Analysis : U.S. Love of Symbolism Makes Flag Pledge Charges Effective : Critics Call Bush Out of Line on Patriotism Issue

WASHINGTON — In his Farewell Address in 1796, President George Washington warned Americans “to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.” But his words have never dulled the ardor of American politicians.

For almost 200 years, presidential candidates have been waving the American flag in dizzyingly different ways, steadfastly ignoring Washington’s advice and regularly infusing their campaigns with patriotic themes.

In 1988, the issue has arisen again, with Vice President George Bush attacking Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis as a Democrat who “isn’t willing to let the teachers lead the kids in the Pledge of Allegiance.”

Bush’s blast at Dukakis on patriotism has infuriated some scholars and law professors and provoked cries--stoutly denied by Republicans--of McCarthyism. Bush’s defenders, on the other hand, insist that the issue is a relevant one that exposes the “liberalism” of Dukakis.

But critics maintain that Bush, much like Richard M. Nixon in both 1952 and 1972, has gone beyond the accepted bounds for invoking patriotism in presidential politics. Such assertions are rejected by Bush’s defenders. But, whether condemning Bush or defending him, almost all analysts agree that the issue has worked and has hurt Dukakis.

The success of the issue and the dispute over it raise questions as to why symbols like the flag and campaign speeches about patriotism figure so largely in American elections. Shows of patriotism rarely crop up in democratic elections elsewhere in the industrialized world. Most other democracies do not even go in for such patriotic ritual.

“Pledges of allegiance and oaths of allegiance,” said David Kertzer, a professor of anthropology at Bowdoin College, “are marks of totalitarian states, not Western democracies. I cannot think of a single democracy except the United States that has a pledge of allegiance.”

The British, for example, toast the queen on ceremonial occasions and sing their national anthem, “God Save the Queen,” at soccer and rugby, but not cricket, matches. However, they have no national day, no pledge of allegiance and no display of patriotism in their election meetings.

Anthem Disrupted Movies

There was a time when the singing of the anthem would follow the last show at a British movie theater. But the practice was dropped two decades ago: Too much disruption was caused in the last moments of a film by movie fans rushing out to avoid singing the anthem.

The French, who have no pledge of allegiance, sing their stirring national anthem, “La Marseillaise,” at election rallies and end most political speeches with “Long live the Republic! Long live France!” French politicians are proud of their nationalism, but no major candidate in the French presidential election campaign earlier this year questioned the patriotism of any other candidate. It would have struck voters as so unseemly, so un-French.

During the 1930s and 1940s, of course, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy bristled with elaborate displays of patriotism and fancy oaths of allegiance. But the democratic governments that succeeded the defeated totalitarian German and Italian regimes have tried to sever ties to the past by suppressing or muting patriotic ritual. Until recently, in fact, the German national anthem was hardly sung in Germany.

Search for Identity

Scholars believe that the American fervor for patriotic ritual grows out of the insecurity of a country of immigrants trying to forge and foster a sense of nationalism. “It’s never been quite clear what an American is, compared with a peasant whose family has spent centuries on the same land in Europe,” said historian William Leuchtenburg of the University of North Carolina. “There is much less security of identity here.”

This insecurity prompts Americans to latch on to patriotic symbols like the Pledge of Allegiance, which was written for a youth magazine during an era of nationalism at the end of the 19th Century. “There are a limited number of symbols that identify our nation,” said Kertzer, who has just published a book on ritual and politics, “and they are emotionally powerful.”

Bush embraced one in a dramatic way when he closed his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in August by leading the delegates the Pledge of Allegiance. This both identified Bush with a powerful national symbol and scorned Dukakis for vetoing in 1977 as unconstitutional a Massachusetts bill that would have required teachers to lead their pupils in the pledge.

Dukakis, protesting that his veto simply followed the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, has insisted, “The American people aren’t interested in a debate over which one of us loves his country the most. We all love our country; there should be no debate over that.”

Reality of Symbols Cited

But both Republicans and academics believe he may be ignoring the reality of symbols. Republican pollster Lance Tarrance of Houston, citing Bush’s recital of the pledge at the convention, said, “For the first time in the campaign, the battle was engaged. The campaign was brought together. It was like the ‘Remember the Alamo’ cry. . . . (Dukakis) can talk all he wants about Supreme Court decisions. But I don’t think that plays well in Mudville.”

