The preferred conservative anti-Obama attack of the hour seems to be go after his patriotism, and right on cue, the NYT’s Bill Kristol devotes his column this week to exactly what the Republican National Convention and Fox News would like to see.
Last October, a reporter asked Barack Obama why he had stopped wearing the American flag lapel pin that he, like many other public officials, had been sporting since soon after Sept. 11. Obama could have responded that his new-found fashion minimalism was no big deal. What matters, obviously, is what you believe and do, not what you wear.
But Obama chose to present his flag-pin removal as a principled gesture. “You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.”
Leave aside the claim that “speaking out on issues” constitutes true patriotism. What’s striking is that Obama couldn’t resist a grandiose explanation. Obama’s unnecessary and imprudent statement impugns the sincerity or intelligence of those vulgar sorts who still choose to wear a flag pin. But moral vanity prevailed. He wanted to explain that he was too good — too patriotic! — to wear a flag pin on his chest.
Now, outside of right-wing email chains, I’d come to think the flag-pin “controversy” had pretty much run its course months ago, but Kristol has an agenda to fulfill, and Obama’s choice of accessories apparently matters quite a bit.
But it’s worth taking a moment to note that Kristol played a little fast and loose with the original quote from October.
Kristol paraphrases Obama so he can argue that the senator believes “true patriotism” is “speaking out on issues.” But that’s not what Obama said. In fact, Kristol left out the key part of the quote: “Instead, I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.” Obama didn’t say the words themselves would be patriotic, but rather would be “testimony” to his patriotism.
But on the substance, this is all just so tiresome. For far too many, wearing a pin is itself a patriotic exercise, which in and of itself, is rather hollow. Someone can oppose American civil liberties, prefer to stifle dissent, support un-American policies like torture and the elimination of habeas corpus, but so long as the stars and stripes are on his or her lapel, their patriotism should be considered unimpeachable. What nonsense.
It’d be easy for Obama to simply wear the pin and avoid the question, but instead he articulated a more important point about ideas carrying more weight than symbols. It was a small gesture, but it’s an admirable one.
Of course, Kristol’s attack is relatively subtle. If you read the column, he’s not making the case that Obama is unpatriotic; he’s making the case that Obama is an elitist. Regular guys like you and me like flag pins, the argument goes, but Obama thinks he’s better than us.
Barack Obama is an awfully talented politician. But could the American people, by November, decide that for all his impressive qualities, Obama tends too much toward the preening self-regard of Bill Clinton, the patronizing elitism of Al Gore and the haughty liberalism of John Kerry?
Why, oh why, did the New York Times decide this guy deserves a weekly column on the most valuable piece of media real estate in the country?
