Maybe news of City Councilman Tom Rawls of Mesa has gotten out of our valley and maybe it hasn't. In case you've never heard about him, Councilman Rawls is in the news these days here because he has decided refuse to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance at Council meetings in protest of the Iraq War. He figures that since he isn't going to run again, it won't cost him votes. As a result of his stand (or, rather, lack thereof) he has been subject to death threats. The Mesa Police have assigned protection to him. (He says he doesn't want it, but the police think it would look bad if a councilman was killed.) And every week he sits in the Council meeting and refuses to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
There are a variety of responses. "Good for you, Tom," some are saying. They defend his right to free speech. Others are upset. "He shouldn't be doing this on our time." A soldier in Iraq ("wes2273") wrote to say how disgusted he was at the whole thing. He pointed out that our infighting is giving the enemy encouragement. He said, "If someone sees him not stand for the pledge again, I don't care who he is, go up and slap him upside the head." And I'm sure there are many who share his sentiment.
Me? I'm trying to figure out what he's trying to say. Let's see if I get it right. He is refusing to acknowledge or show respect for the Pledge of Allegiance. That is, he is refusing to have allegiance for the flag and that for which it stands. His protest of the war in Iraq has caused him to withdraw his loyalty to his country. The message he is sending, as far as I can tell, is, "As long as the government of this country doesn't do what I want it to do, I will offer no loyalty to this country. When it does what I want it to, I will return to being loyal." Or, to put it another way, "I will only be loyal to my own belief on what the government should do." If, on the other hand, this is not his message, I cannot, for the life of me, figure out what he is trying to say.
Now, I would concur with many who say Mr. Rawls has the right of free speech. I have to wonder, however, if you want someone in your city government (any government, for that matter) who is loyal always and only to himself. Unfortunately, this is the same basic message that is being broadcast on our news to the world. You see, we have a system of government. America is a republic, governed by a Constitution. Our government is not a democracy. We elect officials to make decisions for us. If they don't do what we want, we don't elect them again. We don't surrender our citizenship and disavow loyalty to our country.
So here's the thinking. Some majority percentage of our country are against the war in Iraq. Therefore, the war in Iraq should be terminated. The majority rules. That's a democracy. That's the way it is. The government should surrender to the will of the people. But this isn't the case. We are not a democracy. We are a republic. For our government to operate by the will of the people -- by popular vote -- we would need to end the United States as it now stands and draft a new Constitution. There would be no President, no Congress, and no real need for a Supreme Court. There would simply need to be governmental organizations that wait for the people to decide and then carry it out. That is not the current government of the United States, and all the calling of "majority rules" doesn't make it so.
It's up to the city of Mesa to do what they will with a councilman whose sole allegiance is his own views, with nothing higher than that. And I'm not completely sold on this war in Iraq. What I am sure of is that I am against rewriting our Constitution to strip the Commander in Chief of his powers, handing them over to the American public instead. No government is perfect, but trying to so radically alter ours would be a disaster.
No comments:
Post a Comment