Is It Fair To Question The Democratic Party’s Values When It Has No American Flags Visible During Its National Convention?


Of course yes.

One of these things, is not like the others...

One of these things, is not like the others…

Opening night of the Democratic National Convention—that gathering of the historic institution created by Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson to facilitate democracy by fulfilling the idealistic vision of the Founders, who bravely led the original colonies, represented by thirteen red and white stripes, to rise up against a hereditary monarchy and through courage, sacrifice and enterprise create the most successful and humanist nation ever seen on earth…you know, that Democratic National Convention?—showed no American flags on the stage, no red, white and blue symbolism, and an apparently flagless crowd.

Was the American flag actually banned from the convention? That can’t be…but it certainly looked like it.  The absence of any flags can’t be an accident, or unintentional.

What’s going on here?

Nothing good.

Nothing healthy.

In the eight years since Barack Obama was nominated…by the way, here is the scene of his second nomination, just four years ago…

Obama Accepts Nomination On Final Day Of Democratic National Convention

…the Democratic Party has morphed into an organization that is increasingly dependent on the pleasure and approval of anti-American groups. The supporters of illegal immigration, some of whom advocate returning the Southwest to Mexico; angry black liberation movement activists, who regard the United States as a racist nation and culture; radical internationalists, who believe the United States should not only behave like “other first world nations,” but allow itself to be governed by them; progressives whose view of the United States, nourished by indoctrination in the public schools and colleges dominated by far left faculties, is relentlessly negative; growing numbers of socialists, anti-capitalists, anti-law enforcement activists and fans of soft totalitarianism—-these are increasingly the voting blocs that the professional politicians who  run the Democratic Party feel they must pander to and satisfy.

Those politicians themselves? They have no principles, just a lust for power. In this they are exactly like the professional Republican politicians who have endorsed Donald Trump, knowing what he is ( a narcissistic, babbling idiot, in case you missed the last five years or so).  The Democratic power-brokers and Republican power-brokers are ethically interchangeable, like the Bobbsey Twins.

These groups that the Democrats feel they have to prostrate themselves before don’t like the Constitution, free speech or the separation of powers; they don’t respect or care about democracy, as the conduct of the Democratic National Committee revealed in the leaked e-mails proved; they don’t honor the sacrifices of veterans in foreign wars; and they view the history of the United States as nothing better than a parade of  genocide and discrimination. The United States flag is affirmatively offensive to the Democrats’ core constituencies, so the Democratic Party has apparently decided that so few of its members or supporters have a genuine love of country and respect for its history that the central symbol of both is no longer welcome at its national celebration.

Do you have another theory?

I’d love to hear it.

Flag worship and exploitation like the Republican Party and conservatives have been inflicting on us for decades is nauseating, of course, cynical and manipulative.  It is still far preferable to what the Democrats have apparently surrendered to, an actual rejection of the concepts and symbolism at the foundations of our nation. The flag symbolizes both, and symbols are crucial to culture, integrity, and continuity.

A national argument about what the flag, and the United States itself, should stand for is normal and healthy. A competition between one party that wants to “make America great again”—The Horror!—and another that not only doesn’t want America to be great, since it is a blight on civilization, but  doesn’t even want America to be America is neither normal nor healthy.

It’s a disaster.

Yes, this post also gets the This Will Help Elect Donald Trump designation, in part because the Democrats this week are a hair’s-breadth away from convincing me that as dangerous, reckless, unstable and embarrassing as Donald Trump will be as President, the Democratic Party and the people they pander to will be worse if they continue in power.

My late father walked with a painful limp for 60 years because he fought for a nation he believed in and loved. I have studied this nation’s history from many sides, and its ledger, despite copious debts and deficits, is in the ethical black, and more decisively so than the vast, vast majority of its fellow nations. If the Democratic Party wants to divide the public into two groups, those who reject the values of the United States of America and those who celebrate them, I will stand with the second group even if its titular head is a werewolf or a block of cheese…or Donald Trump.

