Revolutionary France and the Cockade

One way historians of Revolutionary and Republican France understand the period's social and political upheaval (or lack thereof) is through iconography embedded in art, statues and fashion. These include Ozouf on the meanings of symbols in festivals, Agulhon on seals and statues which reinforce political control and Hunt's reflection of political culture in fashion like the cockade or sans-culottes. This kind of historical analysis applies methods borrowed from art history, anthropological "thick description" and media studies to revolutionary France--a well-defined historical place described by Thiers, Alison, Tocqueville, Michelet, Carlyle, Kropotkin, Aulard and the Sorbonne school and Marxists like Lefebvre. To Hunt, the symbols which emerge during revolutionary period of class formation emphasize the "potential for political and social conflict" which, to Hunt, "became apparent as soon as the first symbols were invented." The cockade becomes a political tool as soon as republican politics are invented in France.

British Brooch Diplomacy

Jewelry has a long Anglo-American tradition of signifying the state. Queen Elizabeth II used brooches--some handed down by Victoria--to communicate without stepping into politics. She was constrained (by custom) in her use of diplomatic language but during her reign. Fashion outlets were left to speculate about meta messages displayed by her brooches. One resource, The Court Jeweller, covered this beat for the last decade of Elizabeth's reign. The "Tiarapedia" continues to explore the messages implied and embedded by royal jewelry.

One example is the the "funeral brooch" worn during President Trump's visit in 2018. Elizabeth's brooch collection is part of the broader Jewels of Elizabeth II. This is different than the Crown Jewels which are "ceremonial treasures that have been acquired by English kings and queens, mostly since 1660." This is also different than the contents of the British National Museum, "amassed" by the Royal Society. But the brooches, like the queen, jewels and museum, represent an imperial, monarchic, anachronism supported by a post-colonial, parliamentary, republic. The brooches resonate with bourgeoisie society who are left to interpret the customary and political messages they convey.

American Brooch Diplomacy

Madeline Albright was an American unelected brooch diplomat. There is an exhibit dedicated to her version of brooch diplomacy at the National Museum of American Diplomacy. The exhibit pins are what "Secretary Albright wore to communicate a message before, during, and after her years of public service." Nancy Pelosi is an elected official who regularly communicated with brooches. In 2020, Pelosi was wearing a suffragette white suit with a House of Representatives Mace lapel pin as she clapped sarcastically and tore up Trump's State of the Union Speech. Trump, Pence and Rush Limbaugh were all wearing American flag lapel pins at this event. Pelosi's action's and appearance were symbolic of legislative authority over the executive branch. The Mace which leads members into the chamber is a British symbol of legislative authority which is balanced on the House floor by the Fasces which is an older symbol of popular authority. These two house symbols hint at the liberal and fascist modes of thought which are held in tension by the House. Pelosi and the members of her caucus had identified a executive overreach in the Trump administration and believed they were a bulwark of republicanism.

On February 4, 2020, Pelosi wore the mace because she saw Trump as a Fascist. He was a charismatic leader who was starting to identify himself with the state. The American flag lapel pin should be enough evidence of this depersonalization. On February 29 at CPAC 2020 Trump concluded his address by hugging and kissing the flag. He told the flag, "I love you, baby." Whatever the legal ramifications of the January 6th coup are, Trump's takeover of the American brand has changed what a flag is and how it is treated.

Pin-Back Button

American political culture has a few different versions of cockade. The campaign button, symbolic brooches and the lapel pin. The pin-back button was patented in 1896. As a campaign button this invention had slogans like "I LIKE IKE" or "W.I.N." to promote candidates or programs. The distinction between brooches and lapel pins is based in gender and fashion. There isn't a distinction campaign buttons and lapel pins.

The 1896 pin-back patent from is for the "lapel of the coat." The drawings feature flags and letters on the lapel pins. Campaign buttons, lapel pins and (perhaps) fraternal organization declarations are illustrated uses for the campaign button technology. By at least 1896 the flag lapel pin was a part of the American wardrobe.

The flag lapel pin is like Elizabeth's brooches--it represents a nation generally. The campaign button is like the French cockade--evidence of intra-national partisanship. Campaign buttons borrow design cues from the American ritual symbols like the flag. The intent of the lapel pin, according to the patent, was to display "any suitable inscription, design, emblem or the like" and the pin was a "means for connecting" the displayed message "to the lapel of the coat."

