I also have no idea what Johns thought about the works or what he intended by the paintings. In fact, I’ve actively avoided finding out so that his artistic intent doesn’t interfere with my own personal, peculiar interpretation. For me, seeing the Flags helps me to better see the flag.
When I look at Johns’ Flags, though, I see something different: an abstract representation of an abstract symbol that itself represents abstract concepts. In looking at the paintings I no longer see “American Flag” but see past the symbol to what it represents.
Something similar occurs when I see a flag pin on the lapel of a politician. I recognize that the pin is not merely a reproduction in miniature of an abstract symbol but is intended to convey a specific message to the politician’s constituency and to align oneself with the abstract concepts represented by the flag.
This line of thought leads me to ask, “What does it mean when Sarah Palin wears a lapel pin with two flags—for Israel and the United States?”
Palin recently wore the pin while giving her speech at the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Tennessee. Although I had heard a lot of commentary about the speech and the convention, I hadn’t noticed this tidbit until James Joyner mentioned it on his blog. Like Joyner, I’m surprised it hasn’t received more attention. As he says,
I can’t think of any major politician who openly wears the flag of foreign power–especially to a political event. A little digging indicates that in her brief term as Governor of Alaska, she also displayed an Israeli flag in her office.
Now, I personally don’t have any problem with showing support for Israel, which is, after all, one of our allies. But openly wearing a foreign flag at political events and displaying a foreign flag in the governor’s office does beg the question of whether Palin herself feels that she might feel like she owes loyalty to two different nations–or at the very least, to the alliance of the two countries above.
Like Joyner, I don’t have a problem with a politician expressing support for an ally. But context matters. For John F. Kennedy to claim “Ich bin ein Berliner” in West Berlin was a harmless bit of silly Cold War theatrics. Had he said it in West Texas, though, it would have been perceived quite differently.
Palin’s defenders might contend that the pin merely represents support for a key ally. But if that is true, why not a pin with Great Britain or Canada? Why not Japan or Australia? (Can you imagine the reaction if the pin had included Mexico or France?) Why single out Israel at a domestic political rally? Obviously, Palin views Israel as an ally that differs in kind or degree from the others. So what, in her view, sets that country apart for special recognition?
Also, what values does the Israel side of the pin represent that the American side fails to convey? Surely, the Israeli flag doesn’t merely stand-in for either the Israeli government or the Israeli people (which are, at times, in opposition). Our flag represents not only our people and our land but our values and ideals; I would be surprised if the same is not true for the Israeli flag. But which of that country’s abstract qualities does Palin intend to align herself with by wearing the symbol?
While I share Palin’s esteem for Israel, I confess that I find it peculiar that any politician would wear the flag of a foreign country at a domestic political event. For a conservative politician to do so is especially disconcerting. Progressive politicians may embrace a cosmopolitan vision of transnationality but conservatives should not. Nor, for that matter, should we be ashamed of our localist affections or our willingness to pursue our national interest.
My fondness and respect for our allies (particularly Australia, Canada, Great Britain, Israel, Poland, and New Zealand) is equal to anyone else in America. But our allies and their interests should never be conflated with the peculiar set of people, interests, and values that is denoted by the term America. Call me a jingoistic patriot if you must, but I believe in American exceptionalism because—with no disrespect intended to our allies—America is exceptional.
No doubt Palin would agree (if she doesn’t then she needs to leave the national political stage forthwith), which makes her sartorial choice all the more curious. Perhaps she can explain why an American flag pin isn’t enough of a symbol to convey what she stands for.
February 8th, 2010 | 9:47 am
Could Palin’s wearing of an Israeli flag have religious significance? Could it be related to her belief in end times prophecies? Could wearing the flag indicate opposition to the two state solution since that may delay the fulfillment of the prophecies?
February 8th, 2010 | 9:48 am
I expect the wearing of the Israeli flag reflects the recognition that our two countries share a common enemy in radical Jihadism. From the speech she gave, it’s clear she thinks the US should treat the conflict with militant Islam as a war rather than as a law enforcement operation directed against individual bad actors; and near the core of the enemy’s ideology is a virulent hatred of Israel and Jews. In this context, to wear the Israeli flag alongside that of the US is to say, “We will stand with you in this fight, and together we will defeat those who want more than anything to destroy our two countries.” I’m not sure how precisely Gov. Palin has articulated that rationale — she appears to be a “gut” politician rather than an abstract thinker. And I’m not sure she’d wear the Israeli flag if she were elected to federal office (governors of Alaska serve under somewhat less scrutiny). But to do so as a private citizen might be taken as evidence that she “gets” the conflict with Jihadism in a way the current administration does not.