The Democratic Party is exploring dangerous territory. I hope it comes to its senses, but I fear that it might be too late.

PS. Let’s see how many mainstream media journalists notice the missing flags, or care that they are gone.

PPS. If there is sufficient criticism, watch how the DNC will suddenly makes sure the flags re-appear, because forgetting to show the flag in a traditional celebration of American democracy is a mistake anyone could make.

UPDATE: Snopes, which is now apparently a full time apologist for the Democratic Party, posted its snotty dispute with the no-flag observation, compete with a couple fleeting moments where the flag appeared in digital form, a bunch of flags stuffed away somewhere, and a few individual Democrats in flag-themed garb. I assumed in the throng there would be some isolated flag displays, and it would have been really weird if no flag imagery intruded anywhere. The fact still is that the vast, vast majority of images from the convention last night, including on TV, was flag-free, unlike any previous convention of either party.

I googled “2016 Democratic National Convention” images. What I got included no flags.  This was true when I wrote the post, and just now, as I wrote this update. The images with flags were revealed to be from other venues. I tried the same research with “2016 Democratic National Convention first night” images. There are more dolphins than American flags.

Hmmm. Let’s try “2012 Democratic National Convention” images. Well, what do you know? Plenty of flags.

The analogy I made in a comment thread is valid here: this is like Democrats noting that there were “no black faces” in the Republican convention crowd. A rebuttal that finds a few scattered African Americans among the thousands doesn’t rebut the central point, and neither does Snopes’ spinning.


Pointer: The Daily Caller

170 thoughts on “Is It Fair To Question The Democratic Party’s Values When It Has No American Flags Visible During Its National Convention?

  1. I have a huge problem with the use of the flag as a prop in a convention or political rally. I’ve seen the tiny ones they hand out to crowds for parades stuffed into trash cans after the parade was over. If they are going to be displayed for a convention they should be displayed properly and treated with the proper respect. But I think respect for the flag is alien to both parties. The democrats ignore its history and what it stands for and see it as something that represents all that is bad in the world while the republicans wrap themselves in and use it as a shield to deflect any criticism of their policies as un American.

  2. “My late father walked with a painful limp for 60 years because he fought for a nation he believed in and loved. I have studied this nation’s history from many sides, and its ledger, despite copious debts and deficits, is in the ethical black, and more decisively so than the vast, vast majority of its fellow nations. If the Democratic Party wants to divide the public into two groups, those who reject the values of the United States of America and those who celebrate them, I will stand with the second group even if its titular head is a werewolf or a block of cheese…or Donald Trump.”

    “Right here we should understand the true meaning of Nationalism, and should closely distinguish it from Race, with which Nationalism is so often confused. Nationalism is, at bottom, a *state of mind*. Nationalism is a *belief*, held by a large number of persons, that they constitutse a ‘Nationality’; it is a sense of *belonging together* as a ‘Nation’. This ‘Nation’, as visualized in the minds of its believers, is a people organized under one government and dwelling together in a distinct territory. When the nationalist ideal is realized, we have what is known as a body-politic or ‘State’. But a state need not necessarily be a nation; feeling may be aroused by many things like blood-kinship, political association, language, culture, religion, or geography. Some of these emelemts must be present to make a nationalist, but a strong national feeling may arise even though some are absent. Blood-kinship (‘Race’) is one of the strongest factors which can go to make up a nation. It is not indispensable, but its absense is always a hidden weakness, which may reveal itself at any time. It will undoubtedly become increasingly important for harmonious national life as men realize its full significance and come to think more and more in racial terms. However, that must not obscure the fact that Race and Nationality are, in themselves, two distinct things. Nationality is a state of mind. Race, one the other hand, is a physical fact, which may be accurately determined by scientific tests such as skull-measurelment, hair formation, and color of eyes and skin. In other words, Race is what people physically really *are*; Nationality is what people *think* they are.”

