What’s in a name? Battlelines drawn as patriotism becomes part of the political debate

We have increasingly found that these leaders are often paralysed by a combination of the hour-to-hour media cycle, institutional bureaucratic obstinance, inertia, social media phases and often just plain rank political opportunism or expedience, with little to no vision or conviction beyond re-election.

Now it seems that the final point of contention in the long-running culture wars that have metastised across nations like the United States, United Kingdom and western European nations has finally become a prominent and destructive part of our own respective political discourse.

I am, of course, referring to the intersection of patriotism, nationalism and national security which had, until only recently (in the grand scheme of things), been completely alien to nations and populations across the Western World.

Now many would argue that the catalyst for this has been the recent media furor over statements about a “monoculture” by One Nation leader Pauline Hanson during her address to the National Press Club in recent weeks, during which Hanson said: “Undeniably, immigration or immigration policy has our country in the state of crisis. At the centre of this crisis is the utterly flawed policy of multiculturalism.

“We cannot be a multicultural society. We are a multiracial society, but we must be monocultural. Australians must live under the one cultural umbrella,” Hanson said, provoking the ire of the nation’s political, media and even societal consensus as screeching of racism could be heard across the land.

Others would argue that it goes back a little further to 10 June 2025, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, following his landslide election victory, first coined the phrase “progressive patriotism” during his own National Press Club address, saying, “On the 3rd of May, the Australian people voted for Australian values. For fairness, aspiration and opportunity for all. For a progressive patriotism where we are proud to do things our own way.

VIEW ALL

“Where we recognise that our democracy, our commitment to fair wages and conditions, universal Medicare and universal superannuation are things that bring us together as Australians and set us apart from the world. And where we embrace the fact that one of the characteristics that makes this the best nation on earth, is that all of us are driven by a determination to make it even better.”

Further back, some would argue that it goes back to the Howard-era and Keith Windschuttle’s “Black arm band” view of Australia’s history or even further back. Others, including my own migrant grandmother, would argue that the roots of this cancer upon our cultural, political and social cohesion dates back to the Whitlam–Fraser period (but mainly Whitlam) of Australian politics.

Irregardless, the fact of the matter today is that this point of contention, political debate, social division and national security fracture point is here and we have to have the conversation in all its facets – the good, the bad and the ugly – no matter how much it makes us squeamish, uncomfortable or angry. Because if we don’t, Australia will not be united enough to withstand the coming storm.

Bringing us to the debate between both sides of Australia’s political discourse around patriotism – what constitutes “acceptable” patriotism for some and “genuine– patriotism for others – a debate that is as varied as people’s different conceptualisations and understanding of patriotism in the contemporary sense.

The challenge we now face is two distinctly different and let’s face it, despite the reassurances of both parties, diametrically opposed concepts of patriotism for modern Australia.

The rise of ‘progressive patriotism’

In recent days, Minister for Defence Industry Pat Conroy has launched a full-throated and impassioned battle-cry, championing Prime Minister Albanese’s concept of “Progressive patriotism” and using his own address to the National Press Club, titled “Progressive patriotism”, told the gathered audience of defence industry executives: “Indeed, as the PM has often said: the vision is a country where no one is held back … and where no one is left behind.

"Progressive patriotism, in the eyes of the Albanese government – and the great labour movement – is confidence in, and celebration of, what our national project has built. It is confidence in how it is evolving, and confidence in the future. Strong defence of our country – including the need to invest in our defence industry, people and systems – is a critical part of understanding what Australian progressive patriotism looks like today.”

Going further, Minister Conroy said: “In a world as complex and dynamic as ours is today, seeing defence at the heart of our approach to progressive patriotism is essential. Because not only is it worth doing for all the benefits I just mentioned, but it is also a sign to ourselves and the rest of the world that we think Australia – our people, our way of life, our society, our institutions – are worth protecting.”

But as with all things, definitions are important, and where traditional patriotism is a little easier to conceptualise and understand, the relatively new concept of progressive patriotism is a little harder to pin down, but what we can say is that it is best defined as a political and social concept that attempts to decouple national pride from right-wing or ethnonationalist ideologies.

Building on this, the concept of progressive patriotism also seeks to frame love of country not as an uncritical defence of the status quo or historical myths, but as an active, collective commitment to making the nation more just, equitable and inclusive. Rather than viewing patriotism as an affection for “blood and soil”, progressive patriotism treats the nation as an ongoing project focused on civic solidarity, shared democratic values, and the continuous improvement of its citizens’ lives.

But a lot of these “binding agents” are at best nebulous, hard to define, or ill-defined concepts, especially when one considers the examplars used to champion the cause; in the case of Australia, things like the funding of Medicare is directly comparable to the British National Health Service, or the Obama-era championing of civil rights leaders and labour activists (often themselves incredibly flawed and compromised individuals) rather than the historic, religious, cultural and kinship bonds which have long served in their place.

Somewhat nebulous concepts to peg the future stability, prosperity and security of your nation on.

At its core, “progressive patriotism” in the Western liberal conceptualisation inescapably disinherits people from their place in time and space by making nations little more than economic zones and the people interchangeable but fungible economic figures in Treasury’s spreadsheets to be quantified, tabulated and tallied against the voracious hunger of the mighty gross domestic product metric.

What this creates is the concept of the “anywheres”, a concept established by political philosopher David Goodhart, who, he argued, make up between 20–25 per cent of the population but wield disproportionate influence and power. These groups often measure themselves against an identity of educational credentials (usually a university degree) and professional accomplishments.

