Bartlet Deflects the Flag-Burning Outcry
Plot Beats
The narrative micro-steps within this event
A woman passionately condemns flag desecration, linking it to veterans' sacrifices, and garners applause from the audience.
A man urges the President to enact legal protections for the flag, advocating for a constitutional amendment, as Charlie interrupts with a whisper.
Bartlet dismisses the flag burning debate with sarcasm, questioning its prevalence and excusing himself from the conversation.
Who Was There
Characters present in this moment
Focus-masked calm; professional urgency—concerned about optics but constrained to brief, practical intervention.
Charlie walks over discreetly to the President and whispers into Bartlet's ear, performing his role as a close, protective aide—delivering a private prompt or reminder amid public heat while otherwise keeping silent and unobtrusive.
- • To provide the President with a quick, private update or reminder that informs his immediate response.
- • To shield the President from raw crowd pressure by managing information flow and timing.
- • That the President needs concise, actionable information in high-pressure moments.
- • That proper procedure and control of the moment are crucial to preventing political missteps.
Weary and sardonic on the surface, but strategically composed and protective of institutional authority beneath the quip.
President Bartlet listens to the crowd and Charlie's whisper, then answers with a dry, wry dismissal that reframes the moral urgency as an ongoing public debate rather than an immediate presidential mandate.
- • To defuse a live moral flashpoint without ceding moral leadership to the loudest voices in the room.
- • To avoid being boxed into an immediate policy pronouncement that could satisfy donors but compromise deliberative governance.
- • That reacting to instantaneous moral outrage can undermine measured leadership and long-term authority.
- • That constitutional questions require deliberation across institutions (town halls, legislatures) rather than a single performative presidential promise.
Urgent and determined, projecting the voice of civic responsibility and electoral expectation.
A male civic speaker stands to argue for legal protections, explicitly stating support for the flag-desecration constitutional amendment and framing the demand as imperative for the community.
- • To secure a public endorsement or commitment from the President for legal protection or constitutional amendment.
- • To convert local moral outrage into formal policy action via higher-level institutions.
- • That legal change is the legitimate remedy for symbolic harms like flag desecration.
- • That political leaders should respond to and institutionalize the moral sentiments of constituents.
Righteously indignant and confident, seeking validation from the crowd and a decisive institutional response.
A woman in the audience rises, delivers a forceful public denunciation of flag desecration, and returns to her seat to applause; she functions as the moral-hotline voice of the crowd in this moment.
- • To morally shame flag desecration and rally public support against it.
- • To pressure the President and officials into endorsing legal protection or a constitutional response.
- • That flag desecration is an affront to those who served and must be legally or morally condemned.
- • That visible public outrage can and should translate into concrete institutional remedies.
Objects Involved
Significant items in this scene
The proposed flag‑burning constitutional amendment is invoked verbally as the policy object around which moral appeals coalesce. It functions as the concrete demand that translates rhetorical outrage into a legislative ask, catalyzing applause and prompting Bartlet's dismissive framing of the debate as ongoing and diffused.
Location Details
Places and their significance in this event
Town Halls are explicitly named by Bartlet as one of the arenas where the flag‑burning debate will continue; here they function narratively as the future, grassroots stages that diffuse the question beyond the presidency and into local performance politics.
City Halls are mentioned as another institutional venue where the debate will play out; they stand for municipal centers of civic authority where local politicians and citizens convert moral claims into formal requests or ordinances.
Narrative Connections
How this event relates to others in the story
No narrative connections mapped yet
This event is currently isolated in the narrative graph
Key Dialogue
"WOMAN: "It is disgraceful that some individuals would desecrate the flag that our nation's veterans fought so valiantly to protect. [More applause as she sits.]""
"MAN 3RD: "Mr. President, it is imperative that we enact legal protections... [Charlie walks over to Bartlet and whispers in his ear] ...for our flag, and I rise in strong support for the flag desecration constitutional amendment.""
"BARTLET: "I'm sorry. I've actually been told that I have to go now. This is a debate that is obviously going to continue in town halls, city halls, state legislatures, and the U.S. House of Representatives. There is a population in this country that seems to focus so much time and energy into this conversation, so much so that I am forced to ask this question -- is there an epidemic of flag burning going on that I'm not aware of?""