Sunday, January 18, 2009
The flag as fashion statement at the New York Times
Every now and then, the New York Times reveals its sensibilities in a particularly offensive way, to wit:
Washington is suddenly hip again, infused with the heady double-barreled combination of a new crowd of idealistic young political worker bees, who actually believe they can change the world, and the arrival of America's first black president. It's even cool to wave the Stars and Stripes.
When did it become uncool to wave the American flag? We have one hanging from the front of our house, usually lit by a light at night, and it has never even crossed my mind to take it down because I did not vote for the new president, or because I disagree with something the government has done. This idea that patriotism and partisanship are one and the same is as troubling as it is offensive. Were these people not brought up properly?
The depressing thing, of course, is not especially that the Times would write this, but that it no doubt reflects the sensibilities of a large percentage of the Grey Crone's readership.
CWCID: Castle Argghhh!!!.
21 Comments:
By 
, at
Sun Jan 18, 06:05:00 PM:
TH, this is not one of those cases for the law of the excluded middle. At the very least, I observe a trichotomy of "cool", "uncool", and "meh"; being in the first doesn't imply moving from the second.
And as for how the flag got to be "meh" in the first place, see popular discontent with the sitting president, the de facto face of the republic. Deconstructing why so many people dislike Bush is left as an exercise.
By , at
Sun Jan 18, 06:06:00 PM:
Edit: I chose html tags unwisely; the bolded section was supposed to be this.
By 
TigerHawk, at
Sun Jan 18, 06:19:00 PM:
I guess my point, Eric, is that love of country and support for the sitting president have nothing to do with each other, at least in my book.
By joated, at
Sun Jan 18, 06:45:00 PM:
I agree with TH that love of country has nothing to do with support of the sitting president. That said, the feeling that waving the flag was uncool seems to belong only to those who suffered massive--and seemingly uncurable-- cases of BDS.
I don't particularly like the policies espoused by the man who will be sworn in on Tuesday. Nor do I feel happy about some of the people he will be appointing to high positions, but it will not stop be from flying the flag either physically or emotionally.
By , at
Sun Jan 18, 07:41:00 PM:
TH,
You are absolutely right. Expressing pride in the US and patriotic loyalty to the country by flying our flag should not be an expression of conservatism or liberalism. In my experience, only liberals confuse the country with the person simply elected to lead it for a few years. But then, the things they want to be "proud" of for our country are probably not the things for which we think the flag stands.
By , at
Sun Jan 18, 08:07:00 PM:
"Were these people not brought up properly?"
No.
Next question?
Maybe, over time some enlightened people on the left will begin to realize just how much their hatred of President Bush cost us as a nation.
By Steve M. Galbraith, at
Sun Jan 18, 08:08:00 PM:
America is not the President or the government or current Administration.
It's much more.
I guess (reaching a bit) for the left the two are synonymous or interchangeable and they simply can't think about America without thinking about the current President or Administration.
E.g., "If I fly the flag people think I like Bush".
Hell, if Michael Moore was elected President, I'd still fly the flag.
I'd be mighty pissed; but I'd still fly it.
By , at
Sun Jan 18, 08:20:00 PM:
Hmm, are we supposed to fly the flag dependent on the approval ratings of the President?
If Obama falls below 50% approval, we're only to fly it half a day?
And when Bush had the 60-70% approval ratings, were liberals flying it then?
Very confusing.
By , at
Sun Jan 18, 08:24:00 PM:
Someone from the New York Times wrote that. What do you expect? Something that really makes sense?
By , at
Sun Jan 18, 10:35:00 PM:
I for one think that America as a country is at least partially defined by the actions it takes, in much the same way my brother in law is defined by more than his marital relations and my family tree. If I may use the "~" = "bears meaningful relation to" rule,
Sitting president ~ meaningful policy action ~ actions by a country ~ perceptions of that country, what defines that country, and whether or not such things should be celebrated or ignored. Without an ironclad argument for "this symbol definitionally means X", which is notoriously tricky territory when dealing with personal interpretations, we get into issues of judging football by the rules of badminton; they both have their internal consistency, and applying the rules of one to the other is foolhardy.
