Has Nationalism become a bad word?

Fair enough... my point is not that it was uniformly and universally a bad thing (the concept of universalism is about as alien to me as national pride), but that would be a rather uninteresting statement anyway, by lack of any differentiation and historical context.

But surely we have to acknowledge that a term like this doesn't have one fixed meaning that is set in the beginning and then will hold forever. The very interesting Wikipedia page on nationalism starts with

Nationalism is an idea and movement that promotes the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people), especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland.

That on its own would be fine and in line with an originally positive interpretation of the "nation" concept that I have distanced the term "nationalism" from. Historically this was probably understood as the core content of nationalism at various times and places including Gandhi's independence movement (by the way, my earlier question whether Gandhi ever referred to himself as nationalist is yet unanswered).

Google's default dictionary says

identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

I don't think Gandhi would have identified with any of the latter bit. But then I'm not the best Gandhi expert around. The English Wikipedia page adds such stuff later and isn't quite clear about to what extent this is essential for nationalism.

It also states

The term increasingly became negative in its connotations after 1914.

Quite old news in the opening posting then... Anyway, obviously this happened because the term had been used by different people and changed its meaning (or was in use with various and partly contradictory meanings by different people). Gandhi is associated with "anti-colonial nationalism", which we should acknowledged is a rather different beast from the European nationalism in the 19th century, or how it degenerated in the build-up to the two world wars. It is also quite different from the nationalism America according to the words of the thread-opener doesn't have enough of these days.

I'm German and my understanding of the term "nationalism" is coined by its use in German language. The German Wikipedia page cites (interestingly differently from the English one) the British sociologist Anthony D. Smith, listing four basic convictions characteristing nationalism, namely (1) the idea that there are naturally different peoples with naturally different national characters, (2) in order to reach national sovereignty, members of a nation need to identify themselves with the nation and need to be loyal to it, even place the loyalty to the nation over all other loyalties, (3) nations have the right of self-determination, (4) the nation is the only legitimate source of political power. This is much more far-reaching than the definition on the English page, and my stance may have to do with a certain difference between the English and German connotation of the term. Anti-colonial nationalism is based on (3), and I have no problems with that. I wouldn't sign any of the other three though. Nations have developed into being the major units of political organisation as I said before. I don't think that this in itself is bad. However I take as part of nationalism the claim that there is some natural necessity in this, that alternatives are illegitimate, and that members of a nation should be loyal to it, its symbols and its "identity" whatever that is, and dominating other loyalties (all this is also mentioned further down on the English Wikipedia page, if somewhat less straight regarding to what extent these beliefs are essential for nationalism).

The English page also states that  

Nationalism seeks to preserve and foster a nation's traditional cultures and cultural revivals have been associated with nationalist movements. It also encourages pride in national achievements (...)

If the national identity were something "natural" indeed, why should such artificial promotion be necessary? Left alone, it should develop naturally on its own, shouldn't it? An observation I have about nationalists is that they ultimately don't trust such natural development and think that steps need to be done in order to enforce it.

It will be hard to measure in any objective sense what is meant by "the most nationalistic country", let alone the idea that Switzerland has been doing well has any causal connection with this (a different interpretation says that it has more to do with the Swiss banking system than with anything else).