Colloquially, they are known as the laptop class, with loose geographic ties to any particular place, are often intense clique-focused and generally favour globalisation, free trade, high levels of immigration and socially, liberal policies (ironically, they will be the ones most impacted by the rise of artificial intelligence and automation), certainly the poster children for “progressive patriotism” as conceptualised and championed by the Prime Minister and Minister Conroy.

Against the myth of ‘magic soil’

Standing opposite this is the more traditional concept of “patriotism” and seemingly the antithesis of everything that the Prime Minister and Minister Conroy are championing – the historic, not traditional framing of patriotism, linked strongly to a dominant cultural heritage, the triumphs and the losses of the people’s history or a demand for assimilation by migrants, supported by the defence of national symbols, institutions and the “traditional values” of the predominate group.

This historic understanding and framing of patriotism feels out of place and, in many cases, offensive to the “progressive patriotism” crowd, that is until they need a material glue with which to bind together a nation or people during times of crises or catastrophe. Threats to national security are often badged up under this framing but it is becoming increasingly difficult for Western countries to roll this form of patriotism out when required.

But why? I hear some ask.

Well, because at its core, historic patriotism is the domain of the “somewheres” as defined by Goodhart, or roughly 50 per cent (I would argue closer to 65–70 per cent) of the population (with the remainder, the “inbetweeners”, who share traits from both camps) who feel increasingly marginalised, atomised and dispossessed in their homelands. Look no further than the powder keg that is the contemporary United Kingdom, riddled with social, cultural and ethnic tensions and is little more than a tinderbox waiting for a final, fateful spark to ignite a wave of social unrest.

Put more simply, historic patriotism stands diametrically opposed to the covert myth/concept of “magic soil” that anyone can come from anywhere and immediately be of that place, seeking to legitimise the narrative and key selling points championed by the “anywheres”, which is something nations like Australia and its contemporaries across the Western World are grappling with.

But much to the dismay of the “anywheres” and “progressive patriots”, this naive belief that anyone from anywhere can come somewhere or a person can be born in a place but remain largely in the ethnic, cultural, social and religious community of their parents and still be considered Australian, American, English, German, Chinese, Somali or Japanese is fanciful, after all, if I was born in a barn, wouldn’t make me a horse now, would it?

Or to use a human example, people would hardly consider Joanna Lumley of AbFab fame Indian, despite being born in the Indian city of Srinagar in Jammu and Kashmir province of India, any more than people would consider Jackie Chan an American–Australian because he was partially raised in Australia and spent a lot of his time here at the American embassy in Canberra.

Whether we like it or not, we’re going to have to grapple with and discuss these problems of kinship, ethnicity and broader sectarianism, which all run contrary to the relatively fragile and nebulous binding agents proposed by “progressive patriotism” and are even harder to discuss in today’s overly politicised and sensitive society, or we’re going to run into the same challenges and powder keg that is now threatening to engulf the United Kingdom and Europe.

Finally, one thing we’re going to have to accept is that everyone is a nationalist for somewhere and in a world of increasing economic, political, cultural and strategic tension and competition, that “where” is going to matter more than ever, so let’s ask the sticky questions, let’s have the hard conversation around the national dinner table, respectfully and amicably, before it is too late.

Final thoughts

Ultimately, the tension between the “anywheres” and “somewheres” in Australia takes on a distinct character when compared to the deep fractures running through the global North. In the United States, the culture war is fiercely ideological, hyper-partisan and gridlocked; across Western Europe and the United Kingdom, it is often a painful reckoning with post-industrial decline, immigration anxieties, and lost empires.

Australia, however, presents a unique landscape where the tyranny of distance and a history of harsh conditions historically forged a quiet, gritty reliance on the local community, mateship and the immediate neighbourhood, but even here, these things are being displaced.

While metropolitan “anywheres” in Sydney and Melbourne champion a fluid, globalised outlook, mirroring their university-educated counterparts in London or New York, this hyper-mobile ethos frequently glosses over the lived realities of the Australian working class and regional communities, the main targets of both Prime Minister Albanese’s “progressive patriotism” and Pauline Hanson’s One Nation.

For the Australian “somewheres”, national identity isn’t an abstract, theoretical concept to be constantly dismantled, rewritten or managed by progressive patriotism; it is something lived, breathed and anchored firmly in the dirt. It is found in the generational ties to regional towns, the distinct egalitarian ethos of a “fair go” and a quiet, defensive pride in what has been built out of a rugged continent.

When progressive elites try to pivot national pride entirely towards globalist values, they risk alienating the very people who underpin the nation’s economic and social stability, and in an era of mounting great power competition, national security.

Unlike the somewhat chaotic populist eruptions seen in Europe or the US, the Australian traditionalist response is often a quiet demand that local heritage, border sovereignty and cultural continuity be respected rather than dismissed as outdated or racist by inner-city intellectuals and the aforementioned laptop class.

Loving a country means honouring the specific grit and history of the people who stayed put and built it, not just celebrating its capacity to change for the convenience of global markets.

In the end, a stable nation cannot survive solely on the portable ideals of those who can easily pack up and leave; it fundamentally requires the foundational loyalty of those whose roots run deep into the soil.

Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia’s political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below or get in touch at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Stephen Kuper

Steve has an extensive career across government, defence industry and advocacy, having previously worked for cabinet ministers at both Federal and State levels.