    —Lothrop Stoddard, ‘Racial Realities in Europe’, Schribner’s 1924

    I find myself — obviously because of my specific interests and my research areas — seeing all of this from a ‘meta’ perspective. Since yesterday I have been thinking about your idea-based and patriotic nationalistic sentiment and making a comparison to my sense of my own patriotism. I have been accused of thinking out loud and I suppose this will amount to a continuation of the same. Whether silently or audibly I cannot find any fault in thinking about these very important matters.

    Now, I will jump right to the chase: The nationalism that lives in you, and the profound sentiment of it, is a nationalism of a unique variety. I would venture to say that it is, essentially, the nationalism of the founding class. Your education and focus allows you to understand these things better than myself certainly and better than most (likely). This nationalism shares a great deal with (what I understand of) classic Republican nationalism, and I have also noticed that your nationalism is one that you desire to see all people, all immigrant cultures, and all races, develop and share. It is as if you (you in an extended sense) have done a great and notable work in expanding national definition to include all people who desire to join with the idea and the ideal but your *voice* (imploring) is not heard anymore. At the same time this nationalism is a variety which has roots in and extends from the Second World War. It might be labelled therefor a post-war nationalism (and this means a great deal because, as I understand things, a huge part of American patriotism and indeed the renewed raison d’etre of the country has been concretized in this period. But the period is rife with conceptual conflicts.

    I have to make more of a study of this to understand it. But what occurs in my mind is that America is no longer a shared idea. I mean, there are now (and perhaps there have always been) many different ‘americas’. The Sixties narratives, and also the communist-socialist narratives, have fractured and divided IDEA (of nationalism), and thus fractured, people resolve back into other self-definitions and relationship-definitions. I would suggest that one large aspect of the Problem which is presenting itself to view is that the Democratic Party represents a new, a now-forming (i.e. evolving) restatement of Nationalism which is incompatable, and in certain senses contradictory to the post-war nationalism of which you speak. (And it is important to stress the sentimental, the felt, the lived sense of it, and your father’s relationship to it is a very immediate way). It must rid itself of some aspect of the anterior Symbolisms just as the Confederate flag has been eliminated. In any case, it has to be down-played. The developing patriotism is a new and different patriotism. (I personally think it will evolve into an outright socialism, and all the signs are there for that).

    America is a ‘propositional nation’. To become a part of it you have to assent to this ‘proposition’, and this makes the proposition itself a highly relevent aspect. It has to be articulated, supported by strong symbolism, inculcated, renewed, revised, brought up to date continually, and I think it fair to say that it has to be ‘enforced’. Here lies a problem and it is not a small one. How can one ask an African American to share the nationalistic creed? Or an American Indian? Or a Mexican national who had ‘recrossed the border which crossed us’? It does not take a rocket scientist (though we have one among us!) to easily and plainly see that, right now, and with very real roots in a post-war past, that ‘America’ is a contended idea.

    No one will love my speech when I refer to the ‘hordes’ to which the Democrats direct their message. The chances are very good that illegally-arrives Mexican nationals may not ever be brought into the idea-fold of Americanism. They will not be able to achieve that, in any case, as the original populations. Why is this? I mean, If this is true (it might not be), Why is it so? That requires a whole study in and of itself. But it is possible to speculate that a nationalistic feeling can best arise and be maintained among people who share the same cultural background and somatic make-up. I think that the now resurgent ‘Black Nationalism Movement’ with its militant aspect must also be looked at in a fresh light.

    And with this we run directly into a huge problem:

    Clearly, and with no doubt, the Republican Party is and has been the Party of a white racial (identity) sector. It has just now become that much more obvious. Everyone sees this as plain as a plump plum on the tip of a white nose. Little is stated, and yet much is understood.

