What is Patriotism?

I spent a lot of the 4th trying to figure out what exactly "patriotism" is. What I find so interesting about the word is that the actual definitions don't really answer the question. I'm sure that most people concider themselves "patriots," well at least 71% do, but within that 71% some do things in the name of patriotism that others in that group would find distinctly unpatriotic, and vice versa. What is it about patriotism that two people, both being adamant "patriots" could not only take two distinctly different actions, but condem the other as being unpatriotic?

Here's my answer. I think there are two types of "patriots," those that are proud of and fight for the borders and physical security of the nation, and those who are proud of and fight for the ideals of the nation. The former believe that the ground is the most important thing, for without a secure ground there's nowhere for the "ideals" to flourish. While the latter feel that the ground is just dirt without the ideals that make is special. Hence, when both sides call for sacrifice, they are looking to sacrifice different things. The physical patriot sacrifices the ideals to keep the self safe, while the idealistic patriot sacrifices the self to keep the ideals safe. To a certain extent the Flag Burning Amendment crystalizes this point. There are those that wish to protect the physical flag, even if it means sacrificing the ideals that it represents, while there are those that are willing to protect the ideals that the flag represents even if it means sacrificing the physical flag. Thus both sides believe that the other is being unpatriotic. The "war on terror" also shows this gulf between the two patriot parties. "Put our rights on hold while you protect us" v. "Our rights are our protection." Because both sides come at the issue of patriotism from such different philosophical points, it is hard for them to reach any sort of common ground, especially as each sees the other as reckless and unpatriotic. Not only that, but because the other is unpatriotic, following their lead will lead to the harm of the country. No patriot can stand that thought, and discourd ensues.

I fall squarely into the latter group (no surprise to long time readers). I've always felt it was more noble to sacrifice self for the greater cause than to sacrifice the greater cause for self. But I do understand the other side. Preservation is the guarantee of opportunity, self sacrifice requires the hope that it wasn't in vain. I think this is why I'm so disturbed by the actions of the Bush administration. They are clearly physical patriots, placing them in direct opposition to my own idealistic patriotic philosophy.