ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1995, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, December 14, 1995 TAG: 9512140026
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-16 EDITION: METRO
THE SENATE's rejection Tuesday of a proposed anti-flag-burning amendment demonstrated a couple of America's enduring strengths. The closeness of the tally, unfortunately, gives cause for pause.
With the amendment's failure, the wisdom of the Founding Fathers once again went on display. They made it hard to amend the Constitution, which is as it should be - especially when the passions of the moment threaten to override constitutional guarantees like the right to express unpopular political views in unpopular ways.
The Senate vote also showed that political courage is not dead. Those who voted against the amendment love their flag and country no less than those who voted for it. But the issue is highly charged and an easy vehicle for demagoguery. Misleadingly superficial but effective attack ads against members of Congress who opposed the amendment are all but inevitable in the next election cycle.
Politically, Virginia Sen. Charles Robb had more to lose than to gain by voting against the amendment; as a Marine veteran of Vietnam, he also may have found it personally difficult to oppose the thing. Nevertheless, he did so, and thereby upheld the point that protecting the substance of political freedom is more important than seeming to protect the symbol of it.
Four Republican senators - unfortunately not including John Warner of Virginia - showed courage, too, in breaking with the majority of their party colleagues and opposing the amendment. Men like conservative GOP Sens. Robert F. Bennett of Utah and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky are to be commended.
They, however, were the exceptions, just numerous enough to block the amendment but hardly the congressional norm. The norm - at best, shallow thinking; at worst, cynical pandering - was not limited to Republicans and self-styled conservatives. When the chips were down, 14 Senate Democrats, including both West Virginia senators, ran for cover and voted for the amendment.
They argued, in effect, that a practically nonexistent threat to the flag from a few pathetic and obnoxious crackpots warrants the extraordinary action of fiddling with America's Bill of Rights and limiting our freedom of expression. The senators should be embarrassed.
To be sure, the public sentiment to which they responded arises from genuine and laudable emotions shared by the vast majority of Americans: love of country, revulsion toward flag-burners, concern for the nation's future.
The panderers knew, or should have known, however, that flag desecration is in fact a rare occurrence, and can often be prosecuted under constitutionally valid laws against theft, vandalism or incitement to riot.
The amendment's defeat was a vote of confidence in the durability of the values for which our flag stands. It's just too bad the vote was so close.
LENGTH: Medium: 53 linesby CNB