Martin Luther King Jr. called the Declaration of Independence’s universalist promise of equal rights a “promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.” Two-plus centuries later, that promise has yet to materialize.
Personally, I think it's a bad idea to use the American flag as a symbol of democracy. One of the advantages of demanding a democratic constitution is that the demand implies that the US itself negates the legitimacy it claims while also positing a positive vision for what the US territories would need to free themselves from the Constitution and thus the claim to legitimacy implicit in the Constitution (slavery, property rights, genocide). You negate both advantages by implying that the foundations of the Empire are legitimate and yet need to be made legitimate. The revolutionary significance of a democratic constitution is nullified and instead we act more like the hollow progressivism of the democratic party.
Thanks for the comment, Esther. I see things in a few different ways.
The demand for a democratic constitution, like you said, does cut against the official narrative of USA-ness. It says the claim of being a democracy, and/or that this is what democracy looks like, is wrong. We don't have a democracy, and we'd need to change the Constitution to get what we want.
I don't know what language and symbols a movement for a democratic political system in the US will use. It might be that a future movement rejects the flag as irredeemably tainted with the official USA-ness and the worst aspects of US history. In that case, the movement against changing the Constitution would likely have hegemony over the flag. I think that's the attitude of most of the left these days: the political right can have the flag.
The most important thing is that this future movement has a clear line on the Constitution. If the struggle for a new founding document is waged using the flag while demanding universal and equal rights for all, then I don't see a problem with using the flag. It would be a contradiction to support any of the worst aspects of American history or the contemporary right/MAGA movement while supporting a democratic constitution defined by unicameral legislative supremacy and universal and equal rights. That ideological clarity — a foundation in democracy — protects us from the worst aspects of American history and allows us to connect with the best aspects.
For a similar reason, I think this is different from the hollow progressivism of the Democratic Party. No Democrat is talking about the need for a democratic constitution. I also think there's a conflict between supporting capitalism as it exists in the US and supporting a democratic constitution defined by unicameral legislative supremacy and universal and equal rights (of course, how far that critique of property has to go — if one has to be a socialist to support a democratic constitution, for example — is a whole discussion in itself).
All that to say: the flag's role in a future movement for democracy is still up in the air for me. It might be that the response to using the flag is overwhelmingly negative. In that case, I wouldn't die on the hill of using the flag. The demand for a democratic constitution is far more important. But because the flag is an almost universal symbol of US political life, using it, along with the demand for a democratic constitution, could expand our reach. And because the demand for universal and equal rights is present, I think small-d democrats would be attracted to the cause.
Personally, I think it's a bad idea to use the American flag as a symbol of democracy. One of the advantages of demanding a democratic constitution is that the demand implies that the US itself negates the legitimacy it claims while also positing a positive vision for what the US territories would need to free themselves from the Constitution and thus the claim to legitimacy implicit in the Constitution (slavery, property rights, genocide). You negate both advantages by implying that the foundations of the Empire are legitimate and yet need to be made legitimate. The revolutionary significance of a democratic constitution is nullified and instead we act more like the hollow progressivism of the democratic party.
Thanks for the comment, Esther. I see things in a few different ways.
The demand for a democratic constitution, like you said, does cut against the official narrative of USA-ness. It says the claim of being a democracy, and/or that this is what democracy looks like, is wrong. We don't have a democracy, and we'd need to change the Constitution to get what we want.
I don't know what language and symbols a movement for a democratic political system in the US will use. It might be that a future movement rejects the flag as irredeemably tainted with the official USA-ness and the worst aspects of US history. In that case, the movement against changing the Constitution would likely have hegemony over the flag. I think that's the attitude of most of the left these days: the political right can have the flag.
The most important thing is that this future movement has a clear line on the Constitution. If the struggle for a new founding document is waged using the flag while demanding universal and equal rights for all, then I don't see a problem with using the flag. It would be a contradiction to support any of the worst aspects of American history or the contemporary right/MAGA movement while supporting a democratic constitution defined by unicameral legislative supremacy and universal and equal rights. That ideological clarity — a foundation in democracy — protects us from the worst aspects of American history and allows us to connect with the best aspects.
For a similar reason, I think this is different from the hollow progressivism of the Democratic Party. No Democrat is talking about the need for a democratic constitution. I also think there's a conflict between supporting capitalism as it exists in the US and supporting a democratic constitution defined by unicameral legislative supremacy and universal and equal rights (of course, how far that critique of property has to go — if one has to be a socialist to support a democratic constitution, for example — is a whole discussion in itself).
All that to say: the flag's role in a future movement for democracy is still up in the air for me. It might be that the response to using the flag is overwhelmingly negative. In that case, I wouldn't die on the hill of using the flag. The demand for a democratic constitution is far more important. But because the flag is an almost universal symbol of US political life, using it, along with the demand for a democratic constitution, could expand our reach. And because the demand for universal and equal rights is present, I think small-d democrats would be attracted to the cause.