Flag Lapel Pin

The flag lapel pin is a ritual symbol that is employed by elected politicians for identification and as a pledge of allegiance. In international settings like the United Nations this convention makes sense. When partisans display the flag lapel pin in domestic situations they aren't signaling their allegiance or nationality. In the domestic campaign context, it makes sense for politicians to wrap themselves in the flag and whisper sweet nothings. It would take an illiterate or rebellious politician to refuse the ritual mark if it was available. This is especially true during the chauvinist run up to war. From Unger's La Follette biography, "[o]n 2 April 1917, Wilson asked the special session of congress for a declaration of war. La Follette, the American flag pin sported by his pro-war colleagues conspicuously absent from his lapel, chewed gum vigorously through Wilson's address and was one of the few to remain seated at its conclusion."

Its like the joke "politicians should war sponsor jackets like NASCAR drivers" but the lapel pin--at least since World War One--is a shibboleth of the pro-war caucus and (later) the national security state. Because of this, the president's use of this symbol has diplomatic implications. Unger doesn't describe Wilson's lapel as he led America into the war. He wasn't wearing one in the official Nobel peace Prize portrait from 1919. He is wearing one in 8 March 1919 in a photo portrait titled "Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States and President of the American Red Cross."

Wilson could have been wearing the pin a domestic or international role. His presidency included a debate about American isolationism versus interventionism. He might have been representing the victorious American state, the pacifist Red Cross or the Nobel committee in his photos. The flag lapel pin existed Before America entered the Great War but it's message it conveyed was different in international, imperial, domestic, isolationist and diplomatic context. Disentangling these layered meanings help to define a lapel pin sample size: sitting presidents in official settings speaking to domestic audiences.

Wilson's 1917 Address to an extraordinary session of Congress is a good place to start. The official symbols are accompanied by written text which is hosted by UVA's Miller Center. Wilson was bringing the country to war and declaring a change in his isolationist politics. The wartime period and its aftermath produced limitation on some peoples domestic rights (like the Palmer Raids) and an expansion of others (like the Nineteenth Amendment). He became the leader of the pro-war wing of American politics with this speech. But was he wearing the pin at the Address? In four photographs, one colorized, of the scene Wilson does not appear to be wearing a Flag Lapel pin. He is wearing a suitable coat with a lapel.

The 1917 extraordinary session is too unique to be a sample size. The State of the Union address has fulfilled a constitutional requirement defined under Presidential responsibilities in Article II of the constitution. Washington and Adams gave the speeches in person to a joint session. Jefferson, who thought the address was monarchic, submitted his first address in writing in 1801. Presidents followed Jefferson's example until 1913. Wilson, in his first year, gave the first State of the Union speech in more than a century. The 1913 address is about a community of nations and prosperity. He was not wearing a lapel pin as he rebooted the genre. Wilson's speeches became more warlike until the 1917 address asking for a declaration. Many of the photos of these events are wide angle shots. Even if Wilson was wearing the flag lapel pin during these speeches--it was most successfully communicated to his immediate congressional audience.

There are presidents after Wilson that always wear a lapel pin. When sculptor Tom Corbin was recreating Truman for statuary hall he was advised by Cassie Pikarsky of the Truman Library. Some of what Pikarsky suggested "his World war pin that he always wore on his lapel...Masonic ring...on his left hand, pinky finger...different pocket square folds" and eyeglass style. The lapel pin, in Truman's case, is symbolic of his service as an artillery captain in France during the First World War. LBJ also wore a veteran lapel pin as part of his public persona, what journalist Jamie McIntyre described as a "proudly displayed...Silver Star pin on his lapel that identified him as a war hero." McIntyre has cast doubt on this heroic part of LBJ's origin story. In the National Portrait Gallery's collection of American Presidents Truman, LBJ and Zachary Taylor (in full uniform) are three who display their military credentials by their dress.

Nixon didn't wear one during the Kitchen debate with Krushchev in 1959. Neither Nixon nor JFK wore a lapel pin during the 1960 televised debates. Nixon wasn't wearing one when he was sworn in as president in 1969. Nixon's 'official' portraits by Norman Rockwell and James Anthony Wills don't include lapel pins. He doesn't wear one during the 1970, 1971 or 1972 State of the Union addresses. After the 1972 State of the Union, Nixon went to China. While meeting witht he Communists as a diplomat, Nixon starts to wear the flag lapel pin in meetings with Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai. He wears the pin in his Second Inaugural Address in 1973. He also wears the pin in the 1973 meeting with visiting Leonid Brezhnev and in 1974 a with visiting Golda Meir. In 1974 he wears it during official speeches regarding the Watergate tape release (April 29), resignation (August 8) and departure (August 9). When he is out of office, Nixon stops wearing the lapel pin. Nixon, a navy veteran, could have coordinated his dress, national chauvinism and personal narrative with a military insignia like Taylor, Truman and LBJ but he started to wear the flag lapel pin at the end of his first term as he opened China. It is interesting that this nationalist accoutrement was added during his trip overseas. It also makes sense that he clung to the patriotic symbol during the Watergate months as he resigned and was pardoned.

