I was half-listening to NPR on the way in to work this morning, and of course the main topic of discussion was the late senator from Massachusetts. The senator fought many fights in his time, and one of them was against a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning.
Now, as inspiring as I find our national ensign, the history, land and people it represents, and as personally repugnant as I find its desecration, I happen to agree that the Constitution is too precious a document to be trifled with on merely symbolic grounds. And I accept without endorsing the notion that such displays are a form of constitutionally protected speech.
It’s easy to make too much of this, but it did set me to thinking: What with all the tea parties and town hall meetings over the course of the last year we’ve had the opportunity to see a thing rarely observed in our lifetime – normal people, people of all races, classes and creeds, even people of conservative ideological bent protesting. Because conservatives don’t protest, they don’t gather in the street. They’ve got jobs to get to, families to raise and taxes to pay. They’re too busy for all of that tomfoolery, which is far better left to undergraduate naïfs with too much time on their hands egged on by a professorial class that looks back upon the 60s as the last time they were truly alive, man. The French may take to the streets at the drop of a croissant, but here in the US it’s left to the fringes – overwhelmingly the passionate left – to bang on bongo drums and gad about on stilts.
This new phenomenon of middle American protest has been an unwelcome shock both to the fourth estate and the entrenched political class, who have together tried to disparage the protesters with gross allusions, questioned their motivations and even patriotism, and have now even gone so far as to seed legitimate protests against unwelcome intrusions of government into the private sphere with agents provocateurs.
But there’s one thing you won’t see done at any tea parties or town hall protests: You won’t see flag burning.
We don’t burn flags.
The very idea is so grotesquely out of synch with conservative, libertarian and middle American thinking that to even attempt such a thing as an agitprop in tea party-like environment would result in 1) immediate denunciation, and 2) quite possibly an ass beating. You can get away with that sort of thing in San Francisco, safely enveloped in the welcoming arms of the Code Pink set or at a Worker’s World Party shin-dig, but you’d be nuts to try it in DeKalb, Georgia or Des Moines, Iowa.
This is not to say that all, most or even many liberals endorse flag burning except in a theoretical “freedom of speech” sense or that the act in itself is anything more than mere juvenile provocation. But it does imply a telling difference: Reasonable people are dismayed but no longer surprised to see an American flag burned by elements among the perpetually agitated hyper-left. The very notion would be a nonsensical at a tea party protest.
I’m open to alternative explanations but I believe this has something to do with the foundational difference between the way the left and right view the ontology of government, especially at the federal level. The Democratic Party is the “government party” in the same way that Republicans pretends to be members of the “anti-government” party – or, since the realization of anti-government is in fact anarchy, the “small” or “limited” government party. Liberals tend to believe that if the proper set of people are at the helm, society will progress while conservatives tend to be deeply suspicious of government-driven solutions to what they believe is fundamentally an aggregation of personal – even private – issues.
This tendency to conflate the American government with America is why flag burning is episodic: Troops are still boots on deck in Iraq and Afghanistan, but flags are no longer being burned in Berkeley. This is why “dissent is patriotic” when the wrong people have access to the levers of federal power, but “un-American” when the correct people are in charge.
Most citizens on the right seem to universally understand that the nation is unique and distinctly separate from elected governments, governments that in any case come and go. They recognize the need for government without feeling as though they are in a committed personal relationship with it. They believe in a transcendental idea of America that persists even when those whose ideologies they disagree with gain a monopoly of political power.
It scarcely needs mentioning, but most citizens on the left are in fact patriots who simply share a different vision of what America might someday become. But there is a noisy – and noisome – fringe for whom love of country is conditional. And conditional love is no love at all. It depends upon the receipt of some quid pro quo, some change in behavior. At its core it is narcissistic, controlling, even abusive.
(Question: What about Timothy McVeigh? He didn’t just burn a flag, he blew up a building and killed 168 people.
Answer: McVeigh was a homicidal kook, a loser, who furthermore crafted his terrorist acts in secret, whose actions were not a form of constitutionally protected speech.)
So my question is not whether one side or the other has cornered the market on kooks – they haven’t – it’s why one side seems to have carved out a monopoly on periodic national self-loathing.
I’ve probably burned more US flags than most hippies. Done right, it is an appropriate and solemn ceremony for damaged or soiled flags.
Burning it in the street? Not so much. But I’m with you. It is far too petty a topic for a constitutional amendment.
Besides, if we banned it, it would be that much harder to play “spot the asshat”.
Um, well,.. er… uh….
