From The American Left History Blog Archives (2006)
- On American Political Discourse
Markin comment:
In the period 2006-2008 I, in
vain, attempted to put some energy into analyzing the blossoming American
presidential campaign since it was to be, as advertised at least, a watershed
election, for women, blacks, old white anglos, latinos, youth, etc. In the
event I had to abandon the efforts in about May of 2008 when it became obvious,
in my face obvious, that the election would be a watershed only for those who really
believed that it would be a watershed election. The four years of the Obama
presidency, the 2012 American presidential election campaign, and world
politics have only confirmed in my eyes that that abandonment was essentially
the right decision at the right time. In short, let the well- paid bourgeois
commentators go on and on with their twitter. I, we, had (have) better things
to do like fighting against the permanent wars, the permanent war economies,
the struggle for more and better jobs, and for a workers party that fights for
a workers government . More than enough to do, right? Still a look back at some
of the stuff I wrote then does not a bad feel to it. Read on.
************
NO TO THE FLAG-BURNING AMENDMENT- NO TO FEDERAL
ANTI-FLAG-BURNING LEGISLATION
THEIR FLAG IS RED, WHITE AND BLUE. OUR FLAG IS STILL
RED.
The Senate has just rejected,
by a 66-34 vote, a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution which
would give special protection to the American flag and enable Congress to pass
legislation penalizing acts of desecration on that banner. That vote fell just
one vote short of the required 2/3 (66.66%) vote needed to pass it on to the
state legislatures for a vote and final enactment. Of course, this kind of
proposition is red meat to most Republicans and many Democrats. They can vote
for these kind of measures all day, every day and not work up a sweat. The
political calculus which drives American bourgeois electoral politics, votes,
makes this a real slam dunk. The flag-burning community (all eleven of them)
against your average sunshine, couch potato patriot. Even perennial Democratic
presidential campaign consultant Robert Schrum can figure that one out.
The Democrats, not to be
outdone, proposed as an alternative federal legislation which would protect the
flag on federal property. A WORKERS PARTY Senator, on a straight up or down
vote on the amendment would vote NO. (Yes, even if that meant a bloc with
Democrats- this after all, is a democratic rights issue which we most
definitely care about). He or She would also then turn around and vote NO on
any federal anti-flag-burning legislation for the same reason (and feel good about
being able kick the Democrats in the shins).
Following are some quick comments on these developments.
There was a time in America
when the American flag was worth militants fighting and dying for- the Civil
War, 1961-65. Unfortunately, certain forebears of the current august Senators
on Capitol Hill, particularly from the Southern states, had no problem
desecrating that flag as they beat the path to secession from the Union over
the slavery question. Shouldn’t they then be just a little more circumspect
about the rights of others these days who may not be respectful to their
Confederate (oops, American) flag.
The amendment’s main sponsor
Senator Hatch of Utah (Jesus, I thought he died during the Hoover
administration, I really have to pay more attention to who is alive and who
isn’t up on the Hill) who claimed that his motivation was to show respect for
soldiers, etc. If the Senator means support the troops I already have a
proposal for that- and it has nothing to do with flag-burning amendments. It has
to do with fully funding 138,000 pairs of sneakers to get American troops the
hell out of Iraq now. (See my blog, dated June 23, 2006). Hatch’s bizarre
efforts are clear proof of why they are that quagmire in the first place.
Personally, this writer does not see the
point of flag-burning as political protest. However, this is a First Amendment
free speech issue and even the Neanderthals on the United States Supreme Court
have, for now, declared that it is a protected expression of free speech. Moreover,
I can sympathize with any militant (or ordinary citizen, for that matter) who
is so outraged by the government’s policies that he or she needs to make such a
material statement. However, in contrast to that form of expression let me
propose another. This writer shed no tears when Old Glory was pulled down from
the American Embassy after the Cuban Revolution by the Cubans or when it was
pulled down from the American Embassy by the Vietnamese in 1975. Organizing the
fight for socialism to change the flag from red, white and blue to red- that’s
the real way to express our outrage. OUR FLAG IS STILL RED.
No comments:
Post a Comment