Ford was not wearing a Flag Lapel pin when he took office, pardoned Nixon, or addressed the UN in 1974. He didn't wear one during the 1975, 1976 or 1977 State of the Union speeches. Carter didn't wear one at the State of the Union speech in 1978, 1979 or 1980. He did not wear one in his farewell speech in 1981. Reagan did wear one as candidate during the Republican National Convention in 1980 but not as president during his inaugural address and first press conference in 1981. He doesn't wear one in the 82, 83, 84, 86, 87 or 88 State of the Union Addresses, his Second Inaugural in 1985, or his Farewell Address in 1989. Once president, in domestic roles, Reagan didn't wear a lapel pin. When he delivered bad international news from oval office, regarding Libya (1986) and Iran-Contra (1987), he didn't wear the pin. He also didn't wear a flag lapel pin when he addressed the UN in 1988. Bush didn't wear one at the 1989 inaugural or first speech to a joint session that year. He didn't wear one during the 1990, 91 or 92 State of the Union Addresses. He did not wear one during a 1991 Press Conference with Gorbachev or during the 1992 RNC when he accepted the nomination. Clinton did not wear a flag lapel pin at the first inaugural or joint session in 1993; the 1994, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, or 00SOTU; the second inaugural in 1997 or his farewell address in 2001. He didn't wear the pin during the "Gays in the Military" speech in (1993), address on Somolia (1993), signing of NAFTA (1993), or statement on Kosovo (1999). House Speaker Gingrich did lapel messaging during the joint sessions starting in 1995. This might be a Contract with America pin. Between Ford and Clinton the American Flag Lapel Pin, with all it's diplomatic and historical baggage, was not part of the way presidents presented themselves. Before Ford, the presidents who used the symbol--Wilson and Nixon--were extraordinary diplomats. It is fitting that the League of Nations-segregationist and the Open China-election spy are the two president's who pulled it off.

Who Cares?

On the most pedantic legal level, wearing the flag lapel pin is a violation of 4 U.S. Code § 8. Under the "Respect for the Flag" heading "(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery..." and "(j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform." This would seem to cover flag brooches worn by political appointees like Albright and the flag pin worn by Colin Powell. Another part of the U.S. Code "(i) The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever" is expanded on in the 1939 Hatch Act which outlaws Federal Employees from engaging "in political activity...while wearing a uniform or official insignia." The president and vice president are explicitly exempted. The flag lapel pin, house member pin and symbolic mace worn by Pelosi fall into this class without an explicit presidential exemption. Wearing the flag lapel pin while campaigning for any office is a violation for federal employees on a two tiered system according to the Hatch Act. There is a mechanism for the president to change the "custom pertaining to the display of the flag..." in U.S. Code but it must "be set forth in a proclamation." Without such a proclamation the flag cannot be worn as a lapel pin.

On a broader cultural level, having a partisan actor claim a national symbol changes the meaning of that symbol. A partisan opponent of the pin wearing president--like the gum smacking Lafollette--has an unwinnable choice. By not wearing the pin he is protesting against Wilson's war. This is easily misunderstood, in times of nationalism, to appear unpatriotic. Wearing the pin in support of Progressive and American traditions like pacifism and isolationism could be misconstrued as anti-American. Protesting against a partisan who wraps themselves in the flag appears like an attack against the nation. From the iconoclastic, anarchist and internationalist viewpoints: parties and nations are abstract mechanisms of power that should be questioned. From a nationalist perspective, individuals who idiomatically drape themselves in the flag, are personalizing a national symbol. This is territory of monarchs like apocryphal Louis XIV (L'État, c'est moi), fascists like Mussolini (nulla contro lo Stato) or presidents like Trump (I alone can fix it). Democratic rules are subverted by charismatic leadership that adopts symbols of state authority. That's why it is illegal to impersonate a police officer. These customs are similar to the British royal paraphernalia, Roman legion aquila or American House mace. America's laws and customs discourage partisan use of the flag because it--like a police badge or crown jewels--is state power in itself.