I actually DID burn a flag at a protest rally. Back during the 2004 Presidential campaigns. The lunatics of the Kerry/Edwards variety were having this big shindig street-theatre thing, and some of my friends and I decided to, er, “crash” the party, as it were. We were across the street from them, and I had this huge 6X8 foot peace flag i made from a bed sheet and some black spray paint. I had it affixed to an old closet pole.
We (my small group) were egging on the other side (it’s amazing what you can do if you know just which buttons to push) when one of them shouted at us “What are you gonna do about it?” and so I unrolled my peace flag. This huge cheer went up from the other side, until they saw me whip out my zippo and set it alight. Then there was this huge gasp and two of the knuckleheads decided to run at me and try to put out the fire. What an amazing hypocritical moment that was for them.
To sum it up, the two idiots who ran at me got arrested, and I got told to cut it out, and not do that again, by the local police. It was a good time, though. Those leftists just cannot stand it when anyone protests THEM.
Good on you Tim. Darn funny.
If you ever want to get some pointers on how to use the left’s tactics against them, just look up “Protest Warrior”.
Now there’s a Man after me own dark little heart.
I’m studying up, Tim. I hope to “outdeviate” you someday soon. But there, at present, appears to be a dearth of US flag burners to be found in the Deep, Dark Heart of Texas. I’m afraid another road trip will be necessary.
As a side note, I found a particular dearth of loud and proud liberals in Maine also. Just letting you all know that Maine and Texas, North and South, ain’t so far apart when it comes to dissatisfaction with the current leadership of the country (and I do mean both Congress and the President, I am afraid. But Congress comes up far more often than Mr. Obama in both circles, folks.)
Press on, Protest Warriors.
Subsunk
so I unrolled my peace flag. This huge cheer went up from the other side, until they saw me whip out my zippo and set it alight.
Best thing I’ll read all day – I’m sure of it. Great warrior action Tim.
A shame you didn’t footage to post to You Tube.
Beautifully written Lex. Thank you very much. And yes, I think it has taken the elite class by surprise that Mom, Dad, Grandma and Grandpa are turning out to yell that they are mad as hell. Hither to it has been young adults and assorted kooks. One thing is for sure, middle class, middle aged and older Americans that take the time to turn out and protest WILL VOTE.
On another note, I had the opportunity to spend the day on Monday with my college senior son. I said to him that I felt fairly certain that he and all of his friends voted for Obama. He said yes they did. I asked him what they thought of him now. He said that no one was thinking much of anything about him. My son had no idea what cap and trade was, didn’t know anything about cash for clunkers, and knew that something was up with health care but didn’t know what. Being a fairly honest person he said “everyone just went back to sleep after the excitement was over.”
Hopefully, they will still be asleep during the 2010 elections.
Tim you bad! I gather that the poh leece took your side.
But Lex is right, governments come and governments go—some of them are good, a few of them are putrid. But America reamins. For many of us on the right of center, the American flag remains a symbol of almost a secular political religion. We believe in American exceptionalism. I’d also judge that there’s a lot less anger over here on this side of the center. That’s not to say that we don’t get angry; it’s just less personal.
I’m 65 years old and I joined the “mob” of “un American” “brown shirts” at a town hall meeting a couple of weeks ago. I’m surprised to learn that I’m a paid shill for the Holy Grail Insurance Company of Wausau Wisconsin. They’ve never been in touch with me, never asked me to do anything, and I haven’t seen any paychecks from them. Must have missed those big fact checks in my mailbox. I saw a lot of other “mobsters” out there as well; looked like they were rookies as well. I have stood in front of school boards or zoning boards before raising some zoning or educational concern. But I’ve never–in my entire life–wanted to talk to my congress critter.
We “mobsters” don’t go out to protest unless we sense that something is seriously wrong. And there’s too much coming our way and it’s coming too fast, and people need to sit back on their haunches and think about these things for a while.
AW1 Tim,
That is WAY COOL! I would never have thought that the leftoids would have reacted like that, but now that you mention it—they obviously would do so. What an incredibly ironic moment — people who would burn an American flag at the drop of a hat rushing you because you were burning their symbol. Egad! An incredibly devilish, fiendish and clever provocation. How droll, how ironic, how WONDERFUL!
Maybe the Tea Parties should start burning the hand placards of that rainbow “O” symbol that has been printed by the millions. Can you imagine the howl of protest that would sound in the MSM? That would entrap them into actually covering the Tea Parties, rather than sweeping them under the rug.
Oh, and I think that Mary Jo is laughing today after applying her ectoplasmic foot to an extoplasmic rear end.
Kudos AW1Tim.
