Symbol Over Substance

This morning I listened to the local right-wing radio mouthpiece spout his usual thin stupidity, while caller after agreeing caller chimed in their consistent support. Two issues were discussed. The desecration of the American flag and new issues of Homeland Security.

Opinionated callers talked about the flag, about how it is a sacred fabric that people have fought for and given their lives. They discussed how sickened they were by its desecration for political motivation.

Opinionated callers discussed the Constitution, about how it is a malleable fabric that government may freely amend to help their lives. They discussed how sickened they were with the ACLU and liberal minds that opposed flippant alteration of the Constitution for political motivation.

The host and callers agreed that the flag needs to be protected by a Constitutional act of congress, a ratified amendment to assure its safety.

The host and callers agreed that the Constitution needs to be supplemented with Patriot Act endorsement by congress, to extend police power in marginal areas of personal liberty. They parroted enthusiasm for more cameras and random searches to assure our safety.

*****

Why are the minds on the right so bent on protecting the symbol while treading on the substance? Why protect and guard the flag, when simultaneously cleansing orifices with the Constitution? Why protect the symbol of the republic with a Constitutional amendment when the Constitution can be simply changed and reshaped to suit political whimsy? Isn't this reversed? The flag is the symbol, the Constitution is the substance-- you don't need a flag if your Constitution and the rights guaranteed within are not taken seriously. You can't pledge allegiance to a flag without also pledging allegiance to the "republic for which it stands" and that only comes from holding the rights, responsibilities and framework of the Constitution sacred.

Without the Constitution the flag is a worthless piece of cloth, today manufactured in China. Nobody died for a flag, nobody defended a flag. They defended a nation, a nation established upon the signing of a document that skillfully granted an assurance of liberty and justice, a document that promised a foundation of freedom from government.

Don't they have this backwards?