You know things are bad for Republicans when they resurrect the drive for a flag burning amendment. It’s like when a TV show starts to go south and the producers bring in a parade of guest stars.
Fresh off of his straw poll victory, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says he intends to bring the Flag Protection Amendment to the floor before Congress adjourns to celebrate the Fourth of July. Frist makes many of the typical arguments for the amendment about the American flag being a symbol of our country’s values. But he has a weak counterargument to people like me who oppose such an amendment on free speech grounds:
Opponents of the measure claim flag burning should be protected as an exercise of free speech. To these individuals, I would ask: Is defacing a government building speech? No, it is considered a criminal act of vandalism. By the same token, burning the flag is not a form of constructive speech but an act of physical assault.
That argument is a complete red herring. The reason you aren’t allowed to deface a government building is that it is government property, just like you couldn’t deface a painting in a museum, a dress in a clothing store or your neighbor’s lawn ornaments. Under existing laws, you couldn’t burn an American flag in front of a government building, because it isn’t yours. But the government doesn’t physically own every American flag, so once you purchase one you have the right to do what you want with it.
As reprehensible as the idea of burning an American flag is to me, I do think it is an act of expression that should be protected. But even if I were to acknowledge that under some circumstances the government has a compelling interest in protecting the flag that trumps free expression, I still cannot understand why it’s so urgent to amend the constitution now. If flag burning were a rampant problem, and if there were evidence that the widespread desecration of the flag was contributing to low troop morale, then perhaps you could make some argument for why the government needed to take the drastic measure of amending the constitution. Anybody who knows me or reads this blog understands that I’m no fan of the antiwar movement. But even I can acknowledge that burning American flags simply is not a popular means of expression for them right now, not like it was during the Vietnam War era.
Republicans are obviously trying to fire up the base in an election year by picking a fight over flag burning. But they would do everybody a favor if they tackled real problems. The budget would be a nice start.
What’s astounding about this nonsense is how politically tone deaf it is. While the flag burning amendment has always been a hypocritical and silly issue, during peacetime it was, sadly, shrewd politics. But now??? Do they really need something like this to make Democrats look unpatriotic??? Do they really need this issue to sway their base???
And not only is this sure to alienate/disillusion younger conservatives, neo-cons and moderates I could see it backfiring even with hardcore conservatives. I can’t imagine that somebody who has a loved one actually fighting in a war would be ethusiastic about watching our lawmakers waste months sludging through the process of passing this trivial amendment.
Just plain dumb all around.