The phrase "litmus test" is in bad odor for good reason: politicians should be judged on a variety of positions, not just one. But deep down, nearly every voter has at least one litmus test— an issue so personally important that a politician who fails the test is forever tainted, or at least excluded from consideration for the presidency.
I inherited my one litmus test from my father, Jim Alter, who flew 33 harrowing missions over Nazi Germany during World War 11. My father is not just a veteran who by all odds should not have survived. He is a true patriot. His litmus test is the proposal to amend the Constitution to ban flag burning, which will come up for a vote next week in the U. S. Senate. For dad—and me—any member of Congress who supports amending the Bill of Rights for the first time in the history of this country for a nonproblem like flag burning is showing serious disrespect for our Constitution and for the values for which brave Americans gave their lives. Such disrespect is a much more serious threat than the random idiots who once every decade or so try (often unsuccessfully) to burn a flag.
Our understandable outrage at flag burning shouldn't turn our brains to mush. "I feel the same sense of outrage, but I would not amend that great shield of democracy (the Constitution) to hammer a few miscreants," Colin Powell said when the issue last came up (his position has not changed). "The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away." Powell argues that a constitutional ban on flag burning is a sign of weakness and fear.
John Glenn, another of the thousands of combat veterans against the amendment (they have banded together in a group called Veterans Defending the Bill of Rights), notes that "those 10 amendments we call the Bill of Rights have never been changed or altered by one iota, not by one word, not a single time in all of American history. There was not a single change during any of our foreign wars, and not during recessions or depressions or panics. Not a single change when we were going through times of great emotion and anger like the Vietnam era, when flag after flag was burned or desecrated. There is only one way to weaken our nation. The way to weaken our nation would be to erode the freedom that we all share."
Actually, even during the Vietnam War, flag burning was rare. By one count, there have been only 45 such incidents in 200 years, and fewer than half a dozen since it was outlawed in 1989. Should the Constitution be amended, however, the incidence of flag burning is expected to surge as a form. of civil disobedience. What began as a phony issue designed to prove patriotism (usually on the part of those who never served, the primary sponsors) could become a real concern.
The flag-burning amendment, which already passed the House, is apparently just short of the 67 needed in the Senate. With one or two absences, the amendment would be approved. It would then go to the states for ratification, where its chances for approval appear good.
Senators afraid of being seen as soft on flag burners should just adopt the Hillary Clinton dodge: support for a statute, but not an amendment. Another law is a dopey idea (an earlier one was struck down by the Supreme Court), but it's politically safe and better than perverting the Constitution.
To make matters worse, the amendment is vaguely worded, which led to fatuous debate in the Senate over whether a woman wearing a skimpy bathing suit patterned with stars and stripes was guilty of desecration. Bloggers wondered the same thing about President Bush's new habit of autographing flags when he shakes hands on rope lines. Unconstitutional？ With a war on and a hundred other pressing problems, it's nice to see our elected representatives focused on what really counts.
The usual litmus tests-abortion, gun control, Iraq-shouldn't be. Reasonable and sincere people can disagree, w
A．The effectiveness of litmus test is greatly undermined by its failure to judge politicians on a variety of positions.
B．It's unfair to exclude a politician who fails a certain litmus test from the presidency.
C．Current litmus tests like abortion or gun control are not reliable indicators of public opinions.
D．Some specific litmus tests on certain issues axe fundamental in shaping people' s judgment of politicians.