February 8th, 2010 | 10:22 am
From what I know about Palin’s religious leanings, I suspect the show of support for Israel is grounded in the strain of evangelical thought based on a particular interpretation of Genesis 12:3 (“And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse.”). According to this school, God’s promise to Abraham means that he will bless any nation that blesses the Jewish people and curse any nation that opposes them. They point to Great Britain’s decline from great power to second tier status after it opposed Israel following WWII.
February 8th, 2010 | 11:02 am
Alright, since someone has brought up Sarah Palin’s religious vbeliefs, the flood gates have officially opened. Does the wearing of the pin have to do with Sarah Palin’s religious belief in “The End Times”? (Yes, those scare quote were intentional) The best people to ask would be either Christopher Hitchens or Andrew Sullivan as they are the self-appointed authorities on Sarah Palin’s reproductive cycles and religious beliefs. By the by, those boys have got some roughing sailing ahead when Sarah hits The Change. Wouldn’t want to be in their shoes but I digress.
Could the wearing of the pin (as a private citizen) actually indicate Sarah Palin is not at all as she’s been portrayed to be by Messers Hitchens, Sullivan and their fellow opinionated journalists; several pancakes short as of stack? Rather, could it be that Sarah Palin is actually making a sartorial choice that is in perfect harmony with her open disdain of intellectuals, intellectualism, and ultimately The Left? Because the ugly truth is that when it comes to anti-Semitism, the intellectuals (the Left) have, to quote Ricky Riccardo, “some ‘splainin’ to do!”. From David Pryce-Jones:
“ISLAMIST fellow-traveling today has a different focus from the Soviet fellow-traveling that preceded it, but the cast of mind is the same. The common premise that Western society is responsible for the world’s ills generates in certain intellectual circles guilt for the present as well as fear for what is to come. The conviction then develops that whatever “we” do must be wrong, and whatever “they” do is justified. Fellow-travelers in both cases come to apologize for those hostile to Western society, even to identify with them.
“The Soviet Union invariably proclaimed that the goal of Communism was peace and the perfectibility of mankind. Evidence to the contrary never dissuaded fellow-travelers from the belief that Communists must be admirable because they said they were. Islamist extremists likewise speak of jihad as the necessary prelude to peace and the perfectibility of mankind. In the eyes of the new fellow-travelers, these extremists may not yet be necessarily admirable, but they are Muslims, therefore victims of Western colonialism in the Third World, and deserving sympathy. So in the perspective of Islamist fellow-traveling September II becomes a day when America had it coming, and the exploding aircraft had the effect of “a work of art.” In the aftermath of September II there was a record number of conversions to Islam in non-Islamic countries-apparently some 30,000 in Holland alone. The Free Iraq campaign brought the new fellow-traveling to unprecedented heights, notably a speech by an academic at Columbia University appealing for “a million Mogadishus” to throw American forces out of Iraq. Here was a reprise in animus and tone of Cold War fellow-traveling.
The Soviet Union aimed to destroy bourgeois democracy. Only in their more extravagant moments do IsIamists and their fellow-travelers promise to destroy the United States; their narrower but steadfast point of departure is the destruction of Israel. The Soviet Union was never able to reconcile Communist doctrine with the presence of Jews in its midst. In the closing years of his life, Stalin was contemplating mass extermination of Jews on lines similar to Hitler’s. Islamists are working daily to wipe Israel off the map, and do not hesitate to call for the extermination of Jews, nothing less than genocide. The Muslim world, and with it a whole section of supportive public opinion elsewhere, has taken up this call.
“A syllogism forms. Illegitimate from inception, Israel is dependent for its existence on the United States. The United States should be resisted on every front, political and cultural; therefore we support the Arabs unconditionally in whatever they may say or do. This syllogism provides the context in which to update ancient phobias about Jews and to justify the commitment of acts of violence against them. With one or two arguable exceptions, Arab and Muslim countries are in the hands of authoritarian and even totalitarian rulers unable to create the kind of society which would give them their due place in the modem world. Many people in these police states feel a searing sense of humiliation and defeat at their plight but are unable to do anything about it. It is a great comfort for them to be able to reverse their powerlessness spontaneously into the fault of the Jews and the Americans. Complete though it is with inferiority complex, scapegoating, and conspiracy theory, this Muslim self-perception has been gradually convincing and captivating the Western Left.”
