Shaar argued that while patriotism and nationalism shared similar aspects in definition and applicability, they were certainly distinguishable. Shaar referred to nationalism as the intense loyalty for one’s country that can trigger disrespect towards foreigners. Conversely, Shaar defined patriotism as loyalty for the home country that was manifested through reverence for fellow citizens. Shaar was debating from the point of view that an authentic patriot is portrayed by a deep awareness of the contribution of the influential nation makers in history who changed the face of the country and provided most of the aspects that were being enjoyed by the current generation. At the heart of patriotism is the profound affection for one’s country, cultures and people associated with the country.
The original state of patriotism, the natural state, can be defined as the instinctual devotion for one’s home country. This can be explained as the sentiment or affection an individual has with their motherland, city, state, country or town. Even though citizens move away from their native land, there is an innate bond between a person and their origins. According to Schaar, this is referred to as natural patriotism. Schaar commented that most Americans lacked this sense of patriotism as they failed to have an emotional connection with the place they considered their home. Conversely, Schaar’s idea of covenanted patriotism referred to a nation that was uniquely founded on the tenets of political liberty that were captured in the Constitution. This type of patriotism is manifested in countries where the demographic status displays a high degree of cultural and ethnic heterogeneity that offers no chance for natural patriotism to manifest itself.
In his book, John Rohr stated that, within the United States, citizenship was not a significant and useful feature. The first reason for making this assertion was the idea that citizens were being corrupted by complying with the authority that they deemed unlawful (Rohr 64). Citizens have persistently claimed that the administrative institutions have failed in most aspects of providing public goods and services. By paying taxes and obeying the law, citizens portrayed their loyalty to the administration in power. In a sense, this was a contradictory action as the same citizens that protested the poor services provided by the administration were at the forefront in obeying the regulations and directives of the government. The second reason that provided evidence of a poor development of citizenship was that, despite the disinterest and low support, the concept of the administrative state was fully entrenched and embraced by most public actors. The constitution also fails to clarify the difference between legal citizens and aliens with both enjoying almost similar privileges. Most of the state laws concerning immigration and aliens have either been watered down or found unconstitutional.
John Rohr asserted that bureaucrats should desist from referring to themselves as ‘second-class citizens’. This was because Rohr identified the extensive unrestricted authority that they held in influencing and implementing policy. Instead of labeling them second-class, bureaucrats can be considered part of the ruling group that is awarded great power to influence the range and extent of how state policies affected the lives of the citizens served by the state. The idea of giving themselves a lowly social class such as ‘second-class’ was important in hiding the fact that they were enjoying massive public resources and privileges to which the rest of the citizens did not have access (Rohr 67). Considering themselves second-class is the main reason why public spending has been extravagant over many years.
Rohr, John A. Public Service, Ethics, and Constitutional Practice. Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1999. Print.