    The Democratic Party — quite consciously from what I have read — is positioning itself to be the sole representative of the rising majority which discludes, quite necessarily, any possible or shall I say exclusive ‘white identity’. This is now and it will be in the future a grave and increasing problem. You can beat me up as the one who bears a discordant message except that I have so little to do with this. I am only an observer. And I am a naturalized citizen.

    Which America shall I identify with? I find this to be a tremendous problem. Truthfully, this is an issue that has to be brought out more. Shall I identify with the America which for the last 15 years has been invading countries and performing ‘nation-building’? I ask this question in all seriouslness. If the case could be made plain to me I think I could get behind the idea. Yet I am of the opinion that it is exactly this militarism which is putting huge pressures on the Republic (but this can’t be done into here). Should I link with a socialistic and national America? That is, the socializing project of Sanders et al? Or the corporate and business America? Or a regional America? The place where I’d go to live like Jefferson?

    I would suggest that it is an issue right now of the Idea of America which as idea, as unifying idea, no longer functions. People desire to cling to it, but what they seem to cling to is an empty slogan, a vessel that no longer holds water (a leaking vessel). I see this as a crucial area that needs to be focussed on for better understanding.

  3. Jack wrote: “The attitudes, values and biases of the party are seeping into every thing they do, and the “this is stupid” …”this is trivial” denial tactic eventually destroys itself through sheer repetition. A critical mass of supporters and the party voting blocs really don’t like the country as it is, and has been. It wants a socialist, anti-capitalist, race- and gender-favoring nanny state with a central-planning mega-government that lets despots and terrorists do what they want, and follows others instead of leading in foreign affairs. It takes no pride in US achievements and history, and regards the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and even the Rule of law as just obstacles to the greater good. As long as the flag stands for a different culture than this Bernie-Utopia, the Democrats will avoid it as much as they can.

    “This episode was a symptom of the ethics rot in the party, and all symptoms should be noted to identify the illness.”

    What you have described is, according to the Alt-Right, more or less precisely the engineered, multiethnic, multicultural, post-war system which was set up by the United States in the aftermath of the Second War. The various regions and blocks were mapped and specific strategies worked out as to how to incorporate them into the general economic system.

    In this sense I would certainly suggest that even though the underpinning of this New System was strictly one of power and imposition of power, it is undergirded and supported by Idea and also by PR and this does of course mean rational employment of propaganda.

    A world was created-envisioned, a vision of the world and what could be, and all of this based in and founded on huge Interpretive Projects. In order to *see* that world it all has to be carefully, and forcefully, framed. You have to be shown who the bad guys are and who the good guys are. Even if one does not, not really, understand the system and how it functions, one’s perception must be guided along to understand it. Isn’t this where the notion of ‘persuasion’ and ‘rhetoric’ and also indoctrination (in the true sense of the word) come into play?

    In order to secure the capitalist structure to which you refer, it seems evident that the reigning powers are willing to make all manner of different concessions. But one of the main ones is to conceptualize and enforce the notion of ‘multi-ethic societies’ and an economic structure where divisions and differences are erased. You shall become merely one cog in a vast system of cogs. All the same, all equal. This is the Walmart Political and Economic model and it is one embraced by power and finance at the meta- and mega-level.

    This seems to me, and to others who see like me (or are we hallucinating?) the Grand System that is being imposed. Everything that you have listed, above, is part-and-parcel of it. And ‘the people’ will rally to it because — so it seems — it gives them precisely what they clamor for.

    And I would further suggest that this System was designed and implimented in the United States of America. It is the brain-child of the reigning ‘capitalists’ who are, I have been told, quite willing to do whatever it takes to secure their system and make it ‘invulnerable’.

    Certainly, and seen from this multi-nationalist and universalist perspective, the noxious flag needs to be down-played. It simply does not play well anymore. American flag-wavers are embarrassing.