As Tina Fey was always quick to quip, Sarah Palin could see Russia from her kitchen window. Could it be Ms. Fey, that Sarah Palin saw a lot more than “Russia” from her figurative kitchen window? Could it be that she saw what “The Soviet Union” really was?
Sarah Palin says over and over again that Ronald Reagan is/was one of the major influences of her political formation. It was Ronald Reagan, along with Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II that turned The Soviet Union back into Russia. Remember, it was Ronald Reagan who actually gave the-tear-down-this-wall speech at the Brandenburg Gate. It was candidate Obama, who AFTER the wall was torn down who flew in with his entourage to host a free rock concert. The rock concert he hosted was reported as a speech but quick, someone recall a line from that speech. To misquote Sarah Palin, bectha you can’t.
(No cheating with google either)
Ronald Reagan understood what the Soviet Union was. He also would understand the real threat of Iran today. From what little I’ve heard Sarah Palin say, she understands the threat of Iran far better than President Obama who never, ever stops talking. He’s like a girl in that way.
February 8th, 2010 | 11:17 am
I think both Leonard and Barry are probably correct.
There is a movement among some Protestant churches to actively support the settlement movement in Israel precisely in order to help bring about the end times prophecy to which Leonard refers. I know that there is a precise term for this movement, but I can’t remember what it is, and I try to avoid using more general terms such as “evangelical” and “fundamentalist” when referring to such a particular belief.
I respect Palin for certain of her positions, and I think she has a legitimate place in American public life – she nailed Rahm Emanual on his “retard” outburst. And, she is probably no more hypocritical and opportunistic than most ambitious politicians. But, I would not want her to be President, especially not if she believes Christians have some role to play in nudging along the coming of the end times. Let her talk away on Fox news.
February 8th, 2010 | 11:37 am
Mrs. Jackson,
I wrote my previous comment before seeing yours, so I want to add a couple of thoughts.
First, if, as you speculate, Sarah Palin has a disdain for “intellectuals” that is not a virtue. The problem you describe with intellectuals of the left is one more of groupthink than it is of “intellectualism” per se. In fact, the statement which you quote from David Pryce-Jones is “intellectual” in nature (he uses the word “syllogism” for crying out loud).
I would add that the justification of horrific means to achieve supposedly beautiful ends is not unique to either the “left” or the “right”. We, almost all of us, have false idols. Just one more aspect of our sinful natures.
February 8th, 2010 | 11:43 am
Joe, why don’t you ask her instead of speculating?
February 8th, 2010 | 12:21 pm
Sarah Palin is trying to appeal to Jews who otherwise would assume she is not interested. Because she isn’t. She is not interested in anything other than how mush dosh she can pull in, and Jews are noted for often being very generous to causes they feel are worthy of them. They also have guilt about enjoying the good life in America instead of going to their “homeland”…
February 8th, 2010 | 12:41 pm
Mrs. Jackson: I’m sorry about that thing with your daughter. I never meant to make her cry…I apologize 1,000,000x.
Whoooo.
February 8th, 2010 | 12:57 pm
Deborah,
Will Palin have the answer inked onto her telepalmter?
February 8th, 2010 | 1:06 pm
>>But if that is true, why not a pin with Great Britain or Canada? >>
Maybe because she sees Israel as an ally under attack, and the others are not? (Although I could argue that GB is not only under attack, but nearly defeated. They’re not resisting, though)
February 8th, 2010 | 1:11 pm
I’m sorry, but if Sarah Palin is the candidate for president three years from now, It is going to make my life a whole hell of a lot easier. If she wins it will make my life a dream come true. As a blogger, I will never again have to touch my computer keyboard. These things will write themselves.
I know this sounds exceedingly selfish on my part and I am embarrassed to say it in so public a forum. I hope she never goes away. For the self-described political satirist, she is the gift that keeps giving and giving and giving….
I’m so ashamed.
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
Goshen NY
February 8th, 2010 | 3:13 pm
Hats off to Jeff Peterson’s comment #2 above. I carry no brief for flag pins in general. But Palin’s makes a point that is too easily forgotten–that Israel is an outpost of Western civilization amidst the enemies of the West. Israel is our canary in the mine. If Israel succumbs, or is allowed to succumb, to the lethal pressures around it, the rest of us will follow soon enough. And Americans seem to grasp that more clearly than other Westerners. So, yes, an American flag conjoined with an Israeli one seems right. It is a defiant symbol at a time when defiance bears more grace than we grant it.
