That it's even a question whether or not he is a 'patriot' boggles my mind.
I can see (but not agree with) arguments to the effect that he was a misguided patriot who was either harming unpleasant-but-actually-necessary programs or something of that flavor; but there just isn't any remotely plausible account of his motives if you exclude 'patriotism'.
Even the conspiracy-theorists and crass op-ed hatchetmen haven't found any plausible 'spying in the service of $FOREIGN_POWER(a few have mentioned the 'zOMG, what if the Russians used their secret ruskie-fu to decrypt his laptops!!! theory; but that theory implicitly requires that they'd be gaining access over Snowden's objections).
The 'grandiose, publicity seeking' narrative that they've trotted out for Assange(which in his case is probably true, but rarely relevant to the situations that it is trotted out for), is so unconvincing that even the hacks abandoned it almost immediately.
There's no 'disgruntled employee trying to stick it to boss' story, both because it's a matter of record that he had some fairly cushy gigs with the feds, and because if he had ever said anything impolitic at the water cooler it probably would have been trotted out by now.
You can argue that he's bad at patrotism(though I'd say quite the opposite); but it's just crickets over in the 'other explanations for why somebody would run substantial risks for no apparent reward' section.