This Week's Attitude
Lapel Flags Do Not Pin Down One's Patriotism
By Neil S. Friedman

What may have been the final Democratic presidential candidate confrontation last week in Philadelphia (Sen. Barack Obama indicated that after 21 face-to-face meetings with Sen. Hillary Clinton, they have sufficiently debated.) reportedly had the largest viewing audience so far this political season. And, for a while, it looked like it would be a clunker.

Early on, in what may have been unprecedented in a forum where the speakers are usually the ones on the hot seat, a few audience members heckled co-moderator, ABC newsman Charles Gibson, for rehashing trivial matters that many thought were relegated to the back burner by now.

In the aftermath, the debate was sharply criticized and negatively reviewed ("…despicable," wrote the Washington Post; "A televised train wreck," wrote the Philadelphia Daily News) by both sides of the political spectrum, as well as in the ubiquitous blogosphere.

Obama supporters felt Gibson and co-moderator George Stephanopoulos, also an ABC News journalist, were harsher on him than Clinton as they bombarded him with questions about several minor matters that have cropped up in recent months, but which should be yesterday's news at this point. Nonetheless, some analysts said it was the first time Obama truly seemed rattled by the repetitious queries.

Much of the early part of the two-hour debate focused on petty arguments the two senators have leveled at each other, which the media has relentlessly spotlighted, in the last few months. But as crunch time and the August Democratic convention approaches, it would have been wiser for the moderators, one a veteran journalist and the other a former Clinton insider, to forego the frivolous matters and focus instead on substantive issues, like steadily rising gas prices, the faltering economy, the ongoing mortgage crisis, health care, military contractors in Iraq, our increasing presence in Afghanistan, etc., etc.

Many viewers were probably taken aback when Gibson, referring to a videotaped question from a Pennsylvania woman who asked Obama why he doesn't wear an American flag lapel pin. The Illinois senator has addressed this matter umpteen times, as if wearing the pin is some kind of badge of honor that certifies one's degree of love of country. (At this point, I changed channels to watch the Yankee game.) Incidentally, neither the moderators nor Sen. Clinton wore a flag pin that evening, but no one questioned their patriotic fervor.

The flag pin matter has been grossly exaggerated and sorely distracted from more urgent matters. Obama's response at the debate should put the matter to rest: "I have never said that I don't wear flag pins or refuse to wear flag pins. This is the kind of manufactured issue that our politics has become obsessed with and, once again, distracts us from what should be my job when I'm commander-in-chief…"

But you just know if he becomes the Democratic nominee, the GOP will revive the subject when he campaigns against Sen. John McCain.

In the days, weeks and months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, banners and images of Old Glory were just about everywhere. In a display of national unity, Americans from all walks of life put flags on their front lawns or porches - some for the first time - put flag replicas and decals on their cars and desks at work, as the country was awash in red, white and blue.

After the attack, it seemed every elected official, at every level of government from coast-to-coast, donned flag pins on their lapels as symbols of unity. While few Americans - mostly firefighters, law enforcement personnel and some elected officials - wore lapel pins prior to the tragic day, it became almost mandatory afterwards.

However, patriotic fervor subsided somewhat in the ensuing months and with it the abundance of flags and lapel pins. For a time there was an increase in car magnet ribbons showing support for troops in Iraq, but that, too, has faded, as Americans have grown weary of the prolonged war.

It seems we, as a nation, haven't learned anything from the angst of Vietnam War protests? Forty years ago when those who saw the conflict merely as a battle to defeat Communism's perceived domino effect and admonished opponents to "Love It or Leave It," implying that protesting the conflict was American as apple pie and Mom and those who didn't should get the hell out. In fact, quite a few moms joined anti-war demonstrations in '68 and '69.

A few years later I attended a baseball game at Shea Stadium and the woman with me refused to rise during the playing of the Star Spangled Banner. Those standing around her didn't know that she initially supported the war but her allegiance weakened when a former fiancé was killed there in 1970. She never marched against the war, but remaining seated during the national anthem was her personal public protest.

In that tumultuous era, the flag became a lightning rod between the two sides, as demonstrators every now and then burned it as a symbol of protest. It was also occasionally flown upside down, which is a sign of distress. And the nation was certainly in a crisis.

Those who can't comprehend that one isn't required to wear a flag lapel pin or fly Old Glory to be a patriot need a refresher course in freedom. Because as long as democracy prevails, lapel flag pins - or any symbol of the flag - should not be compulsory for anyone in the land of the free.