Duck and cover. The season for pandering to right wing extremists is here. Republicans are the leaders in the game, of course, but this year the most significant players are a group of Democratic members of Congress who have broken away from the progressive traditions of their party and embraced the nationalist agenda that has come to define the new Republican Party.
“Nationalist” is a strong word, but radical political agendas require strong words to describe them. One of the more purely nationalist pieces of legislation to enter the U.S. Congress so far this year is House Resolution 10, which would amend the United States Constitution so that “The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.”
That’s right – the right-wingers are bringing back the old flag burning thing again. Now, I want you to stop and think for a moment, and consider something: When was the last time that someone at a protest actually burned an American flag in your congressional district? I live in the congressional district of Sherwood Boehlert, one of the Republicans who introduced this bill, and I can tell you for a fact that no one has burned a flag in protest here in a long, long time, if ever. In fact, I can’t think of the last time that anyone, anywhere in the United States burned the American flag in protest against the government.
The truth is that there is no crisis of flag desecration in America. But, gosh, if there isn’t a problem, how come close to one hundred members of Congress have teamed up to introduce an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America to prohibit physical flag desecration?
The answer is as simple as it is frightening: Nationalism. Nationalism is the dark political ideology that powered the Nazi destruction of Europe. More recently, nationalism has powered genocides in places like Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Nationalism is very bad news.
Here in America, nationalism has burst through the shackles of democratic government in the form of the Homeland, the mysterious entity that has replaced the traditional notion of the United States of America with a new cult of blind obedience based upon the ability of the government to inspire fear. Everywhere that the Homeland intrudes, America’s traditions of liberty have crumpled.
Now, with the introduction of the flag amendment, we enter another phase in the nationalist agenda. The amendment would transform the American flag from a symbol of liberty into a nationalist idol to be worshipped in the cult of the Homeland. Just consider the language used in the amendment. The amendment proposes to prohibit the “physical desecration” of the American flag. To desecrate something means to demean its sacred status.
In traditional American democracy, the American flag is not sacred. There is no official cult of flag worship. Flag worshipping cults, like the Boy Scouts, have been private organizations. However, this amendment would elevate a physical object, the American flag, into a special religious realm of untouchability and spiritual transcendence. The amendment would insert the notion of sacred idols into the United States Constitution for the first time.
The worship of idols of national identity is a sure sign of raging nationalism. It is a sign that the liberty of the American nation is in danger.
Not too long ago, we would have said that a flag worship amendment could never pass through the United States Congress. We would have assumed that the Democrats in Congress could block any Republican effort to transform flagpoles into shrines. But now, in early 2005, a growing group of Democrats in Congress is defecting to the Republican Party, promising their votes in favor of the flag amendment. The following 20 Democrats in the House of Representatives have not only promised to vote for the flag worship amendment, but have gone so far as to co-sponsor the bill introducing the amendment to the U.S. Congress:
Rep. Leonard Boswell of Iowa
Rep. Michael Michaud of Maine
Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota
Rep. Gene Taylor of Mississippi
Rep. James McGovern of Massachusetts
Rep. Robert Menendez of New Jersey
Rep. Steven Rothman of New Jersey
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York
Rep. Joseph Crowley of New York
Rep. Mike McIntyre of North Carolina
Rep. Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota
Rep. Tim Holden of Pennsylvania
Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania
Rep. James Langevin of Rhode Island
Rep. Stephanie Herseth of South Dakota
Rep. Lincoln Davis of Tennessee
Rep. Gene Green of Texas
Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas
Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia
Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia
On an immediate, literal level, banning flag desecration will not have a strong impact on American dissidents. After all, attempts to harm the American flag in the name of protest are extremely rare, if they occur at all any more. However, the legal precedent set by a flag worship amendment would almost certainly destroy the principles of liberty that have always been the ideal foundation of the American nation. The amendment would cut out the heart of the first amendment to the Constitution, by making it legal for the government to forbid anti-government protests. The mission of the government will change from protection of dissent to the prevention of dissent.
To the many other Democrats in the House of Representatives who have not fallen into the path of weakness followed by the Democratic scoundrels listed above, I enthusiastically say, “Thank you.”
To any Democrats who are considering challenging the representatives listed above for the 2006 election, I say “Get in touch!” We’ll be more than happy to help you get connected with the resources you need to get started. We need Democrats who understand democracy, and if that means that we have to evict some corrupt Democrats who are already in power, we will gladly enter that struggle.
I say, in the words of Jello Biafra, “Let it burn, baby, burn!”
I believe the flag is merely a physical representation of what America stands for. It’s not like burning the flag will cause our freedoms to succumb to the flames and turn to worthless carbon fibers.
