LINES IN THE SAND. The New York Times editorializes about the "ridiculous" push for a constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning -- "an issue that exists only for the purpose of pandering to a tiny slice of voters." Though the Times is correct that this is not a high-salience, top-priority issue for most voters, it should be noted that banning flag-burning actually commands majority support in opinion surveys (support for a constitutional amendment to do so is always lower, though usually still above 50 percent). The Times's political advice to Dems: "Senator Harry Reid, the minority leader, should be rallying Democrats to join the small handful of principled Republicans so far willing to oppose the amendment." (In fact, Reid's going to vote for it.) Now, I certainly agree that a constitutional amendment banning flag burning is bad and that the principled thing to do would be to oppose it. But I'm often perplexed by arguments like the one found in this Times editorial, wherein the authors first emphasize how completely trivial and stupid the issue is and then immediately issue a stirring call to action to oppose the amendment. But isn't the flip-side of the point that this is a meaningless and trivial symbolic issue the point that...it's a meaningless and trivial symbolic issue, and thus opposing the amendment isn't the most important and pressing cause in the world?
Meanwhile, on a non-trivial issue -- a revenue-starving repeal of the estate tax -- Senate Democrats rightly gave no ground and succeeded in blocking passage today.
--Sam Rosenfeld
