Down The Rabbit Hole: Flag Amendment Double Take

Last week, the Senate narrowly defeated an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would have criminalized desecration of the American flag.

Dictionary.com defines desecration as "blasphemous behavior; the act of depriving something of its sacred character." This definition, which one must assume the amendment text was using absent any other definition, is one most usually reserved for religious items, something which the flag clearly is not and can not be according to most religious and constitutional beliefs. That point, however, is merely an aside.

What really made me do a double take was the fact that there was also a bill on the floor to criminalize acts such as burning a flag that would not have the gravitas of a Constitutional amendment, but rather the lesser import as a statute. Different import, but with the same chilling result- a stamp on the rights of free expression.

Then I found out how the senators in my state, California voted on these twin bills and that sent me into the rabbit hole. As most people may be aware, California is represented in the Senate by two Democrats, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. Following the defeat of the constitutional amendment (SJ Res 12), local radio talk stations were handing credit ( or variously disdain depending on the lean of the station) to Boxer for having staved off the Constitutional change. Despite the fact that 33 other senators voted against the amendment, Boxer seemed to have no problem taking credit for its defeat. And for a few days, I felt pretty good about her vote and her stance. Similarly, Feinstein was one of the 66 who voted in favor of the Constitutional amendment, and I was ashamed at her abbrogation of duty to uphold the Constitution. Both of these women proclaim to value the concept of free speech and the first amendment, but in a clear case of restricting such freedoms, Feinstein clearly fell short of her own presumed intentions. Or did she?

Once the Constitutional amendment failed, the second flag desecration statute (S.Amdt. 4543 to S.J.Res. 12 ) came up for a vote, and the lovely ladies from California did a complete flip-flop of their previus positions. While voting against a Constitutional amendment, Boxer voted in favor of the statute. Seemingly, Boxer thinks enough of free speech to keep the Bill of Rights intact, but not so much of them that she minds having people arrested for flag burning. And Feinstein, who voted to restrict free speech vis-a-vis a Constitutional amendment, voted no on the lesser statute that basically would result in the same restrictions as the amendment.

Recap: Constitutional Amendment to prohibit flag desecration: Feinstein-Yes, Boxer- No
Federal Statute to criminalize and punish flag desecration: Feinstein- No, Boxer-Yes.

Can anyone explain the lack of consistency here? Can anyone explain the seeming disconnect between these senator's votes on nearly identical bills? Because I sure as hell can't.

What this does leave is an even deeper bad taste in my mouth for the state of political leadership in this country, especially in the Democrats, who I have little choice but to tie my hopes to for a reversal in what I see as a dramatic redefining of America and her democracy. But if this is where I'm pinning my hopes, I might as well keep believing that every time I buy a lottery ticket I really might win the big one.

To me, it is obvious that the juxtaposition of these votes have little to do with integrity or a deep feeling of preservation of free speech and everything to do with political maneuvering. And that is the last thing I want from politicians anymore. The time for empty action has passed, and I can sadly say that if I eventually find myself voting for either of these so-called leaders, it will be with the all too familiar hand plugging my nose.

Republicans like to deride the Democrats as without conviction on anything. With these kind of stances (and votes) it becomes harder to refute those kinds of charges. Still, given the choice between institutionalized corruption and goose-stepping with the administration, I'll side with the party of opposition. It's just a shame that said opposition is becoming more and more an 'in name only' label and not one worth rejoicing and standing tall with.

I suppose the only consolation I have in all of this is that both measures failed to pass. A small victory for freedom, and one clearly not done for freedoms sake.

Where, o' where is that third party of real public servants that this country so desperately needs?