish or opposed to the common good, patriotism also extends to seeing what is wrong in that nation's society and being willing to correct it. Again, as you said before, they could be doing this and not giving a damn about their country, but all about themselves, and, while I'm not refuting that as an option, I tend to believe that the root cause of many civil rights movements is the underlying desire for a group to be fully-recognized as citizens of a country they feel some obligation to.
I think we're deviating somewhat from my original point, which is that patriotism clouds terms rather than illuminates them. A patriot loves and supports his country, but that country consists of many contradictory things. I think you are wrong when you say the country is the people, since, as you also say, those people are represented by the government; ergo, the government is the country as well. Those terms, too, contain much detail that simply calling them 'the people' or 'the government' leaves out a hell of a lot.
I'm afraid you've lost me here, as nowhere did I say government = people. The basic principle of a democracy as seen in most European countries and the US is popular sovereignty and the consent of the people. A legitimate government cannot rule without the consent of the governed. While the people form a necessary cornerstone in democracies with regards to participation, they are in no way the same as the government. A man can be loyal to the people of his country, yet oppose the government ruling over them.
Governments change drastically; the people in Western nations have the power to alter their leadership to the point of having an entire different end of the political spectrum take power, as seen in the recent American elections. Still, the people born in the borders of a nation or otherwise naturalized and give their consent to be governed comprise the people of that nation--that never changes. The people is where the citizen's loyalty must lie, not with the government.
You can go into tremendous detail, picking out all the nuances of country and people and government, and the problem with patriotism is that it precludes that by reducing the thousands of identities, centuries of history and millions of acts into 'America,' or 'Britain.' It's equivalent to having one word for politics - you can no longer discuss the difference and make distinctions between communism and socialism, between economic and social freedom, between the religious right and the economic Republicans, so on and so forth because they're all called 'politics'. That's why it's anti-thought.
While what you say is true, in the thought that patriotism combines people of all ethnicities, philosophies, and backgrounds into one group, it is not nearly as detrimental as you make it seem. Belief in all people equal under the law is what spurs special interest groups and other citizens to fight for the rights of minorities and Guantanamo detainees. When people see the Constitution or citizenship as being their unifying factor that sets them as equals, they will show concern for those who aren't being treated as such by their government. Patriotism in this sense doesn't abolish individualism; rather, it strengthens it by promoting that all philosophies, ethncities, and beliefs are equal in the eyes of law.
[/quote]
