love of country
1.National Patriotic Movement
2.Rwanda Patriotic Army
3.All patriots belong to one big family, whether they rally to the common cause early or late.
4.Rwandese Army (APR)
5.religious [patriotic] sentiment
6.Love of and devotion to one’s country.
7.One who loves, supports, and defends one’s country.
8.Union des Patriotes Democratiques
9.It is traditional for Chinese religious believers to love their country and religions.
10.Feeling, expressing, or inspired by love for one’s country.
11.Patriotism are its roots deep in the instincts and the offections, love of country is the expansion do dutiful love.
12.Higher unity of loving a country, loving people and loving socialism –Discussion on Deng Xiaoping s patriotic ideas;
13.The patriot rendered services to his country all his life.
14.Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association
15.Patriotism is penalized and innocent people are in jail everywhere;
16.PATRIOTISM AND INTERNATIONALISM
17.Someone has said that not loving socialism isn’t equivalent to not loving one’s motherland.
18.imbued with patriotism, ambition, love, etc
充满爱国主义精神、 雄心勃勃、 满怀爱心
Discard the familiar labels. Emmanuel Macron has broken the mould of French politics. The En Marche! leader says his second-round presidential contest with the National Front’s Marine Le Pen presents instead a choice between patriotism and nationalism. He is right. This insight should resonate well beyond France. The dividing line that now matters in rich democracies lies between patriots and nationalists.
丢掉熟悉的标签。埃马纽埃尔?马克龙(Emmanuel Macron)打破了法国政治的固有模式。这位“前进”运动(En Marche!)的领导人称，他与国民阵线(National Front)领导人马琳?勒庞(Marine Le Pen)之间的第二轮总统大选对决，等于让民众在爱国主义与民族主义之间做出一个选择。他说得没错。这个见解应能在法国以外的广大地区引起共鸣。如今，爱国主义者和民族主义者之间的分野已成为富裕民主国家内部一条意义重大的分界线。
Populist insurgents across Europe have obscured the distinction. Citizens, they pretend, must choose between fealty to the nation and a wrecking globalism. The flag waving has destabilised mainstream parties of right and left. Some on the right have sought to ride the nationalist tiger. Hence British prime minister Theresa May’s unfortunate assertion that citizens of the world are citizens of nowhere. On the left, the common mistake has been to disavow any display of allegiance as xenophobia.
Mr Macron, the insider-outsider of European politics, has met the populists head on. Defying Mrs May’s binary choice, he proclaims himself an internationalist and a proud citizen of France.
We have been here before. Surveying the forces that plunged Europe into war during the 1930s, the writer George Orwell saw the same blurring of lines. Patriotism, he wrote, is a positive emotion celebrating national institutions, traditions and values. It is open and optimistic. Nationalism is an altogether darker force, rooted at once in superiority and paranoia.
Patriots have no quarrel with the choices made by others. Nationalists look for enemies, framing international relations as a zero-sum game. The thoughts of the nationalist, Orwell observed, “always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations”.
He might have been talking about today’s Europe. Nationalists across the continent have destabilised the postwar liberal order by peddling the politics of exclusion and vilification. Petty tyrants such as Hungary’s Viktor Orban exult in their illiberalism. Poland is in the grip of a nationalist party that openly repudiates the values of the EU — though it of course insists on holding on to its access to generous Brussels funding. Beppe Grillo’s anti-European Five Star Movement in Italy threatens to overturn the ancien regime in collaboration with the far-right Northern League.
他描绘的简直就是今天的欧洲。欧洲大陆各地的民族主义者通过兜售排外和中伤式的政治，扰乱了战后的自由秩序。匈牙利的欧尔班?维克托(Viktor Orban)之流的小暴君们为他们奉行的反自由主义而感到欢欣鼓舞。掌控波兰的民族主义政党公开否定欧盟的价值观——尽管它当然继续希望得到欧盟的慷慨资金援助。在意大利，贝佩?格里洛(Beppe Grillo)领导的反欧洲的五星运动(Five Star Movement)，威胁要与极右翼的北方联盟(Northern League)合作推翻旧制度。
Ms Le Pen is as true as any to Orwell’s characterisation. Her brand of nationalism is pinched and tribal. Leading a party long soaked in anti-Semitism she has added Islam, Europe and globalisation to the roll of enemies. France, in this mindset, is a civilisation under siege. The appeal is to the angry and dispossessed. The supposed remedies — state control, vilification of immigrants, and protectionism — is the familiar snake oil of demagogues.
Populism has had purchase because many of the grievances it has tapped are real. Unemployment is unacceptably high, median incomes have stagnated, welfare systems are under pressure and well-heeled bankers who laid low the world economy continue to fill their boots with cash. There should be no surprise that angry voters are receptive to angry slogans. But the populists have profited also from the complacency and timidity of the old elites. Some, like Mrs May, have tacked to the right. Others have stared at their feet. Parties of the centre-left have stood by idly as their traditional supporters have deserted them in droves.
There are many reasons why the UK voted last year to leave the EU, but the failure over many years of British politicians of any persuasion ever to state the compelling case for close co-operation with the rest of the European continent laid the ground for Brexit. The “hard” Brexit and toughening of immigration controls now proposed by Mrs May speak to a fear of open, internationalist politics. Better, in the prime minister’s mind, to risk serious damage to Britain’s security and prosperity than to stand on the wrong side of the populists of the United Kingdom Independence party.
Mr Macron is the first serious leader to make the patriotic case — to argue that the interests of France and the security, economic and physical, of its citizens rest on recovering a strong voice on the global stage. He is unapologetic in identifying the French economic interest with that of Europe, and of explaining that some of the biggest challenges facing the nation — terrorism and climate change among them — demand international collaboration rather than French retreat. It will seem odd to some that a leader should attract praise for laying out the simple facts of interdependence but that in itself is a measure of how far politics has fallen in the face of the populists.
None of this is to say Mr Macron will ultimately be successful in his endeavour. If, as the polls indicate, he secures a comfortable victory over Ms Le Pen in the second-round runoff on May 7, he faces parliamentary elections in June. En Marche! is a movement rather than a party and will struggle to win large numbers of seats in the assembly.
Nor is the would-be president’s prescription of domestic reform and international engagement assured of public support: nearly half of the voters in the first round of the presidential poll back candidates of the extreme right and left.
That said, Mr Macron has illuminated the only path available to supporters of liberal, open societies. Nationalism, as Europe should have learnt, is always destructive. Patriotism is the antidote.