By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following former President Carter’s death, flags at Mar-a-Lago were initially lowered to half-staff but have since been raised to full-staff, despite official directives from President Biden and Governor DeSantis to maintain half-staff through January 28th. This action contradicts the established mourning period and comes after Trump expressed displeasure with the timing. Texas Governor Abbott conversely ordered state flags to be at full-staff on Inauguration Day, prioritizing the celebration of the incoming president. Trump previously offered condolences for Carter, attending his funeral services.
Read the original article here
Trump’s decision to raise the US flag at full height at his Mar-a-Lago club before the conclusion of the 30-day mourning period following President Carter’s death has sparked considerable controversy. The act, seemingly a disregard for established protocol and a display of disrespect for a former president, has fueled existing criticisms of Trump’s character and leadership.
The established practice, followed by both President Biden and Florida Governor DeSantis, dictates that flags should fly at half-staff for 30 days following the death of a former president as a sign of national mourning and respect. Trump’s deviation from this tradition is particularly striking given the universally recognized significance of this symbolic gesture.
Many see this action as yet another instance of Trump prioritizing his own self-image and perceived aggrandizement above customary decorum and national unity. The timing, occurring shortly after Carter’s burial, further intensifies the perception of insensitivity and a blatant disregard for established norms of respectful mourning.
The contrast between Trump’s behavior and the respectful tributes paid to President Carter is stark. Carter’s passing prompted heartfelt eulogies and widespread expressions of admiration for his life and legacy of public service. Trump’s actions, in contrast, overshadowed these expressions of national grief and served to highlight his perceived lack of empathy and respect for both tradition and the office of the presidency itself.
The incident has resonated deeply with many Americans, who view the flag and its protocol as significant symbols of national pride and unity. Trump’s decision has been interpreted as a deliberate attempt to flout established norms and to further polarize the nation. It’s considered a continuation of a pattern of behavior that consistently prioritizes personal gain and self-promotion over collective good and national unity.
The reaction to Trump’s decision has been overwhelmingly negative, with critics pointing to a consistent pattern of behavior characterized by disregard for established protocol and norms. This reinforces the image of a president who prioritizes personal aggrandizement above national unity and the respectful observance of established traditions.
The act is not simply a matter of flag protocol; it represents, in the eyes of many, a larger disregard for the values of respect, empathy and national unity. It’s seen as a reflection of a broader disregard for the traditions and sensibilities that have historically guided the nation’s response to the passing of its leaders.
Some have expressed the hope that such actions will not be repeated in future instances of national mourning, underscoring the importance of upholding traditions of respect and decorum for all former presidents. The incident has undoubtedly opened up a renewed discussion surrounding the importance of respecting established national traditions and symbols.
Many have interpreted the act as a deliberate provocation, designed to further inflame political tensions and solidify support within his base. The decision, therefore, goes beyond a simple breach of etiquette and enters the realm of calculated political strategy.
Ultimately, the incident serves as a stark reminder of the deep political divisions within the United States, and how even the most basic displays of national unity can become battlegrounds for political contention and polarization. This incident once again highlights the chasm between those who uphold established traditions and those who seek to dismantle or disregard them.
The act has raised questions about the future of established traditions and the potential for further erosion of norms of respectful public discourse. This incident underscores the continuing need for national dialogue and reconciliation, and serves as a stark reminder of the complexities of navigating a deeply divided nation.
The entire incident has re-ignited the debate about the importance of maintaining established protocols and traditions as a means of fostering national unity and respect. Many hope this serves as a lesson in the power of respectful mourning and the importance of national unity in the face of loss.