Coerced patriotism is the autocrat’s first line of defence

John M. Crisp, Tribune News Service

It’s a paradox, but in general the world’s most authoritarian regimes are also the most psychologically insecure. This is why autocrats are obsessed with their personal safety, which they anxiously protect with formidable bodyguards.

This is also why authoritarians crave large armies and are fond of military parades featuring well-armed soldiers and trailered missiles. Think Kim Jong Un and Russia’s intimidating May Day parades. Both countries have authoritarian regimes that look powerful on the outside but are built on shaky foundations.

Authoritarians are obsessed with dissent. Allegiance to the regime is paramount, and dictators are preoccupied with discovering any hint of disloyalty. Their insecurities lead them to establish secret police and extensive spy networks. Think former East Germany and the Shah of Iran or any other dictator in history.

Finally, authoritarians are passionate about homage to the state and its symbols. Disrespect for the flag and the national anthem is, in the minds of insecure dictators, an early sign of dissatisfaction with the regime that must be quashed immediately.

Thus last week the Hong Kong legislature, under increasing pressure from the Communist Party of China, criminalized disrespect for the Chinese national anthem. The legislation mirrors measures imposed in China in 2017 making disrespect for the national anthem punishable by 15 days in police detention.

The law bans using the anthem for background music, in advertisements or for “inappropriate occasions.”

Many non-dictatorships penalise disrespect for their national symbols, as well. In France a flag-burner can be fined 7,500 euros and sentenced to six months in prison. In Germany an offender can be sentenced to five years in prison, in Italy, two years and in Israel, three.

I’m grateful that America is one of the few nations that does not criminalise disrespect for our national symbols or try to enforce respect for them by law. Of course, in reality many people have suffered for not showing due reverence for the flag or national anthem. Just ask Colin Kaepernick.

But at least the US in theory takes a broad view of the rights of its citizens to express dissatisfaction with their government by burning its flag, a right inherent in the Constitution and confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1989 in Texas v. Johnson. The court ruled that states may not restrain citizens’ rights to self-expression, even if it includes disrespect for our national symbols. Symbolic speech is protected by the First Amendment, no matter how offensive or unseemly. Now that’s true exceptionalism.

But this could change. Turmoil and hard times tend to stoke authoritarianism, and President Donald Trump’s natural authoritarian tendencies are being stimulated.

Recently Trump delivered a long rant about flag-burning, calling it a “disgrace.” He also appears to admit publicly to illegal violations of citizens’ rights to self-expression granted by the First Amendment. Of some apparent attempts to burn the flag during the recent protests, he says, “...we stopped them.”

The subtleties of the arguments made before the Supreme Court in 1989 are way beyond Trump’s capacity to appreciate, but ordinary Americans should make the effort. The upshot is that the right to speech —including symbolic speech — is meaningless if we start allowing it based on whether we agree or whether we find it offensive.

Authoritarians hate this sort of thinking. Their insecurities are churned up by the threat of citizens speaking freely. The acceptable forms of coerced patriotism are much more conducive to the success of their regimes.

But the fact is, we have much more to fear from Trump’s authoritarian tendencies than we do from a few citizens who kneel during the national anthem or who burn what is essentially a piece of cloth, no matter how symbolic.