Very respectfully disagree Lex on the protected “speech” aspect of burning our flag . . . all the more respectfully as you, and a lot of commenters here, wore it and served it as not enough people in our country do. My point: One cannot yell “fire” in a theater; one cannot use the “N” word and claim free speech protections (unless you are the proper shade of rapper, etc.) due to one being dangerous and the other being hateful and accepted cause of breach of the peace. As an American (and a lawyer, too), I put burning the symbol of our country higher then use of the “N” word and I can guarantee it incites dangerous feelings in my heart. Obviously my point of view would be in the minority on the Supreme Court for what it’s worth and for what it says about that court….sigh.
Frankly, to my mind the Left is and has been focused on using and subverting the logical rules and rights of our country to subvert the same country that gives them such and all the positive things that it stands for. But good post, Lex.
Steve,
Use of the N-word isn’t neccessarily “fighting words” grounds. And even if it is, it is an entirely different context from burning the flag. If you’ll note, Lex points out that many flagburners see the flag as the symbol of the government of the US, and as such, burning it is indeed a form of political speech, that is, a direct protest against the government.
I don’t like it, but I can understand it.
re: Brad’s comments and “fighting words”:
So if you’re likely to immediately slug someone if they burn a flag, I would say the issue is your own self-control, not freedom of speech.
Of course there’s also the annoying detail that the Supreme Court has already considered the doctrine of “fighting words” with respect to flag-burning, and discounted it.
Sorry, but the argument (in terms of protected speech) is over. Doesn’t matter if we like the outcome, or not. Done and dusted. This issue has ceased to exist. It is an EX-issue.
Superb post Lex. I would not even think it possible for a conservative gathering to dishonor the flag. And, like you said, were it to occur, there almost assuredly be an action/reaction suitable to the occasion.
Not sure why there is that fundamental difference between the two sides, but there is. Have to ponder this a bit.
The late Jean Kirkpatrick summed up the differences between the two sides in her landmark speech as a lifelong Democrat speaking at the 1980 Republican Convention that nominated Ronald Reagan which featured the audience refrain line “but they always, blame America First….”.
It is the left who puts out their disgust with our country and is so fixated on its shortcomings. It is the right who celebrate our Country’s amazing record of giving and celebration of freedom. To burn the symbol of that would never occur as a statement of protest to conservatives. The the far left to celebrate our country is teh farthest thing from their mind because the always…”blame America first…”.
Brother, you got that right. I live in hope that someday their will be an immense clattering sound across the nation as the scales fall from their eyes, and they reach the epiphone of “I was blind, but now I see!”
But I’m not holding my breath.
You would think that, since ignorance is bliss, the left would be the happiest lot on the entire frikkin’ planet. How come then, they all seem like they are constantly in need of an IV drip of Xanax? Could it be a guilty conscience?
Real simple, flag burning is political speech. Nasty, ingrateful, douchebaggish, and ignorant, but political speech it is.
You can say anything you want in this country, just be sure you are willing to suffer the consequences. Ask the Dixie Sluts about that one.
Damn straight conservatives don’t burn flags. They’re too busy buring the constitution.
Nice argument, it’s hard to rebut the facts as you’ve lain them out.
Alas, both sides give lip service to the constitution. They appeal to it only when it is convenient to their argument, and ignore it when it gets in the way. If it weren’t thus, the FedGov Exec branch would consist of State and Defense, and little else.
The real conservatives, OTH, revere and cherish the constitution.
So, QM, if California decides to legalize medicinal pot, you agree that the Federal government has no legal right to obstruct them, yes?
Casey, it wouldn’t bother me in the least. In fact, I’d say good on California for legalizing and let the folks vote with their wallets and move there if they like it, or stay away if they don’t. A California full of dope-smoking hippies with notes from the doctor at the free clinic suits me just fine — means fewer idiots around me and, hey, possibly a new cash crop I can plant.
One that has always made me wonder is where in the heck did the states get the idea that they could regulate marriage? I mean, isn’t that a matter between me, my bethrothed, and my priest? Just because I get some tax breaks out of the deal suddenly the state and the fed decide they’ve a say in who I decide to share my life with and who can legally marry us? I understand the reasoning behind the tax breaks, I just can’t understand why the state or fed cares.
Then there’s the interstate commerce clause. Pardon me for being blunt, but under the present system a beer-fart in Maine is enough justification for the Fed to regulate methane in case an insignificant amount of the gas might make it to New England. That’s complete and utter codswallop. Check out WICKARD v. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) to see how growing your own glorified garden is considered to affect interstate commerce. That’s settled law, folks — it won’t be overturned easily.