    US achievements and even constitutional values become irrelevancies when one holds in one’s mind what has been attempted in the post-war by American planners in partnership with regional players.

    To OPPOSE this is to forcibly return, conceptually, into ideas that allow for and even create division and hierarchy. The reverse-narrative is problematic and dangerous and it can hardly be spoken of openly. Thus, one is hog-tied.

    One MUST support the reigning system because one cannot articulate an oppositional stance.

    (In other news I stil think that Trump should have chosen Monica Lewinski as running mate. Or, to get really psychedelic, Hillary should have divorced Bill and chosen Monica as running mate (after declaring lesbianism). Now THAT would have made things interesting).

      • That is a potent statement: “A biased worldview makes all analysis suspect”.

        This is pretty much the area of my interest: How do worldviews come to be formulated? And on what are they founded? I do not see this as a small issue. And it is crucially relevant to our present and to everything being discussed in this blog-post.

        You have a ‘worldview’ which is, to some, based in bias, and certainly in interpretation. I do too. And everyone who is writing on this blog approaches understanding through their bias. We hope that we might be able to ‘see and describe’ our world in truthful, accurate terms, yet it is JUST THIS which is the problem. We see things from our angle.

        But with the force of your ‘condemnation’ I think you indicate how important it is to patrol doctrinal frontiers. (I certainly agree with you that there are bizarre, outlying narratives such as a ruling class with lizard DNA and other such things.)

        What I wrote above (the US planners dividing the world into regions with specific plans for each reason) is actually an attempt to see and understand things as they really are. I see this as necessary if one is to understand how the world works and how power functions.

        I cannot agree with you re: the Alt-Right. I have no idea what Bedlam Blog is or says and Googling it brought up nothing specific.

        ‘Alt-Right’ is a project of interpretation and not one specific school.

        Such dismissals as ‘nuts’ I don’t think serve your case. Or rather they do insofar as they distortingly dismiss perspectives that have validity and cogency. That seems to me ‘bias in operation’.

        • The core difference is whether one will accept data objectively that doesn’t fit one’s needs, wants, desires or world view. I will. Occupy Democrats won’t. Media Matters won’t. Brietbart won’t. Instapundit won’t. MSNBC won’t. Hannity won’t. Rush won’t. Obama won’t.

          • Sure, but I wasn’t speaking of them. Usually, and when one is within a highly contentious System, the spin is overwhelming. American politics have become unmanageable and I think ‘psychedelic’ is a good word. My understanding is that there in NO SOURCE of ‘objective’ information we can rely on. Everyone is beating some drum or other.

            I do apreciate, and am trying to understand better, the political position that you articulate. I think it is a rational one.

            I tend to see the analysis of the Alt-Right as an attempt at rational definition. It is basically a philosophical position, an orientation.

    • Alizia said, “In other news I still think that Trump should have chosen Monica Lewinski as running mate. Or, to get really psychedelic, Hillary should have divorced Bill and chosen Monica as running mate (after declaring lesbianism). Now THAT would have made things interesting.”

      In my opinion that would make absolutely no difference (there are much larger issues in this election) and why would you think that would make anything more “interesting” than it is right now?

    • There’s a… pride there…. That’s been missing for a very long time. Ego? Almost certainly. But also a flavour of nationalism. Nationalism is anathema to the open borders crown, to the point where it’s almost a naughty word, often associated with Nazis, because why engage on ideas when you can simply call someone a Nazi? America is a proud country, and this resonates. It’s one of those things that would have made other candidates more appealing to Americans, if only they’d thought to do them.

  4. I realize that many commenters on this blog enjoy waving around their fake verbal cleverness with the tone of their comments. Substantive arguments are fine, but I (for one) truly weary of the insulting name-calling. Calling someone stupid, or their comment stupid, or any of the many words used to denigrate people on this blog, is not just rude; it’s tiresome and boring.

    • I agree…wait..didn’t you call the issue of the DNC “forgetting” to feature the American flag a “stupid issue”?

