Silly Season Starts

Yep, the silly season has begun. No, I don’t mean summer. I mean the season of political pandering in which the congress-critters fall all over themselves to pander to the emotions of their constituents regardless of the probability of a successful outcome or the damage to the Constitution. Once again we have the always popular proposal to amend the Constitution to prohibit desecration of the American flag. House Passes Flag-Burning Amendment

Who can argue that it is an egregious affront to all who have fought and died for this country to burn or desecrate our national symbol? Yep, we should have no problem finding two-thirds of both houses of the legislature and three-quarters of all the states to ratify this Constitutional solution to a problem which is virtually non-existent. And, then we can all go home and feel good about ourselves.

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

C’mon, Duke, I respect your credentials as a fighter pilot and an American, but you’re pandering here. We aren’t overwhelmed by a rash of spontaneous flag-burnings in this country. And, you’ve got to admit a couple of things; foreign demonstrations against America with the requisite flag destructions won’t be halted, and the proliferation of morons in the USA who want to attract attention by flag burning will accelerate when it becomes a violation of the Constitution. So, you’ll amend the Constitution, restrict the freedom of the First Amendment, increase the problem and start the slide down the slippery slope of further restrictions on the ways in which the people of our nation can express themselves. Nice job.

There’s a reason folks go out and create a media event by burning a flag. It is because the flag is so deeply revered and respected by the huge majority of American that the act will attract attention. When an activist, minority, unheralded movement or ignored political position wants to advance their cause they must first attract an audience. What better means than to burn a flag? Yet, we don’t have flag-burnings on every corner. That’s because the negative backlash will usually outweigh the attention advantage.

The Supreme Court, in a remarkably rare display of wisdom, determined that egregious insults to the symbols of the nation must be tolerated, even when detested by every red-blooded patriot. It’s “symbolic” speech, which might be a creation of the Supremes as a concept but is nevertheless a reality in politics. Despicable displays like crucifixes in urine, Madonnas draped in elephant dung and desecrations of the flag are all expressions designed to attract attention. With the requisite press coverage, the message of the protest can then be flashed across the front pages of the region’s news media.

The First Amendment is first, precisely because the Framers thought that protection of the means of political expression was the most import freedom a successful republic would require. Being able to read opinions in a free press, assemble with like-minded folks to disagree with the government and to speak unthinkable positions without fear are all essential. The problem is that we all agree with that principle until the speech, the group assembling, or the statements of the press are totally outrageous. That’s when we seek to amend the Constitution or prohibit the expression. When the freedom is most needed is when the expression is the most disagreeable.

If we want to revere those who have fought and died to protect that flag and the country which it represents, we should recall that it wasn’t a colored rag that was being fought for, but the principles of our nation.