So yeah, I respect and revere the Constitution. Like many here I swore an oath to uphold and defend it against all enemies. What causes me headaches is that we’re a nation of laws, not men, and thus I must obey the law, from the Constitution on down to the township ordinances. When the law seems to me to be unconstitutional, when a minor clause on regulating interstate commerce justifies interference in my endeavors that never cross my property line, or requires I give up some freedom without my express consent, I have to start wondering.
Some times the law is an ass, and deserves no respect or reverence. It should be ignored at least, overturned at best. And those who passed it jailed or fined for the transgression.
When asked what he thought of western civilization, Mahatma Ghandi was said to have opined that he thought it would be a good idea. The same response could be made regarding following our own Constitution.
– Max
Well, the state does have an abiding interest in ensuring that there is a next generation of tax payers, that they aren’t likely to be genetically inbred imbeciles and that they’re raised in the optimum environment to prepare them for their tax paying duties. Is all.
Sumer, the first recorded civilization, regulated marriage with written law, so the concept’s been around literally since the dawn of civilization. As a libertarian though I struggle (or should I say Jihad?) with myself over just how far government should go in regulating morality. My principles tell me as little as it has to, but I wonder practically where exactly that line is when I also consider that libertine and liberty may share the same root word but are essentially mutually exclusive concepts in real life. Steven Malanga has a great article over at City Journal on the link between capitalism, liberty and a set of morals that support it (although marriage, pot, and government regulation of morality are not direct parts of it the principle he lays out seems sound.) To be honest I’m erring on the side of it being OK for government to declare marriage is legally between a non closely related (i.e. immediate family, first cousins, etc.) man and woman. Beyond that though . . .
Well said also about the country being a nation of laws. There are many laws I think are not just un-constitutional but are flat out harmful, but which have been “settled” by Supreme Court decisions. Once decided on by the supreme court they must be obeyed for the sake of order, but I am all for subsequent judicial challenges and attempts to legislatively overturn them.
This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 8/27/2009, at The Unreligious Right
Logan, I have to say that I learned something today I did not know yesterday. I wasn’t aware that Obama was a conservative.
Hadn’t weighed in on this before, but Tim IS a devious, deviant, sneaky but original thinking confrontational SOB, isn’t he?
Most realize a worn or torn flag must be disposed of properly – by burning. A number of organizations will do this, like the American Legion.
However, there is one interesting organization that recycles US nylon flags. Worth a look, I think:
http://www.americanflagdisposal.com/
To answer the question, Lex, one might do well to read the writings of P.J. O’Rourke. In addition to making my ribs ache he is a very keen observer of the human condition.
“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.”
I’d also opine that it’s the philosophy of people who think they’re smarter, better, and yet are unwilling to get directly in my face and convince me of their opinion. Instead, they propose to send others to do their persuasion. Others with guns. Which are icky if owned by me or you, but if they’re on the hip of a government employee are perfectly okee-dokey.
“When government does, occasionally, work, it works in an elitist fashion. That is, government is most easily manipulated by people who have money and power already. This is why government benefits usually go to people who don’t need benefits from government. Government may make some environmental improvements, but these will be improvements for rich bird-watchers. And no one in government will remember that when poor people go bird-watching they do it at Kentucky Fried Chicken.”
Cash for clunkers is a good example of this. If you have a car, paid for, you can get $4500 towards a new car payment for the next five years and we’ll grind up your old one so nobody else can use it. You poor folks who would like a nice used car? Tough. Take the bus.
“Politics is the business of getting power and privilege without possessing merit. A politician is anyone who asks individuals to surrender part of their liberty – their power and privilege – to State, Masses, Mankind, Planet Earth, or whatever. This state, those masses, that mankind, and the planet will then be run by … politicians.”
“Idealism is based on big ideas. And, as anybody who has ever been asked “What’s the big idea?” knows, most big ideas are bad ones.”
Who here couldn’t solve all the world’s problems when you were 19, in college, and half in the bag from shots of Dewars, a Domino’s Death Disk, and a couple of bong hits? Now let those same kids intern with Congress and actually write the bills the Congress hasn’t read.
“Bureaucrats want bigger bueraus. Special interests are interested in whatever’s special to them. These two groups bring great pressure to bear upon politicians who have another agenda yet: to cater to the temporary whims and fads of the public and the press.”
And my personal favorite, “Giving government money and power is like giving car keys and whiskey to a teenage boy”
Highly recommended for the coffee table, I own a complete collection of his works. I do, however, think he may in fact be an optimist.
– Max
Max, I’m replying to your earlier comment here, since we have apparently drilled down too far in the previous reply stack.
First, it’s nice you are open-minded. So many declared conservatives tend to reverse themselves very quickly when presented with such a challenge to genuine Federalism.