Bush II

Like Wilson, Bush II's presidential term has a antebellum and bellum period. Unlike Wilson, the War on Terror doesn't have a status quo post bellum. World War One ended with an armistice and the Treaty of Versailles. The post 9/11 War on Terror wasn't declared against any nation. There has been no official negotiated peace with Iraq or Afghanistan, just surges and withdrawals. The executions of bin Laden, by Americans without trial; Gaddafi, by drone guided proxy without trial; Hussein, by Americans with trial; escalation of the drone warfare program; or America's capitulation to the Taliban have not ended the War on Terror or its official funding mechanism: the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001).

Bush II's dress changed to signify the country's war footing. Eighty-five photos taken between January 23 and September 10, by staff and pool photographers, hosted at [whitehouse.archives.gov]--an archived version of Bush II's presidential webpage active during his term--are the pre 9/11 sample. Seventy-nine have a visible lapel without a pin. The six outliers are bomber jacket with Tony Blair (February 23), a casually dressed phone call perhaps Kennebunkport (July 6), construction work perhaps Crawford (August 8 and 14), at a rally (September 3) and obscured (August 29). The seventy-nine pre-9/11 photos without flag pins include (February 27) first year speech to the joint session. Also, a series of photos from June 12 to 16 where Bush II was photographed with various European Union leaders like Blair, Chirac and Putin are without lapel pins. To leaders, Goran Person and Romano Prodi, wore pins alongside a pinless Bush. When Powell was in these photos, he was wearing an American flag lapel pin. For this reason, Powell appears to introduce the flag lapel pin germ to the administration. Bush II wears non flag lapel pins on two occasions, July 9 and 30, representing his America's Promise Education program and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement, respectively. From the pre-9/11 collection, it is clear that the American flag lapel pin was not part of Bush II's dress.

There are fifty-two photos in the post-9/11 collection until December 22, 2001. This slightly smaller sample size represents a change in American foreign policy. Bush II's adoption of the flag lapel pin correspond to this policy shift. The photographers Ishikawa, Engberg, Sterner, Scull and Kangonly contribute to the pre-9/11 collection. The photographers Draper, Morse and Hager took the pictures for the later set. There isn't really a change in the content of these images between different photographers or periods. The shots are interestingly framed, from unique angles, feature long and some short lenses, Bush II looks good and there are tons of flags, White House and American symbols. The variety of these shots notable because the photographers were probably constrained by secret service and white house press rules.

Four photos between September 11 and 19 represent a transitional period where the flag lapel pin becomes part of Bush II's everyday dress. In those, Bush wears no suit coat while riding Air Force One on September 11; he wars no lapel pin while flanked by Powell and Cheney who are also pinless on September 12; he wears a flag lapel pin on a September 17 mosque visit; and is pinless during a phone call on September 19. The September 19 photo is reminiscent of the July 6 phone call. In this collection, starting with a September 25th photo with Koizumi, Bush wears an American flag lapel pin in every photo. These forty eight photos have two obstructions. They also feature 9/11 commemorative pin on October 11, visits with Zemin, Putin, Chirac and Blair. Some iconic 9/11 photographs that are not included in the collection include Bush II reading "The Pet Goat" to Booker Elementary students before Andy Card tells him about the first plane. Bush is not wearing anything on his lapel and he is wearing a gray suit with a red tie. In the Oval Office address later that evening he is wearing a blue suit, purple tie and no lapel pin. On September 20, as he addresses the joint session of congress about the attacks, he is wearing the Lapel Pin. In this speech, which declares war against terror and extremism, Bush upends the Goldwater style conservatism: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice" to a neoconservative crusade: "Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them." American foreign policy was framed by theocratic ultimatums and the nature of the conflict as adopted a biblical time scale. Bush II conflated theocratic language and national symbols while he was an elected representative. Because of Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden--the war on terrorism is a concept based in the Crusades, imperialism, resource wars and a flouting of the international rules based order. One symbol of this overreach is the flag lapel pin. A stylistic change could signal a change in policy.

Since Adams patent (1896) and Wilson's first SOTU address (1913), the annual joint session and inaugural address provide regular photographic evidence of if and how presidents wore their lapels during the American century. In Bush II's eight addresses before the joint session, he wears no lapel pin only during 2001. From 2002 to 08 he and Cheney wear pins. He does not wear a lapel pin during the 2001 inaugural but he does at the address in 2005. This more general methodology (that was applied to presidents since Wilson) marks a shift around 9/11 where Bush II started wearing the flag lapel pin. This is backed up by the more specific set of photos from 2001.

