D. We both want to help the old people. We want to see that they do have
adequate medical care.
Response “D” contains information that is irrelevant to the
point Nixon was trying to make. Before
providing his information, he states, “Let us look at the record.” What the word “record” tells us is that he
will be discussing things that have already been done. For responses “A,” “B,” and “C,” Nixon
mentions accomplishments that have been done in the last seven/by the, then,
present administration—all of these are relevant to his argument. However, response “D” talks about what is
wanted, not what has been done; thus, item “D” contains information that is
irrelevant the Nixon’s argument.
The dissenters in the flag-burning case and their supporters might at this juncture note an irony in my argument. My point is that freedom of conscience and expression is at the core of our self-conception and that commitment to it requires the rejection of official dogma. But how is that admittedly dogmatic belief different from any other dogma, such as the one inferring that freedom of expression stops at the border of the flag?
The crucial distinction is that the commitment to freedom of conscience and expression states the simplest and least self-contradictory principle that seems to capture our aspirations. Any other principle is hopelessly at odds with our commitment to freedom of conscience. The controversy surrounding the flag-burning case makes the case well.
The controversy will rage precisely because burning the flag is such a powerful form of communication. Were it not, who would care? Thus were we to embrace a prohibiton on such communication, we would be saying that the 1st Amendment protects expression only when no one is offended. That would mean that this aspect of the 1st Amendment would be of virtually no consequence. It would protect a person only when no protection was needed. Thus, we do have one official dogma-each American may think and express anything he wants. The exception is expression that involves the risk of injury to others and the destruction of someone else`s property. Neither was present in this case.
