|
What's
Conservative about the Pledge of Allegiance?
by Gene Healy
http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-04-03.html
November
4, 2003
Gene
Healy is senior editor at the Cato Institute.
It seems there's no escaping
America
's culture wars for the Supreme Court: On Tuesday,
Oct. 14, the Court announced that it would hear Elk
Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, a
case on the constitutionality of the Pledge of
Allegiance. Newdow arose out of a
California
parent's attempt to get the phrase "under
God" stripped from the Pledge, on the grounds
that it represents an establishment of religion.
The
Newdow case is a Republican campaign
strategist's dream. It gives G.O.P. candidates a
grand old opportunity to position themselves as
defenders of tradition against militant atheists and
liberal judges. George Bush the elder used the
Pledge to similar effect in his 1988 campaign
against Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, who
had vetoed a bill requiring public school teachers
to lead their classes in the Pledge.
It's
probably too much to ask politicians to reflect a
little before they lunge for a political hot-button
issue. But any conservatives so inclined should
think about what they're defending. What's so
conservative about the Pledge?
Very
little, as it turns out. From its inception, in
1892, the Pledge has been a slavish ritual of
devotion to the state, wholly inappropriate for a
free people. It was written by Francis Bellamy, a
Christian Socialist pushed out of his post as a
Baptist minister for delivering pulpit-pounding
sermons on such topics as "Jesus the
Socialist." Bellamy was devoted to the ideas of
his more-famous cousin Edward Bellamy, author of the
1888 utopian novel Looking Backward.
Looking Backward describes the
future
United States
as a regimented worker's paradise where everyone has
equal incomes, and men are drafted into the
country's "industrial army" at the age of
21, serving in the jobs assigned them by the state.
Bellamy's novel was extremely popular, selling more
copies than other any 19th century
American novel except Uncle Tom's Cabin.
Bellamy's book inspired a movement of
"Nationalist Clubs," whose members
campaigned for a government takeover of the economy.
A few years before he wrote the Pledge of
Allegiance, Francis Bellamy became a founding member
of
Boston
's first Nationalist Club.
After
leaving the pulpit, Francis Bellamy decided to
advance his authoritarian ideas through the public
schools. Bellamy wrote the Pledge of Allegiance for Youth's
Companion, a popular children's magazine.
With the aid of the National Education Association,
Bellamy and the editors of Youth's Companion
got the Pledge adopted as part of the National
Public School Celebration on Columbus Day 1892.
Bellamy's
recommended ritual for honoring the flag had
students all but goosestepping their way through the
Pledge: "At a signal from the Principal the
pupils, in ordered ranks, hands to the side, face
the Flag. Another signal is given; every pupil gives
the Flag the military salute--right hand lifted,
palm downward, to a line with the forehead and close
to it... At the words, 'to my Flag,' the right hand
is extended gracefully, palm upward, towards the
Flag, and remains in this gesture till the end of
the affirmation; whereupon all hands immediately
drop to the side." After the rise of Nazism,
this form of salute was thought to be in poor taste,
to say the least, and replaced with today's
hand-on-heart gesture.
Hands
on their hearts, more than 100 Republican members of
Congress gathered on the steps of the Capitol to
recite the pledge shortly after the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals ruled for Newdow in June 2002. It
was an effective photo-op, allowing the G.O.P. to
cast itself as the defender of tradition. But not
every tradition deserves defending. Though no one
can be legally compelled to salute the flag,
encouraging the ritual smacks of promoting a
quasi-religious genuflection to the state. That's
not surprising, given that the Pledge was designed
by an avowed socialist to encourage greater
regimentation of society.
Regardless
of the legal merits of Newdow's case -- which rests
on a rather ambitious interpretation of the First
Amendment's Establishment clause -- it's ironic to
see conservatives rally to such a questionable
custom. Why do so many conservatives who, by and
large, exalt the individual and the family above the
state, endorse this ceremony of subordination to the
government? Why do Christian conservatives say it's
important for schoolchildren to bow before a symbol
of secular power? Indeed, why should conservatives
support the Pledge at all, with or without
"under God"?
|