Hard to argue? Not really

Michael Lind in Salon (h/t to Joanne Jacobs), despite some ridiculous bloviating against conservatives and the GOP, makes a pretty persuasive case that the Pledge of Allegiance is "un-American":

Shouldn't the government pledge allegiance to the people rather than the other way around?

The very idea of a pledge of allegiance, in any form, is completely at odds with what is often called "the American Creed," inspired by the 17th-century philosopher John Locke's theory of natural rights and government by popular consent. The concept of "allegiance" is feudal. In medieval Europe, the liegeman, or subject, pledged allegiance to his liege lord. But in Lockean America, there is no government outside of society to which the members of the society could pledge allegiance, even if they wanted to.

In a republic, the people should not pledge allegiance to the government; the government should pledge allegiance to the people.

It's pretty hard difficult to argue Lind's point -- at first glance. But let's look at the Pledge:

I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and the Republic, for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.

It seems pretty obvious to me that by "pledging allegiance" Americans are -- as it says above -- doing so to the Republic. And what is our republic? It's the people, after all, who elect other people to serve the general public. Then there's "one Nation." And what is a "nation?" It's a group of people: –noun 1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own.

I'm not going to argue (much!) whether "under God" should rightfully (i.e. legally) be in the Pledge; I will say, however, that Lind -- who sees fit to make use of the Declaration of Independence to make his case against the Pledge -- neglects to make it clear that the Founders certainly believed that the people derived their rights from ... God!

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The boy with whom Lind begins his article, Will Phillips, who refused to stand and recite the Pledge because he felt it wrong that gays and lesbians aren't allowed to marry (no "liberty and justice" for them), had every right to so refuse. That is established legal precedent dating back almost 70 years. Lind also at one point laments the near-establishment of "mob rule" as the [GOP-dominated 2004] House had passed a bill disallowing federal courts jurisdiction over cases involving the Pledge (the bill died in the Senate). "Checks and balances" worked, he claims.

But would it have been "mob rule?" What it would called then, if perpetual litigants like Michael Newdow finally managed to succeed in getting the [entire] Pledge ruled unconstitutional -- over the objections of the [enormously] vast majority of Americans? (Checks and balances would surely prevail in this hypoethetical, I'd bet, as Congress and then the states would likely pass a constitutional amendment allowing for the Pledge.) I mean, consider: No one is required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance if they do not wish to say it. Period. (Educators like Phillips' teachers should attend inservices about legal "dos" and "don'ts" instead of the crap they usually have to sit through.) So why litigants like Newdow? Because they'll feel ... left out? Because they may get ... harassed? To which I say: So what.

America is great precisely because you can thumb your nose at saying the Pledge. America is a cornucopia of ethnicities and beliefs that is the envy of the world, because that amalgamation can act on their beliefs (within reason, of course) without hassle from the state. But that doesn't mean those whose beliefs fall into a distinct minority are entitled to be free from "feeling left out" or be free from "pressure [by peers] to conform." To legally permit such is nigh impossible, given the sheer numbers of different beliefs extant in our system. The phrase "under God" in the Pledge (though added later, in the 1950s) clearly has an historical basis, as noted above.

If the Newdows of the country were all able to prevail, it seems to me the common threads that bind us as a nation would unravel. And, if the Newdows are so concerned about "feeling left out" and feeling "pressure to conform," just think about what'd happen were they successful. Will the Newdows then litigate demanding that people continue to associate with them? And be nice to them?

There's a fine between between "mob rule" and tyranny of the minority, the latter usually accomplished via litigation instead of, obviously, the legislative process.

I know my argument isn't perfect. For instance, if it's OK to say the Pledge in schools, why not allow prayer? After all, students could opt out of saying that just as they can with the Pledge. But the difference is that students would be saying an affirmation to a god in a prayer, whereas with the Pledge they are merely affirming that our nation was, in part, formed with a belief that our most essential rights are derived from [a] god (again, as the Founders themselves noted). Perhaps a better argument could be made as to why Congress still begins sessions with prayers ... while schools cannot. Both are public institutions.

But, alas, that is enough for now. :-)

Posted by Hube at November 20, 2009 06:01 PM | TrackBack