Flag Burning and Peggy Noonan
I've always thought that Peggy Noonan, former speech writer for the Great Communicator, was, as a political columnist, a good speech writer. She's a skilled word smith and nothing more. Still, once in a while she has an arresting observation about the political scene.
The flag burning amendment is a bad idea, and will not prove, in the end, politically wise or fruitful to any significant degree.
Of course, part of the reason I think this is worth repeating is because it agrees with my view. But she goes on the list three reasons why this is so. The last reason is one I hadn't thought of, and worth quoting:
Americans don't always say this or even notice it, but they love their Constitution. They revere it. They don't want it used as a plaything. They want the Constitution treated as a hallowed document that is amended rarely, and only for deep reasons of societal or governmental need. A flag burning amendment is too small bore for such a big thing.
Now if only some of elected officials learned the same reverence we might try to come to grips with some real problems, of which we have a few.
6 Comments:
So did Ms Noonan mention the most obvious flaw of all in this silly ammendment? As Jon Stewart pointed out a few nights ago, there are a LOT of way to desecrate a flag without burning one. Since the Republicans mostly are not absoulte fools, they clearly realize this and are just putting forth an unwinable idea for short-term political appearances.
Stewart also pointed out that the last time a flag-burning ammendment was proposed was during a midterm election. Makes you wonder where the "real" news journalists are.
The real journalist are busy writing scorching articles about how hapless political bloggers are.
As for Peggy N, no she doesn't get the obvious, but then if even _she- gets it, what's wrong with all those voters out there?
My biggest problem with the ammendment from my perspective is that it would give congress the power to determine desecration instead of states.
My 2nd biggest problem with the ammendment is that we would have changed the constitution for a rare event (at least on our soil)
--Joey
Yes, we would have tinkered with the constitution for no good reason. Even if you don't think we have no business banning public statements of political belief of any sort, as I do, you are perfectly correct that it is not a real problem.
And that is what I object to the most about this. It is cheap pandering at a time when we have some real problems to deal with: a war that is not going well, an immigration problem, oil dependency, Social Security, etc.
Do you wonder why the ammendment failed by only one vote? Because they (as in _both_ parties) got together behind closed doors and divided up the vote. "You're from a district where the vote might be close, OK - you vote for it. You have to." "But you're from a safe district, you can afford to vote against it! Just as long as there are enough votes to ensure that it won't move forward, and everyone is happy."
If by district you mean state then maybe. I think you give them far too much credit ;)
--Joey
Let's see - I thought I was calling them lying two-faced pandering bastards.
And you think I'm giving them too much credit.
Sounds about right.
Post a Comment
<< Home