Yesterday in another thread I posted a brief mention of John Campbell's record, referring to him as “anti-flag-burning resolution conservative”.
Well, people are definitely reading. I had a long conversation with John at lunch time, and I think it's fair to fill in the gaps of my comment with a more complete version of what happened with the flag resolution.
This is from my conversation with John, although it squares with my recollection of the controversy. It was the 2002 legislative session and John Campbell was a new senator from Windsor County. The R's, led by Julius Canns, had been pushing an anti-flag-burning resolution as part of a nationwide campaign by right-wingers across the country.
In an effort to deflect this push and to take the flag issue off the table as a campaign issue, Campbell and other senators sponsored J.R.S. 9, to protect the American flag. Campbell was the lead sponsor, although he was not the only sponsor. It included the following language:
That the General Assembly expresses its respect, love and admiration for our United States Flag, and be it further
RESOLVED: That the General Assembly expresses its condemnation of all acts of flag desecration, and similar displays of disrespect for the United States Flag, and be it further
RESOLVED: That the General Assembly respectfully urges the Congress of the United States to take whatever legislative action it deems necessary and appropriate to honor and safeguard the United States Flag, and be it further
Eventually the resolution passed after conference committee, although in slightly different form. The resolution was amended by its supporters to express more devotion to true American values than the original resolution:
Whereas, these principles include the protection of individual freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, including free speech, free press, peaceable assembly, and petitions for the redress of grievances, now therefore be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives:
That the General Assembly expresses its respect and admiration for our United States Flag, and be it further
Resolved: That the General Assembly expresses its condemnation of all acts of flag desecration, and similar displays of disrespect for the United States Flag, and be it further
Resolved: That the General Assembly urges the Congress of the United States to ensure that proper respect and treatment will always be afforded to the United States Flag, and that the Congress explore all avenues available, which may include a constitutional amendment, a statutory change and a public education program, to protect the United States Flag from physical desecration,
In one way I think this new language is worse than the original, since it specifically supports any action the Congress deems necessary to protect the flag, up to and including amending the Constitution. On the other hand, the new resolution does express Vermont's support for the freedoms enunciated in the First Amendment,
including free speech, free press, peaceable assembly, and petitions for the redress of grievances,
(How you support free speech by suppressing it is beyond me, but I wasn't the one writing the resolution.)
I still disagree with this. As a matter of principle, I don't think we can go around suppressing speech, even if it's symbolic speech like flag-burning. As a matter of strategy, I also think it makes us weaker, rather than stronger, to play into the Republicans' hands with moves like this.
On the other hand, the strategem worked. We haven't heard a peep from the anti-flag-burners in the State House since 2002, which is a good thing.
Also, by the time the resolution was adopted it had gained all the Democratic Senators as sponsors, including such liberal heroes as Jean Ankeney, Cheryl Rivers, and Janet Munt. Although Campbell was the lead sponsor, I don't think most of us would refer to the whole Democratic caucus as “anti-flag-burning resolution conservative”.
I'm not sure if John Campbell is going to run for governor, and I don't think he knows yet. It's a big challenge with no guarantee of success. On the other hand, whoever winds up being the candidate, it will be someone who stood up, took a chance, and put a lot of work into it, and we'll owe that person our support this year at least for doing it.
One more thing. This diary isn't really a bio, but you can search for legislation Campbell has sponsored by following this link and fillling his name in.