Although using more scholarly language, Bowdoin’s Kertzer followed much the same line of thought.

The anthropologist, in analyzing why Bush had seized on the issue of the Pledge of Allegiance, said it was because Bush could not “tie himself personally into the myth of American life.” He could not boast that he had come up from the ranks of penniless immigrants like the Dukakis family or even that he had deep roots in any part of the country. “Even (Republican vice presidential candidate Dan) Quayle has a home to come back to,” Kertzer said. “But Bush really does not.”

Bush was born in Massachusetts, grew up in Connecticut, made a business and political career in Texas, counts Texas as his home state and keeps a family vacation home in Maine.

Move ‘Crude’ but ‘Smart’

“The best way for him,” Kertzer went on, “was to tap into the larger myth of American life through the Pledge of Allegiance. To intellectuals, it seems incredibly crude and stupid. But it was smart.”

Although all sides agree that the Pledge of Allegiance is a symbol, conservatives feel that no one should lose sight of the importance of that symbol and what it represents.

“Surveys show that Americans are much prouder of their country than other nations are,” Ben Wattenberg of the American Enterprise Institute said. “Scholars call this ‘American exceptionalism.’ ”

Wattenberg explained that this is the idea, so often articulated by President Reagan, that the United States has a special place or mission in the world. The idea, Wattenberg went on, is well founded. “The American experience has changed the world,” he said.

But there is historical symbolism at issue as well. No one has ever raised an eyebrow over presidential candidates’ boasting of their patriotism. Supporters of the imperialist President Theodore Roosevelt, for example, passed out watch fobs in 1904 that jangled with jingoism. “Trade follows the Flag,” the watch fobs proclaimed.

Patriotism Seldom Questioned

But only rarely has one patriotism-professing candidate seemed to questioned the patriotism of another candidate. The most notable presidential example occurred in 1952, during the era of Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy, when Republicans supporting Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard M. Nixon tried to associate President Harry S. Truman and Democratic presidential candidate Adlai E. Stevenson with supposed communists in the federal government who “are still betraying America.”

Some critics contend that Bush and the Republicans are stooping to McCarthyism again. They not only cite the attacks on Dukakis over the Pledge of Allegiance but also Bush’s description of Dukakis as “a card-carrying member” of the American Civil Liberties Union; an unproven and heatedly denied accusation by Sen. Steve Symms of Idaho that Dukakis’ wife, Kitty, had been photographed burning the American flag during a 1960s anti-Vietnam War demonstration; and a speech by Quayle in Orange County, Calif., attempting to link Dukakis to some anti-American remarks of a nuclear freeze activist even though she had made the remarks long after Dukakis appeared on a platform with her six years ago.

Issue Called Irrelevant

But it is the conflict over the Pledge of Allegiance that most troubles the critics. “I don’t recall anything like this before,” said Leuchtenburg, a biographer of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and a historian of the Roosevelt era. “I don’t think there has been an issue like this--an issue so irrelevant to the powers of the presidency. When patriotism has come up before, it has been related to the powers of the presidency.”

“It has generally been considered out of bounds in presidential politics,” said Walter Dellinger, professor of law at Duke University, “to label one’s opponents unpatriotic or un-American. If the vice president gets away with this cheap trick, we are going to see patriotic issues like this become a staple of American politics.”

But defenders of Bush insist that patriotism is only the least important side of the issue. By invoking the Pledge of Allegiance, they say, Bush has associated Dukakis with a range of liberal Democratic positions on many other issues such as school prayer, abortion and the death penalty.

‘Constellation of Images’

The Pledge of Allegiance issue worked, said Wattenberg of the American Enterprise Institute, only because it reminded voters of “a whole constellation of images” about positions of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party that run “contrary to most people’s views.”

“Honestly,” Republican pollster Tarrance said, “I think this is much different from McCarthyism. McCarthy was trying to run people out of the country for being un-American. We’re not saying Dukakis is un-American. The issue simply traps Dukakis into the liberal reform politics of the ‘60s and ‘70s. It unmasks him for the first time.”

Staff writer Tyler Marshall contributed to this story from London.