See all in The Editorial Page

Scott Brown's dilemma

The Editorial Page

Rally ’round the flag

SPIRIT OF ’06: The timing of the flag-desecration amendment reflects deep insecurity about what this nation stands for.

At the moment, the Senate is one vote away from adopting the measure. Senate majority leader Bill Frist, the right-wing Republican from Tennessee who is flogging the amendment, says it is every bit as important to our national well-being as outlawing same-sex marriage. That dubious proposal went down in flames just a few weeks ago. The prospects for the desecration amendment are too close to call. Both measures, however, share a disturbing common denominator: they are a base and sleazy move by fundamentalists of both parties to pander to the know-nothing elements of the electorate. In the name of protecting the physical symbol of the stars and stripes, proponents violate the expansive — and occasionally uncomfortable — principles that animate its spirit. The object is to corner the market in uninformed and misdirected patriotism just months ahead of what is shaping up to be the most closely contested midterm elections in recent memory. The exercise offers pathetic testimony to the wisdom of Samuel Johnson’s observation, “patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.”

The sad news is that among the scoundrels this time, there are a number of usually sensible and often admirable elected officials, such as Democratic senators Dianne Feinstein of California and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, and Republican senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine. The Democratic senators from Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, and Rhode Island all oppose the amendment, as does Republican Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island. Also in opposition is Democratic senator Hilary Clinton of New York, the co-sponsor of another less sweeping but equally wrong-headed piece of legislation that may stop short of the drastic step of amending the constitution but would outlaw flag desecration nonetheless — in vague-yet-still-disturbing ways. All that can be said in favor of her measure is that it at least provides an element of political cover for those without the guts to stand by freedom of expression, even when it takes on deeply troubling forms. If that’s consolation, it is sad indeed. It also reflects the kind of wishy-washy vision she brings to her presidential campaign.