In politics, symbols and symbolic behavior play a vital role. Often, symbols and symbolic comportment are even more important than actual substance. History provides us with a multitude of examples.
There is perhaps no more striking or pertinent example than what happened in France in 1875. After the election of a royalist president and National Assembly, the assembly voted to convert the nation from an interim republic to a monarchy and offered the throne to the grandson of France’s last Bourbon king. The Comte de Chambord was invited to return to the vacant throne of France as Henry V.
He readily accepted. As a condition of his acceptance, however, he insisted that France reject the revolutionary tricolor flag that had been France’s banner and a powerful symbol of France since the French Revolution and Napoleonic era in the late 18th and early 19th centuries and readopt the Bourbon dynasty flag of fleurs-de-lis on a white background. While the royalist assembly was prepared to restore the monarchy and have a Bourbon become king, it seemed unable to accept eliminating the tricolor banner.
The assembly voted to reject Chambord’s condition. Chambord, clearly neither the most brilliant man nor the most astute politician, stubbornly insisted on his condition. He had to have his Bourbon flag, or he would not ascend the throne.
The reason for his insistence has remained unclear; perhaps he was playing to his royalist base, or possibly he did not understand the true feelings of the French people. Faced with Chambord’s foolish condition, regardless of the reason, the National Assembly withdrew its offer of the throne, and France became a republic, which it has remained to this day, with only a short and tragic interlude during World War II. This is a particularly dramatic example of a symbol altering the course of history, but there are so many others.
British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s effete outfit and accompanying umbrella as he appeased Hitler remain a symbol of national weakness. The raising of the flag on Mount Suribachi at the Battle of Iwo Jima is a symbol of national bravery. President George W.
Bush standing atop the ruins of the World Trade Center in September 2001 symbolizes our national resilience. Such symbols abound, sometimes by their presence and sometimes by their absence. And we have just been confronted with a prominent example of the role of symbolic behavior by omission by one of our national leaders.
Amid an existential struggle with barbaric enemies, the leader of the only democracy in the Middle East was invited to come to Washington to address a joint session of Congress. It is, of course, traditional for the vice president of the United States to sit directly behind the honored guest (and next to the speaker of the House of Representatives) during such a special address. The tradition had been virtually unbroken for generations.
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu went before the joint session, however, the seat behind him was occupied not by the vice president but rather by Sen. Ben Cardin, Maryland Democrat. Where was the vice president? Why was she not sitting behind the Israeli prime minister as he pleaded the case of his beleaguered nation before members of Congress? Kamala Harris was in Indianapolis.
She was partying with her sorority sisters, who had gathered for their annual convention. The symbolism of choosing to attend a sorority convention over fulfilling a traditional obligation and welcoming the leader of one of our most important and long-suffering allies could not be missed. Ms.
Harris seemingly chose to stand on principle and to demonstrate that principle in a powerfully symbolic way. But what exactly was that principle? Ms. Harris did not articulate it.
It can be deduced, however. It was most likely a play to placate her progressive base, which has been serving up a heavy dose of anti-Israel propaganda, antisemitism and anti-Americanism. Those supporters cannot fathom a strong Israel defending itself against barbaric behavior by Hamas and its followers.
The vice president, now the likely candidate of the Democratic Party for president, apparently felt that she could not alienate those reprehensible supporters. She has seemingly not grasped the significance of snubbing the prime minister of Israel and the perception that this generated throughout the Middle East as well as in our own country. Whatever the reason, the symbolism of Ms.
Harris’ absence from the well of the House of Representatives stands out as a memorable and deeply regrettable act. She has demonstrated a stubborn, unstatesmanlike willingness to subjugate her official responsibilities to a perceived electoral benefit. She has placed her own welfare over the welfare of our nation and of an important ally.
Just as the Comte de Chambord’s foolish insistence on his family’s flag undermined his opportunity to lead his nation and disqualified him from mounting the French throne, Kamala Harris’ foolish absence from the joint session of Congress may now, in my view, disqualify her from leading our nation. Her actions have also demonstrated the shallowness of her thinking. They have highlighted the weakness of her understanding of international imperatives and demonstrated that she lacks an awareness of the importance of symbols and symbolic behavior as critical components of leadership.
Hopefully, a majority of the American people will fully appreciate the symbolism of the moment and respond accordingly. Copyright © 2024 The Washington Times, LLC. .
Click to Read More and View Comments Click to Hide.