      I think I made it clear that I think its a tell, and pandering to a large bloc of anti-American constituents who affirmatively dislike flag imagery…flag of slavery, flag of oppression, etc. I think that’s significant. As with Hillary’s e-mails, it’s stupid to those who want to ignore it.

          • I’m not sure you can completely divorce “issue” from “people’s comments”.

            Recall, this issue is encapsulated in Jack’s advocacy of it and the derivative comment as well…

      • Wait — why isn’t my first reply showing up here?

        For those who missed it, I wrote:

        Nope, that was not me. I don’t think it’s a stupid issue, although perhaps overblown. I do think that omitting the flag was, yes, stupid. But I don’t think I actually said that. Until now.

        • Jack said, “Repetition is a well-established rhetorical device, and I encourage it.”

          In that case………….

          I’ll repeat mine too.


          Jack asked earlier; “The flag’s presence was drastically reduced from past conventions. Is that really just a design thing?”

          Your reply Patrice was, “No, it’s a stupid thing.”

          Jacks assertion that you called this stupid, is reasonably accurate.


            • Patrice said, “I’m afraid at this point we have become dogs chasing our tails…”

              Sure; but facts are facts, they don’t just go away.

              There’s really nothing wrong with being held accountable for our words so as to encourage us to all be truthful in our comments.

              I’m done.

    • At the risk of being the next verse in a Carly Simon song, I’m going to take a shot in the dark and say that was aimed primarily at me.

      I’ll take it. I’m an ass. A verbally clever ass? Always better to be a smart ass than a dumb ass. I’ll take the compliment.

      I don’t think I used to question intelligence or sincerity before. I used to generally assume that people were good, that they were smart enough, that they were honest. And to be fair, I still think that about a great swathe of humanity.

      But I feel that my faith in humanity has been… abused… more recently than previously. Defences of the indefensible, the desperate spinning of lies, deceit, corruption… It’s not ALL coming from the same direction, but it’s definitely pooling around a few key players, and maybe it’s the fishbowls I swim in and the people I talk to… But I just can’t find it in me to assume benevolence in certain groups. I’m left deciding between whether the person I’m talking to is twisted or stupid, and stupid becomes me giving the benefit of the doubt. I’m frustrated, and tired, and I have a short fuse.

      This election cycles is an affront to our collective intelligence and there are people trying to pretend it’s business as normal. “Corrupt” or “Stupid”, take your pick.

      • Humble Talent said, “I’ll take it. I’m an ass. A verbally clever ass? Always better to be a smart ass than a dumb ass. I’ll take the compliment.”

        Don’t be so hard on yourself; there are clearly more smart asses here than just you, I resemble what you wrote above too. I’d like to blame it all on the military, but that would be unfair to the military which actually just enhances it out of necessity.

  5. Yes, Trump has issues — but I doubt if members of our American Revolution were all soft-spoken, angelic individuals. At least he’s applying his character flaws to actually (irritatingly) bringing up major issues our leaders keep sweeping under the rug to paint some skewed version of a country being undermined from within.

    • Boy, if that isn’t the most insulting comparison imaginable. The Founders ghosts may be rattling chains in your bedroom soon, and you’ll deserve it. All of the founders were learned, articulate, thoughtful, logical men well-versed in government, leadership, and philosophy. Comparing them to Trump is like comparing them to a cocker spaniel. Not one of them would suffer a conversation as boorish and ignorant asTrump for 30 seconds, except on a bet.

      • Jack said, “Not one of them would suffer a conversation as boorish and ignorant as Trump for 30 seconds, except on a bet.”

        Trump would have likely been remanded to the custody of an insane asylum in the 1700’s or been one of those people considered genuinely crazy living in squalor on the streets and preaching his message of doom and gloom to passersby. The founding fathers would have distanced themselves from a wacko personality such as Trump’s.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.