Kneeling for the anthem does nothing to advance solutions to

Hear, O sons and daughters of the republic, the fiery words of Matt Gaetz: “Kneeling for the anthem does nothing to advance solutions to racial injustice, police brutality, or any other social plight. It is a slap in the face to patriotism itself. It is a statement that America as a country is no longer worth standing for.” In these words lies the voice of one who views symbols as sacred, who sees the flag and anthem as vessels of national honor. For Gaetz, to kneel is not simply to protest—it is to diminish the very spirit of patriotism, to strike against the unity that binds a people together beneath their banner.

The origin of this statement rises from the great controversy of recent years, when athletes and citizens chose to kneel during the national anthem as a protest against racial injustice and police brutality. To some, this act was a cry of pain, a symbolic demand for justice. Yet to Gaetz, and many like him, it appeared as dishonor—a rejection not of injustice alone, but of the nation itself. His words, sharp and unyielding, reflect the ancient conflict between loyalty to symbols and loyalty to conscience, between reverence for tradition and the demand for change.

Consider the tale of the Roman Republic. The eagle standard of the legions was not merely metal and cloth—it was Rome itself. To let it fall in battle was shame, to defend it was honor. To Gaetz, the American anthem and flag bear this same weight. To bow or kneel before them, not in reverence but in protest, feels to him like betrayal. Just as a Roman would have died to defend his eagle, so he believes citizens must stand for their anthem, even in times of division. His vision of patriotism is one of steadfastness, where symbols unite even when circumstances divide.

Yet history also offers another lesson. In the age of the American Revolution, patriots themselves were branded traitors for refusing to honor the symbols of the British crown. They tore down the Union Jack, rejected oaths to the king, and even destroyed effigies of royal authority. To the empire, their acts were a “slap in the face” to loyalty. But to the colonists, these acts were not hatred of their land—they were love of liberty. Here lies the paradox: what one calls dishonor, another calls the truest form of patriotism, for protest itself can be born of love for a nation’s higher ideals.

The meaning of Gaetz’s words is thus rooted in tension: is patriotism obedience to the symbols of the nation, or is it fidelity to its promises? For him, kneeling before the anthem is surrender, an abandonment of unity. He sees it not as a step toward solutions, but as a tearing of the fabric that holds a people together. His cry is for unity under tradition, for reverence to remain unbroken, lest division destroy the strength of the nation.

The lesson for us is to understand that symbols carry immense power. To dishonor them is to wound many hearts; to revere them blindly is to risk ignoring the injustices they are meant to represent. Citizens must walk the narrow path between respect for their nation’s identity and courage to call it higher. One must discern carefully whether an act is destruction of unity or a demand for justice that strengthens unity in the long years ahead.

Practical counsel follows. When you protest, do so with clarity of purpose—seek not to scorn, but to awaken. When you honor your nation’s symbols, let it not be empty ritual, but filled with awareness of what they mean. Engage in the work of solutions: speak, serve, organize, vote, and build. Do not let division fester between those who kneel and those who stand; instead, seek understanding, for both may act from love of country, though their paths differ.

So let Gaetz’s words be remembered: “It is a slap in the face to patriotism itself.” Whether you agree or dissent, let them remind you of the sacred tension between love of symbol and love of truth. For a nation endures not only by revering its anthem, nor only by confronting its flaws, but by holding both reverence and reform in balance. And when citizens strive for this balance, their patriotism will not be empty, but living—tested, strengthened, and true.