Setting aside such general observations, I will be a good sport and try to mount the argument for not touting the flag before, and doing so now. Currently, the significant trait on everyone's mind regarding the US government is the election of a black man to the highest office in one of the most prosperous countries in the world, fulfilling the claims of the USA being a land of opportunity with its racist past behind it. Additionally, the tone of this man has been one of compromise and collaboration, with most of the political appointments being more practical than partisan and Tim Kaine alone signaling an interest in openness on issues.
These things alone are attractive in government, but they become moreso in light of what many people felt over the last 4-8 years: apathy, which became annoyance, which became anger, which became deep-seated resentment. Feeling duped into a $3T war (invasion estimate: $60B), having an Gonzalez in hearings where he appeared lucky to know his name, having "good American" = Republican in hiring practices; these issues, in addition to the fiscal hypocrisy so many people are now noticing, made some people furious. Sure, Bush did many good things in Africa and in Hawaiian environmental protection, but the steady drip of poorly-communicated and perceivedly wrongheaded actions (questioning patriotism/support of troops) ground some people down. Those actions came to define the actions of the nation, and therefore a part of what America was; for some, this was nothing to celebrate.
Perhaps this is why the message of "hope" found such traction. For people frequently subjected to things they thought preposterous, (ex stem cell funding ban,) "hope" meant believing that such things could end and the ship of state could be righted. At least in part, I think the flurry of patriotism is a symptom of such relief: "Aren't we all just so damned pleased to throw those policies behind us." It's not so much about celebrating a bicameral legislature as punctuating the end of a dominant value scheme that was at least foreign and at times incomprehensible.
In short, the more "liberal" was used as a bad word, the more times people were ready to wave flags when that era ended. Perhaps this is a pernicious incentive.
By Steve M. Galbraith, at
Sun Jan 18, 10:41:00 PM:
the election of a black man to the highest office in one of the most prosperous countries in the world, fulfilling the claims of the USA being a land
So, if Obama nukes Iceland or is recorded accepting a bribe from Putin, you'll then take down the flag?
Because Obama's actions negates the willingess of America to overcome its racist past and elect a black man?
Again, America is more than the people running the federal government. That you can't see that is mystifying.
And why the left-and-right is so often at loggerheads. Perceptions, perceptions....
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sun Jan 18, 10:56:00 PM:
Sorry Eric (and others), it has been uncool to fly the flag since the 1960's. I was one who sneered at flag-waving, and the type of ignorant buffoon who did it, way back when. Older Democratic politicians were grudgingly allowed to flaunt the flag because it was felt that they had to to get re-elected.
I remember well the sneers when the 1980 hockey team led to an upsurge in flag-flying, or when George Foreman waved his. Immediately after 9/11 - Bush had not been president 8 months and had done little - there was agonizing from progressives over the displaying of flags. This goes way back, and Bush has nothing to do with it. Bush was disliked because he supported and even embodied this flag attitude.
It is parallel to Ron Silver's "Those are our planes now" at the 1992 inauguration.
By , at
Sun Jan 18, 11:41:00 PM:
@SMG: I concede that the US is more than the policies it prosecutes, in much the same way I concede that my brother in law is more than his personality and job; he is also (at least) married to my sister. However, I think the more general disagreement is whether actions of a government, (in place of your examples of personal action,) also characterize that government. I would take the affirmative and say that if the US started prosecuting wildly discriminatory policies (no prestige/high pay jobs for women or minorities, for example) and did so for a couple of years, that would characterize the American government along with his ideals, aspirations and everything else; see metaphor above. Also, I would expect your conversations to be mystifying when your response is to reassert your conclusion.
@AVI: I think the general argument TH was getting at was a recent history exacerbation of that phenomena, followed by the current surge of patriotism.