Next, you demonstrate a very common misunderstanding (among conservatives), that anyone who uses pot is some sort of idiot stoner. This is not the case, any more than someone who enjoys beer, wine, or hard liquor is automatically an alcoholic. It may be hard for you to grasp, but it is quite possible to occasionally make recreational use of marijuana in the same way adults make recreational use of alcohol. The same is true for recreational use of cocaine. Someone snorting a couple lines during a big Saturday night bash is no more irresponsible than someone knocking back three or four boilermakers.
…And before anyone lectures me on the social costs of pot or coke, I’ll cite all the social, medical, and economic lost-opportunity costs of alcohol use and abuse in this country. Take Ted Kennedy, for example… {/snark}
As for marriage, would you not agree that one of the elemental requirements of a republican form of government is the defense of private property? From this we encounter the demands on private property of marriage, divorce, and inheritance. Basically, who gets what, and how much. The state is required to intervene -via civil law- in questions of the disposition of private property.
Me, I’ve advocated a complete separation between religious marriage and civil marriage for rather a while, although many folks might not like the implications. The rite of Confirmation, or Bar Mitzfah, are not legally binding. It would logically follow that such a separation would mean a religious ceremony in (say) a Roman Catholic church would have no legal standing, which is very near modern society’s actual position. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it true that one still needs a document from the local Justice of the Peace or similar to be legally married in the United States, yes?
So we have separate religious (legally non-binding) and civil ceremonies.
I completely agree that the interstate commerce clause has been abused to Hell, and back. I’m also the kind of guy who would repeal the 17th Amendment.
I’ve advocated what I call “localism” (town first, then county, then state, Federal least) and have been recently told that’s old-school republicanism, as opposed to the GOP version. I’m down with that. But that’s a big part of the problem. Since WW2 and FDR, big government has been on a roll for sixty years. I suspect (and hope) the TEA party movement is an indication of a shift back to more responsible/local government. Maybe.
As for Ghandi, considering the culture from which he came, he was a smarta**.
I’ll second you on repeal of the 17th Amendment.
Casey, I fear we agree far more than we disagree. Which, I wasn’t under the impression that I’d declared myself a conservative but if that’s the appearance I give, so be it. I’d consider myself a libertarian and vote that way, save that the libertarians have so far only proven they couldn’t organize a pissup in a brewery.
I have absolutely no misunderstandings about pot. I smoked it for several years, typically right before school when I was in junior high — it did so help make those silly art classes more enjoyable. What I found was that as other interests I was serious about tended to occupy my time, I cared less and less about it. It was, in fact, the easiest drug I’ve ever quit. It was illegal, high-priced, and as soon as I’d found better things to do I no longer wished for it. In many respects it was like watching prime-time television, another habit I gave up without effort.
My point about drugs wasn’t that I think they should be illegal — I consider recreational herbs yet another market distorted by government. So long as the pot-smoker and the drunk consume on their own property, away from the public venue where they might affect me, I’ve no qualms at all.
I feel sorry for people who do not drink coffee. They wake up in the morning, and that’s as good as they’re going to feel all day.
But you have to admit, the guy snorting a fifth of Chivas or a quarter-ounce or a couple of lines at a party is doing his recreational best, which means he’s not being productive. He’s no longer exercising his mind. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, but compared to the guy who’s studying at 11pm for another degree or the guy who’s driving home at 9pm having just finished his 8am-5pm job, it makes sense that the pot-smoker, the recreational drinker, the cocaine-snorter, are going to be less productive and contribute less to the economy than the sober workaholic. Let those who wish to relax and those who wish not to vote with their wallet and move to where their habits aren’t punished.
On the marriage thing, it is basically a partnership in a legal sense. Last I’d heard I could enter into a partnership with anybody of any sex just by filling out some paperwork, were I to be starting a business. Why the State seems to think I need to be married by an official they approve of is quite beyond my capacity to understand. And yes I can understand laws against marrying siblings and children without parental consent, I just find it offensive that a patchwork of laws exist for common-law marriage, who and of what gender I can marry, and for that matter who can marry us. Entering that contract is my choice, I should not need state approval of the witness that reminds me of the obligations and files the paperwork.
On localism, I believe you are right on. Local government is the most responsive, probably because not only do I know how my neighbor voted but because he cannot risk alienating me so long as he still needs a fourth for bridge on Wednesday nights. That kind of community organization is lost at levels beyond the county.
– Max
This is an outstanding piece. It’s a shame that the logic of it would be utterly ignored in any response from a spoiled brat on the left…It appears that it already has (“Logan”).