Maybe it's just to close to partisan in the dictionary for them?
an apt RX imho Frigid one.......add term limits.....a third party.....and lobbyist caps....that would be a start
~S~
I think the thing with "patriotism", especially for the right, is that they can then justify anything.
"Patriotism" used the way they use it, is one step away from fascism. Fascism wants a dictator, the dictator knows best. Other people don't need to have opinions, it's already been thought out for them. Using "Patriotism" in their way, implies that this is the right way, no thought need to be given.
Fascism likes strong militaries, with parades and maybe a couple of invasions, national pride is built around being gung-ho and chest beating. "Patriotism" in their way is about respecting the military, giving precedence to the military, wanting leaders who had military experience, wanting those grunts in the military to be given special service, "thank you for your service" (to helping us make rich people richer).
Suppression of the opposition. "I'm a patriot, therefore if you oppose me, you are a traitor", it's simple, very simple, suppression of opposing ideas.
Third parties can only exist with a change in the way people vote. The FPTP system is a two party system. The UK has it. It has the right wing Tories, it has the left wing Labour, with the Lib Dems messing everything up for the left. In the last election the Tories had less than 1,000 votes more than the Lib Dems + Labour and yet they got 150 seats more.
In the top 23 seats for the highest majority going to the winning party party, Labour had all but four.
In the bottom 23 seats for lowest majority going to the winning party, the Tories had 12 of those, Labour had 8.
It's an unfair system that benefits the main two parties. Hits any party that has a similar party, which is why the Reps and Dems will not allow a third party. Which is why you end up with the Tea Party and Bernie Sanders in two parties they really should not be in.