Protecting the Flag

by Cliopatria

Yesterday's vote on the flag amendment to the Constitution captures much of what's gone wrong with American politics over the last two decades--an emphasis of symbolic matters over substance. Seventeen years out from the Supreme Court decision that said flag burning was protected speech, I haven't noticed an array of charred flags littering the country.

The roll call vote, however, was a fascinating one.

The final tally, 66-34, has been widely reported as falling one vote short. There are a handful of very odd votes: Utah's Robert Bennett, among the Senate's most conservative members, voted no; while retiring Minnesota Democrat Mark Dayton, probably the Senate's most liberal member, voted yes.

But taking a look at the roll call vote suggests that the close defeat might have been more for show than anything else--the opponents appear to have had several no votes in reserve."Yea" votes included Harry Reid, Tim Johnson, Dianne Feinstein, Ken Salazar, Debbie Stabenow, and Robert Menendez. It's hard to believe that any of those six actually support the amendment, in their heart of hearts. But Menendez and Stabenow face potentially difficult election contests in 2006; Reid has come under attack at home for being too liberal since becoming majority leader; and the other three have cultivated images of themselves as moderates.

Meanwhile, three"nay" votes seem likely to help the senator who cast them. In Rhode Island, Lincoln Chafee's renomination strategy has been to encourage Dems to vote in the GOP primary--positioning himself as the only Republican moderate to vote against the amendment helps his cause. In Connecticut and Washington, meanwhile, Joe Lieberman and Maria Cantwell have been under fire from left-wingers in their own party, so their"nay" votes were probably wise politically.

The Senate came within one vote of approving another constitutional amendment under very similar circumstances. As Robert Caro reveals in his fine study of LBJ and the Senate, in 1954, Lyndon Johnson carefully stage-managed rejection of the Bricker and George amendments, which would have watered down the treatymaking clause. Democrats who needed to vote for the George amendment (which became the critical vote) for political reasons were allowed to do so, as LBJ had carefully counted votes and knew their votes wouldn't be needed to vote the amendment down. (LBJ had his own political concerns, representing a strong pro-amendment state.) But Johnson's plans almost went awry as the decisive negative vote, West Virginia's Harley Kilgore, was deep asleep in his office (with the"flu," his supporters claimed). Kilgore was roused, brought to the floor in a stupor and voted no.

I suspect Harry Reid was playing a role similar to LBJ's yesterday.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Ralph E. Luker - 6/29/2006

If you think that Senator McConnell is a sincere person of moral conviction on this vote, will you also think him so when he opposes all limits on campaign contributions and expenditures? Both votes derive, according to him, from a bedrock opposition to constraints on free speech.

Greg James Robinson - 6/29/2006

Dear Ralph,
Given the timing of the vote (after a general silence for 17 years after the Court's decision, moreover) and the more imprtant issues on the table, I would say that in this case the sincerity of a fair number of the supporters is greatly in doubt, especially since support is a popular position and there is little threat of a backlash against anyone, anywhere in the country for favoring the measure. Conversely, nobody had anything much to gain politically from a vote against the amendment. So I say without self righteousness that the force of principal required to take the "no" side is greater than that of the "yes" side.

Jonathan Dresner - 6/29/2006

As the Kilgore case demonstrates, this kind of "cut it close" tactic can easily backfire. More to the point, it gives the supporters of the Fabric Apotheosis Edict fuel, the belief that they are held back from success by a "minority" of "radicals" when in fact they are the minority themselves.

The only way to beat this, once and for all, is for everyone who realizes that it's a constitutional atrocity to stand up and say "no" and be clear about why.

Adam Kotsko - 6/29/2006

My stomach turned when I saw that the amendment hadn't passed, because I knew that there would be throngs of people in the street just flaunting their ability to continue to desecrate our nation's holiest symbol.

Ralph E. Luker - 6/29/2006

Greg, Basically, I agree that these mid-summer votes on social issues are red meat for the base, but aren't you saying that "those who agree with me are sincere people of personal conviction and those who disagree with me may not be"? Much as I generally disagree with both of them, I don't see any reason to doubt that Senator Hatch's vote in favor of the amendment was an expression of personal conviction or that Senator McConnell's vote against it was equally one of conviction. Personally, neither of them had much to lose, whichever way they voted.

Greg James Robinson - 6/29/2006

The timing of the vote, just before the pre-election summer recess, and in the wake of the Gay Marriage amendment, suggests that it was to excite the folks at home, either to vote for supporters or to pave the way for attack ads against opponents. Whatever the sincerity of supporters, I am not at all certain that anyone voting against the amendment was doing so particularly in his/her political interest (as opposed to personal conviction). Current events sugggest that Americans are not prepared to punish politically those who take a hard line against civil liberties.

Robert KC Johnson - 6/28/2006

I think it's a base issue. But it's interesting to see that among the key yea/nay voters, the tally broke down almost entirely in political self-interest, as long as opponents could be sure they had enough to defeat the proposal.

I agree with you: I doubt that a majority of the Senate actually believes this amendment is a good idea.

Oscar Chamberlain - 6/28/2006

Thanks for the link and the historical parallel. While many supporters of the flag amendment are sincere, I'm not certain that they even make up a simple majority of the Senate.

I do wonder if flag burning is that important of a swing vote issue, however. Does it change votes or does it simply make a bit more certain that part of the base shows up and votes?