At every other such event following the Bush II administration--Obama (inaugural 09, joint session 09, SOTU 10, 11, 12, inaugural 13, SOTU 13, 14, 15, 16) Trump (joint session 17, SOTU 18, 19, 20) and Biden (inaugural 21, joint session 21, and SOTU 22)--the American president has worn an American flag as a lapel pin. The only outlier in this set is Trump's 2017 "American Carnage" inaugural. It is notable that the "America First" speech is the only one that doesn't have a president who decorates them self with American flag. Trumps style of branding (or brand of styling) is a confusing addition to the American political symbols.

During his first term, Bush II is surrounded by federal employees like Sec. of State Colin Powell who wear the American Flag lapel pin in their public roles. Powell's early career as a Army investigator included covering up the My Lai massacre. He was wearing a uniform at this point. When he gave the Nigerian yellowcake uranium speech to the U.N. in 2003 he was a federal employee acting as a partisan who was wearing a flag lapel pin. He might be wearing the pin like Taylor, Truman or LBJ as a military signifier. But, federal employees who adopt national symbols for political purposes are explicitly outlawed by federal code and the Hatch Act. Powell, like Rumsfield or John Kerry, is notable as a partisans who use their party ties to transcend regimes. Powell used his national security credentials, like Brzezinski and Kissinger, to maintain favor with the opposing political party. Eisenhower's 1961 warning of the military industrial complex probably included Powell and the like.

FDR

FDR is a notable outlier in terms of American symbols and rituals. One reason for his manicured public appearance has to do with the aftermath of his polio disease. He mastered the Fireside Chats on the radio. He didn't wear any lapel pins at his 1933 "fear itself", 37, 41 or 45 inaugurals. He didn't wear one during the 1938, "adequately strong" or the 1941, Four Freedoms SOTU speeches. There is a photo of him wearing a carnation during an August 1933 Fireside Chat. The famous set of Yalta images features Churchill without a lapel pin, FDR in a cape and Stalin in military uniform surrounded by military officers. The cape obscures FDR's lapel. A photo from a Livadia Palace meeting of Stalin and FDR during the conference reveals FDR's pinless lapel. Unlike Wilson and Bush II, FDR didn't change the way he bejeweled himself before and during the war. This is the most common way for the sitting president to present himself. In FDR's case there might have been a functional role to the lapel button hole which he used for flowers and also a watch chain.

There is no Armistice or Treaty which can end the conflict against terror. Previous wars against Empire, National Socialism and Communism were waged between nation states as ideological proxies. The war was defined by German or Russian state success. The American Civil War was fought between two declared territories headed by constitutional regimes. The war ended when the Confederate States returned to the United States' constitution. Mexicans, Tejanos and Native Americans have become Americans through territorial acquisition defined by treaties negotiated between nations. The Louisiana Purchase was also a nation to nation interaction between France and America. The American revolution began when the colonies seceded from the British Empire and declared a separate constitutional government. Before the United States, imperial nations like the UK, France, Spain and Portugal traded with tribes and confederacies. From at least this point, the nation-state concept that links a people to a place for political, economic and cultural reasons is the unit of diplomacy. 'Other' concepts like barbarism, slavery, communism and fascism are embodied by entities that can be negotiated with, sign treaties, trade and war against. Even during invented domestic conflicts like FDR's war on the Great Depression or Nixon's war on drugs the enemy could be vanquished with tools at hand--monetary policy and liberalizing drug laws or treating addicts. The war on terror is an international war to maintain oil and a domestic war against extremism. The conflation of international bad guys bin Laden, Hussein and Gaddafi with domestic bad guys Alex Jones, Ted Nugent and the QAnon Shaman was made possible in the patriotic chauvinism that has defined the post-9/11 era.

Lessons learned?

Adopting flag jewelry is a symbol of that era that is explicitly outlawed by U.S. code. It is also a dangerous custom for partisans to adopt national symbols as their own. This second point is where disgraced Nixon comes back to redeem himself as a teacher. During the tumultuous Watergate and resignation periods, Nixon wore the flag lapel pin. The novelty of five living presidents--Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush--spawned a series of oval office photographs during the Bush administration. Nixon est sans épingle. In fact, the five men wear no decorations on their suits except for outside of Bush and Reagan's tie tacks. Nixon gave up the flag lapel pin that he wore during the highs (China) and lows (Watergate) of his presidency and maintained traditional decorum when he was invited back into the pantheon.

George W. Bush started wearing the American Flag lapel pin in the week following 9/11. Almost every official photo during his presidency including the State of the Union addresses can be dated before or after 9/11 by the lapel pin. The pin is evidence of a national shift from compassionate conservatism to forever war. Every president since Bush II (Obama, Trump, Biden) wears the pin in the same way. This relatively new, seemingly permanent, addition to the presidential dress can be eliminated. The precedent is Nixon, who stopped wearing it at the end of his dalliance with authoritarianism.

The adage every war ends with a negotiated peace is the product of this mode of nationalist warfare. This is how America's social curriculum teaches its citizens to frame the world. This has historical roots which are confused during undeclared wars without national boundaries, like the War on Terror. There is no national ideological proxy to declare war upon or sign treaties with. The Cold War against state communism ended with the fall of the Soviet Union. The second World War against Fascism and National Socialism ended with the fall of the Nazis. The Treaty Of Versailles, surrender at Appomattox Courthouse and Treaty of Paris also signified the conclusion of hostilities between nations in American history. The post-9/11 invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were not really related to the World Trade Center attacks. That is why American withdrawals from these conflicts didn't end the broader war.

In WWII and the Cold War, the goal of the belligerents was to define the socio-economic and political conditions in contested states and territories. The status quo antebellum returned to the laissez-faire (neoliberal) nationalist rules based order of the League of Nations and UN. This American version of this rules based global order has roots in the Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine but it intensified during the Spanish and Philippine wars starting around 1898. The American (free-market) order built upon the British imperial (mercantilist) order and European nationalist orders from Napoleon and the ancien régime back to the Holy Roman Empire and treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The Europeans borrowed concepts like citizen and nation from the Greeks and Romans and turned global imperialism into an export starting in 1492. The concepts are closely linked to slavery, genocide, eugenics and religious conflict. Mercantalists, monarchists and liberals will claim that the conflict inherent in nationalism is the source of innovation, exploration and (ultimately) national wealth.

The conflict between internationalists and nationalists is most visible during periods of global conflict. This is the force that got the Soviets to unilaterally withdraw from WWI. This is also the force that manifested international brigades to fight against Franco's Spain. In America, civil liberties are suspended during the run up to war. The Constitution is resilient enough to moderate these emotional responses after the conflict has passed. After the overreach, hopefully safeguards are put in place to prevent another. In the War on Terror period, because the country is always at war, the overreaches are never remedied. Black site torture, domestic spying, Julian Assange, drone warfare program, NATO expansion and Guantanamo Bay detention are ongoing parts of American realpolitik that violate the status quo rules based order. When previous administrations are caught violating the rules based order (from Teapot Dome to Iran Contra) they apologize, continue and try not to get caught. In the Orwellian post-9/11 world there is no change in action, just a change in rationale. One example of this is the Flag Lapel Pin, in violation of U.S. code, being worn as a political symbol by federal employees.

The War on Terror is being fought against a psychological state. The pretense of economic liberalism has been replaced by tranquility (the antithesis of terror). The liberal goal of political economy is the stability of markets and promotion of trade. Hopefully, the artificial national conflict which it produces is overshadowed by the stability of a rules-based order and the social contract gradually expands in size and scope. Wars to end wars or spread democracy make sense from the standpoint of national chauvinism. America's constitution ensures domestic tranquility--the Wilson Era war on heterodox thinker Debs, an American who was sent to prison, is covered under that rubric. Wilson's arrest and deportation of Goldman, a Lithuanian who was sent to the U.S.S.R., might not be. FDR's Executive Order 9066, imprisoning Americans based on their national heritage, further links nationality and rights. The post-9/11 regime of stateless prisoners being held in black-site (stateless) prisons like Guantanamo is an absolute overreach. These three examples of executive overreach by Wilson, FDR and Bush II are only possible in a world where domestic tranquility supersedes individual liberty.

But, like Nixon's pin, things returned to normal. Debs sentence was commuted, the Japanese internment camps are closed and the McCarthyite nationalist tactics of the Cold War are no longer en vogue. The war on terror is a different period where there isn't a chance to reach equilibrium again. The concepts of tranquility and individualism which have been in constitutional balance for two hundred years are being reframed and we are all becoming Tom Parsons, surrounded by state-agent children who report heterodox thought to the appropriate ministry.