Two distinct visions of U.S. patriotism clash on 50-yard line
WASHINGTON A truck flying a giant American flag swooshed by a parking lot where a pro-Donald Trump rally was being held in the dying days of the last presidential election. A local Republican boss noticed the flag and made a political forecast.
That driver will be voting Republican, predicted Bob Sutton, the party chair in Florida’s Broward County, who asked rhetorically: “When you see a U.S. flag, who do you associate it with?”
He was bang-on. The driver made a U-turn, came back the other way and drove his fluttering Old Glory into the biker-bar parking lot hosting a Trump party.
That same week, a vastly different ode to American patriotism was being penned by an African-American writer. CNN’s John Blake credited the outgoing president, Barack Obama, for helping him find a new way to celebrate America: as a land of fighters for change.
He wrote that he’d always avoided standing for the national anthem, whose original verses celebrated the capture of runaway slaves. To Blake, patriotism was the language of white America, one he didn’t speak, until Obama popularized a version different from the flag-onthe-porch, hand-on-the-heart, variety predominant in white, conservative America.
These two visions are now clashing at the U.S. 50-yard line.
A quintessential gathering spot of U.S. civic life, pro football, last weekend became the point of contact where these forms of patriotism collided, as scores of mostly AfricanAmerican players took a knee during the anthem, joining police-brutality protesters after President Trump referred to them as, “sons of bitches.”
TAC has members from a variety of organizations including REDI, CORE, the Senior Citizen’s Advisory Committee and the advisory committee of disability issues. TAC was involved in discussions about the new system on March 30, June 21 and July 12 when Howard Snodgrass, general manager of community development, gave them an update on the new system.
“This sense that we didn’t consult with the public, I mean these were our advisory people that were consulted with all along the way,” said Clugston. “They were the ones agreeing with the new system and were on board with cost cutting and improved efficiency and improved ridership.”
For members of the public, and in particular transit users, who thought council’s vote to return to the old system was something that would be implemented quickly — that is simply not the case.
“It could not be part of the motion because we didn’t have the information ...,” said Friesen.
There would be financial implications for any changes.
Re-introducing weekend and evening service to the new transit system is not a “tweaking” of the system but rather a “significant adjustment”, said Friesen.
There were questions at the public services meeting about how much additional money it would take to make various tweaks and adjustments to the new system.
Financially fit is the fundamental challenge — to have fairly significant cuts in transit services, said CAO Merete Heggelund.
“I think we need to recognize up front that it was fundamentally a service cut. Absolutely it was,” said Heggelund. “It was mandated to be a service cut.”
Finding the right balance is now what council and the committee is struggling with, she said.
Pearson says the new transit system could be adapted to provide a service within reach of all people who need it, and include service at night and on weekends. This would result in no cost savings for financially fit but that is not the point, said Pearson.
“It is an essential service and for me it’s making it more effective,” said Pearson. “I would even go so far as to say I would be willing to support dipping into the reserves to make it work. That’s how strongly I feel about it.”