By Gary Rosen, at
Mon Jan 19, 05:08:00 AM:
" would take the affirmative and say that if the US started prosecuting wildly discriminatory policies (no prestige/high pay jobs for women or minorities, for example) and did so for a couple of years, that would characterize the American government along with his ideals"
Well, the past 40 years has seen a great effort by America to include groups such as "women and minorities" who were previously discriminated against. And President Bush appointed minorities to the highest positions in government, including a black man and a black woman as Secretary of State. Yet for some reason this did not inspire a "surge" (to coin a phrase) of flag-waving among liberals. Why do you suppose that is the case?
By Steve M. Galbraith, at
Mon Jan 19, 07:14:00 AM:
Also, I would expect your conversations to be mystifying when your response is to reassert your conclusion.
It's mystifying because this general discussion - which we've had before over patriotism - reveals the (to me) huge gap between left and right and how they judge or view America.
It's mystifying because we have people raised in the same neighborhoods, attending the same schools, reading the same books coming to two completely different perspectives about that very same country in which they were raised.
Tribalism overriding all of those other factors that were supposed to mitigate such differences.
Puzzling.
By bluespapa, at
Mon Jan 19, 08:06:00 AM:
Yes, and berating someone for NOT wearing a flag pin is one's patriotic duty.
Flying the flag, after all, demonstrates how much more patriotic you are than someone doesn't. That's not a fashion statement at all.
And it certainly is more patriotic to fly the flag when your leaders torture, incarcerate without charges, wiretap without warrant than someone who lowers his flag, moth balls it, and wears a black armband in mourning and disgust.
True patriots denounce other Americans for their lack of patriotism.
By , at
Mon Jan 19, 08:58:00 AM:
Off topic, but soon, we won't have the Sulzbergers to kick around anymore. So, get your licks in now! I can't wait for the Frost interview of Pinch, "When did you first realize you had destroyed your family patrimony?"
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Jan 19, 02:00:00 PM:
Thanks to bluespapa for supporting my own theory: that some people have such a mighty and self-righteous opinion of themselves and their beliefs that they don't think that the country is worth their support if it doesn't adhere to those beliefs.
It's a manifestation of arrogance and ego, I think, and has very little to do with identity or politics.
By Steve M. Galbraith, at
Mon Jan 19, 02:23:00 PM:
they don't think that the country is worth their support if it doesn't adhere to those beliefs.
Yes, but what "beliefs" are we talking about? It seems to me we're talking about political ones.
For me (again), showing the flag doesn't necessarily mean support for the country today as much as it is an expression of gratitude and appreciation for the sacrifice and achievements of those who came before our generation.
I think of the men who stormed Omaha Beach. Or Dr. King. Or those who volunteer for fire and rescue and who have saved lives. Or those decent "ordinary" men and women who worked to help build what we have today.
Politics has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Apparently for those whose religion (if you will) is the state (hint: it's not the Right), America must be measured totally (and narrowly) through a political yardstick. And if the politics of the current government fail, then America is a failure.
Regardless of what Dr. King or the men on Omaha Beach or the people who work for fire and rescue have done.
By Steve M. Galbraith, at
Mon Jan 19, 02:34:00 PM:
Politics has absolutely nothing to do with it.
To drive the point home (sorry, last one): If Barack Obama turns out by some odd chance to be an American Stalin, my American flag doesn't come down.
Because the flag isn't Barack Obama or his policies. It is much, much more. To view it (America and the flag display) through the narrow prism of contemporary politics is, as I said above, puzzling.
By , at
Mon Jan 19, 03:16:00 PM:
Flying the flag, after all, demonstrates how much more patriotic you are than someone doesn't. That's not a fashion statement at all.
Flying the flag is not about the flag flyer. It's about honoring those that the flag represents.
It's like going to a 4th of July parade to honor the veterans marching. It's not about YOU attending the parade; it's about the veterans.
It seems that the critics of displaying the flag believe that the act is about the flag displayer. It's about those individuals and acts that the flag represents.