February 8th, 2010 | 3:46 pm
Peter, how delicious that when I point out The Left’s fellow traveling with the Soviet Union and now Palestine causes you to turn around and accuse Sarah Palin of not possessing virtue(s). What is your basis for this accusation? Why my own use – not Sarah’s use- of the word disdain in connection with intellectuals.
In this case it should be my lack of virtue you have issues with. Not Sarah’s. But fear not, my confessor has a similar issues with my lack of virtues and is working hard with me. Hopefully he’ll prevail too.
Is David Pryce-Jones an intellectual? He’s intelligent certainly. Learned most definitely. But if you use the word intellectual pejoratively like I do, then no. He’s not an intellectual.
Per:
“and I think she has a legitimate place in American public life”
How big of you. Obviously your virtue cannot be called into question.
Per:
“There is a movement among some Protestant churches to actively support the settlement movement in Israel precisely in order to help bring about the end times prophecy to which Leonard refers.”
Let’s get this straight. Sarah Palin is known -thanks largely to Christopher Hitchens and Jeffrey Hart – to possess an extremely dangerous version of protestant religious beliefs. She also said in a Barbara Walters interview that she supported the Israeli settlements, because more Jewish people would be flocking there in the days ahead. Or something like that. And she wears a pin of the flag of Israel which all somehow means she’s for the hastening of the end times.
If this is true, then why is The Left so upset that Sarah Palin is going to run for President in 2012? Or 2016? How can she? Won’t she have ended the world by then?
February 8th, 2010 | 6:49 pm
As far as I am aware, none of the other allies of the United States you name are the common subject of international condemnations and boycotts.
February 8th, 2010 | 11:37 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by First Things, Billy McKee. Billy McKee said: Palin's Pin Problem » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog http://bit.ly/c3jWlk [...]
February 9th, 2010 | 2:15 pm
Because “we are all spiritual Semites”… with apologies to Pope Pius XI.
February 9th, 2010 | 6:10 pm
Mrs. Jackson,
I want to start by admitting one place where I went too far in my statements about Sarah Palin. It was unfair of me, and a cheap shot, to suggest that, were she elected President, she might use that position to “nudge along” the end times. I drew an extreme, unsubstantiated, conclusion based on some speculation by myself, and some of the other people here, regarding Mrs. Palin’s religious beliefs and worldview. I can understand why you might believe I am a follower of Christopher Hitchens or Andrew Sullivan, when I am, in fact, not.
However, I think that everything else I said regarding Mrs. Palin was well within the bounds of a political discussion. Mrs. Palin ran for Vice President in 2008 and has said the would consider running for President in 2012. That makes her subject to scrutiny regarding almost every aspect of her beliefs and her life. This includes her religious beliefs, at least to the extent that they might have a concrete impact on her actions as a public official.
Both I and some of the other writers here were speculating on whether the fact that Mrs. Palin was wearing both and Israeli and an American flag pin could signify that she believes in a form of Christian Zionism which derives from the theology of dispensationalism or premillenialism. According to what I have read, a significant minority of U.S. evangelicals believe in some form of dispensationalism. One consequence of this belief, from a public policy perspective, is that organizations in the U.S. formed around it have provided significant financial and political support to the settler movement in Israel. These organizations believe they are playing a part in assuring that Israel will play its role in bringing about the end times. The establishment of the settlements in the West Bank and elsewhere is one of the key issues in the Middle East conflict.
I have not, yet, tried to find out the answers to the questions that myself and others have raised here regarding Mrs. Palin’s specific religious or political beliefs that may pertain to Israel and the Middle East. But, if and when I do so, I will not turn to either Christopher Hitchens or Andrew Sullivan. I know that Hitchens, in particular, is opposed to any “religious” belief. That does not make me hostile towards him, but it means that I would question his reliability on this subject.
I might, time permitting, write a separate comment regarding our disagreements or mutual misunderstanding regarding the meaning of certain key terms such as “virtue” and “intellectual”. But, I wanted to say at least this much while this article remains “active”.
February 11th, 2010 | 3:34 pm
Modern America has been in such denial of her roots that we don’t have a clue. America was a
nation founded by people of Christian belief. In
forming our constitution these same people were mindful of the role of all Christians: We
were grafted into the vine and are actually, fellow members of the house of Israel. The promise that the God of Abraham would bless
those who bless the seed of Abraham has been
consistant. Do we turn from them now?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact