Comments so far:
I got a strongly-worded e-mail from a Citizens League member because of my mention of flag-burning in this Viewpoint.

* Did I label people who are genuine and passionate in their support for a constitutional amendment opposing flag burning as "Dopey"?

* Did I reveal myself as a closet-liberal by highlighting this issue (alienating conservatives that support this issue,and betraying my calls for more bi-partisanship and/or a more centrist political approach)?

* In doing so, am I perpetuating a culture of mistrust and demonizing that poisons politics?

My replies:
* I did not intend to insult the intentions of anyone that supports a constitutional amendment (including liberals like Sen. Mark Dayton). If I offended anyone, I apologize. My "dopey" insult was also intended to criticize Congress, NOT individual citizens.

I'm sure that if liberals controlled Congress, my example would have been an issue that is traditionally viewed as "theirs".

* I disagree strongly with members of my own immediate family on controversial issues like this, and on other issues like the definition of "marriage". But what holds us together is our commitment to work together on matters where we share a set of priorities and values. This applies to the public realm too.

No matter how much someone supports or opposes the issue of flag burning, it pales in comparison to a dozen issues that matter more to most citizens -- of any ideology or party. And I say this recognizing that an issue like flag burning is seen as a symbol of very important values AND current issues like the war on terror.

But when we choose to spend time on issues that are seen as relatively less important to the vast majority of citizens (and not "solving" them at that), instead of tackling issues where the public is more unified in its priorities, it drives the public out of the public policy process. The symbolic value of increasing cynicism and distrust trumps the symbolic value of a conversation about free speech, patriotism and the flag in my opinion.

For example: polling this spring showed that even among people that were strongly supportive of efforts in Minnesota to pass the proposed gay-marriage amendment, I believe these marriage-amendment-supporters actually were MORE supportive of constitutional amendments dealing with education.

I am in ideological limbo I suppose. (I joke that I'm too conservative for most gays these days, and too gay for most conservatives these days.) But I work hard to be honest about my political opinions -- and appropriate in how I express them. Whether or not I achieve this goal all the time, I appreciate being held accountable to it.

For whatever reason, I tend to value the time I spend working on a shared policy agenda with people whom I disagree with, more than I do people that share opinions with me.