I’m not the flag-burning type, but I’ll defend the right of anyone else to do it.
I’m not seeing exactly how this is a problem. I don’t see how this is even worthy of irregular times to get pissed off about. I don’t even see how Congress could be making such a hairy deal out of a SYMBOL. It’s like… so many symbols in this world are misconstrued, misunderstood and interpereted improperly. I don’t think that flag burning is good or bad… it’s a statement. While I don’t think it should be illegal, I don’t see the point in throwing up a fuss. Things like this get turned over all the time.
actually, you’re misunderstanding the term “nationalism.” it was originally a liberal ideal: just the idea that people of the same background, in the same culture and physical location should govern themselves, and that the people, not the king, was given sovereignty. the idea, naive as it was, was that this would dissolve elite control of politics and imperialism. might i also remind you that ghandhi was a nationalist leader.
however, you’re right in that nationalism has been co-opted to mean that you should celebrate the actions of your government whatever they are rather than question them. it was a way hitler and mussolini allowed citizens of their country to feel like they were participating in politics (through patriotic demonstrations, marches, drives) without any actual political rights. it is also used to suggest that national identity is more important than human identity, and that one’s own nation is superior to others.
that is what nationalism has been used for. but that’s not what it means.
that is all.
~lizo
Eliza,
As I wrote in the article, the thing to get angry about is not that people won’t be able to burn the flag. The thing to get angry about is:
1. that we will have an amendment to the Constitution forbidding a particular form of anti-government speech
2. that politicians in power think that’s a good thing
3. that the amendment places the idea of a dictated sacred object in the constitution
4. that politicians in power think that’s a good thing
Liz,
While there may be earlier meanings of the word “nationalism” that were meant to be purely positive, the primary meaning of the term is now negative.
When people say nationalist, they think of a group like the Nazis. They think of totalitarian regimes. They think of Fatherlands. They think of Homeland regimes.
I think that this primarily negative definition of the word is warranted. The time has long passed when the idea of the nation represents progress. Certainly it’s better than a bunch of warring feudal states, or fiefdoms where the law is whatever the lord says it is. However, that’s not the issue nowadays.
What threatens us now are rulers who launch wars, restrict freedom, and otherwise attack humanity in the name of nationhood. George W. Bush is clearly doing so – he mentions the rights of the nation every time he does something despicable.
Words have fluid meanings, not static meanings. Words are not theoretical – they are practical. In my opinion, the definition of a word is therefore best determined by the way it is used, not be how it ought to be used.
Eliza, you talk about things like anti-flag-burning laws being overturned all the time. But the thing about an anti-flag-burning amendment to the Constitution is that it cannot be overturned. It becomes part of the Constitution against which laws are judged. Such an amendment would turn the Constitution into a description of speech in which people cannot engage. Dangerous.
Matthew, you are right on the money with your analasys of the problem: Once it becpomes an amendment to the Constitution, The act is no longer simply against the law, it is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL! In big bold letters! Then, the very actis immune fron legal consideration. Some, particularly people with strong feelings about our flag, would probably say,”Well,yeah…and what’s wrong with that?” Several things:
1. It erodes the very root of the 1st amendment right to fredom of speech, HOWEVER UGLY, UNPLEASANT, OR DISTASTEFUL SOME GROUP OF PEOPLE MIGHT FIND THAT SPEECH.
2.We found out how delicate and wisely put together our Constitution was put together in 1920 when another bad idea with the best of intentions became the 18th Amendment…and, if anyone out there forgot this really bad idea, we today refer to it as “prohibition”. See how easily a popular idea can turn out to be a bad idea, even with the best of intentions? Also, it is worth noting historically that this amendment passed through the efforts of a very vocal minority of the population…Kinda like what we face today, huh?
Hate speech shouldn’t be allowed, Mike.
It’s not just sharing opinions, it’s encouraging other people to be violent, discriminant, and, in general, to break the law. It’s scary.
I disagree, Hare. I’m 100% for freedom of speech. Many in the Republican government regard all dissent as hateful, and I don’t want to go down the path of having the government decide what speech is allowed and what speech is not.
I agree completely with you on this one. While the act is not one I would engage in personally, the Supreme Court has ruled that phsyical attacks on the flag are a protected right under the First Amendment to the Constitution. I personally don’t care one way or the other about burning the flag, but I certainly do care that congress is attempting to place an amendment into the Constitution that alters my existing Constitutional rights.
I particularly like this line from the article, “new cult of blind obedience based upon the ability of the government to inspire fear.” It fits hand in hand with another quote I read recently. “Of course the people don’t want war…the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”
– Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
What better climate for a government to run rough-shod over it’s citizens than that which we have found ourselves in since 9/11?