As regular readers know, I’ve been a huge Wesley Clark fan for a while now, but even I find it hard to spin Clark’s recent announcement on a constitutional amendment on flag burning.
Speaking at an American Legion post in New Hampshire on Veterans’ Day, Clark was asked by WWII veteran about his thoughts on the so-called flag desecration amendment that is reintroduced every couple of years in Congress.
“I’m absolutely in favor of anything that strengthens the American flag,” Clark said. “I’m in favor of the American flag amendment.”
While his response drew applause from the veterans in New Hampshire, it was disappointing to hear that Clark would support making the first-ever change to the Bill of Rights to fix a problem that doesn’t exist.
As Joe Conason wrote yesterday, “How many actual flag-burners has Clark encountered in his lifetime? Are so many flags being incinerated or otherwise defaced in this country that Clark believes we must tamper with the Bill of Rights?” Conason added that he expects better from Clark, “whose ‘new patriotism’ speeches have criticized the Bush administration for demonizing dissenters. [Clark] seemed to understand that true patriotism demands more than waving the flag, and that true patriots don’t persecute those who disagree — regardless of how obnoxiously they choose to express themselves. ”
Like Conason, I was disappointed in Clark’s position. I can come up with a few talking points in defense of this, but even I don’t enthusiastically agree with my own spin:
* The amendment is a GOP trap — Republicans use the flag amendment as a litmus test for patriotism. To be against the amendment, the GOP says, is to be objectively pro-flag burning. Of course, this argument is absurd and insulting, but too many people fall for this nonsense. By saying he agrees with the amendment, Clark is effectively taking the issue off the table for Bush.
* Clark isn’t alone — While the amendment is usually associated with Republicans, some of the Dems’ leading liberals — including Dick Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich — have voted for the amendment. In other words, Clark’s position isn’t particularly outside of the Democratic mainstream.
* The president’s opinion on a constitutional amendment is irrelevant — It doesn’t matter whether a president (or a presidential candidate) likes or dislikes a constitutional amendment because amendments don’t go to the White House for approval. Proposed amendments have to pass both houses of Congress and then go to the states. Clark may believe the amendment is a good idea, but even if he were elected, that wouldn’t make any difference if Congress were to take up the measure again.
These may work to a limited extent in keeping Clark supporters from abandoning the general’s campaign, but the truth is Clark’s position is disappointing on principle. The proposed amendment is a dreadful and unnecessary idea. He must know better.
As Conason reminded readers yesterday, Clark should heed the words of another retired general: “The First Amendment exists to insure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree, but also that which we find outrageous. I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away.” Who offered these words of wisdom? Colin Powell.