An earlier post about Mark Sanford evolved (or devolved, if you prefer) into a thread about the Confederate flag, and a couple of points I made back there in response to some of your comments are probably worthy of their own post. So here goes…
First, Doug Ross had said:
… And most South Carolinians (especially those in the legislature) DO care about the Confederate Flag — otherwise it wouldn’t require a compromise to move it from the top of the State House to its current prominent “in-your-face” position.
I’m all for putting the question about the flag on the ballot. Are you?
Then, Kathryn Fenner added:
I think that many issues that have a lot of traction in the legislature don’t have as much among the population at large. Between special interests and the legislators’ personal quirks (Glenn McConnell and the Confederacy), lots of things loom larger at the State House than they might in a referendum….
Finally, David had this to say:
Certainly, Doug, most in the legislature care about the flag. But they’re also a bunch of morons who like wasting our time on issues such as this which advance our state none. Beyond that I cannot say for sure. All I can say is out here amongst the yahoos of Lexington County, most people that I know personally don’t care.
Sure, put it on the ballot; I believe the flag should be removed. But it’s not that big of an issue to me.
My response follows…
A couple of points: First, no, neither this nor any other legislative issue should be settled by referendum. I’m a stickler for republican government; to me government by plebiscite is an abomination. The proper way to decide something like this — something that is not a constitutional issue, but merely statutory — is to do so through our elected representatives.
Second, about those representatives: David and KB and Doug are laboring under a very common misconception — that our lawmakers are fascinated with the Confederate flag. They are not; in fact they are quite the opposite. They don’t want to hear about it or talk about it, and they don’t. They definitely are not “wasting our time on issues such as this;” in fact, they completely refuse to take the issue up. (Mind you, I’m talking the consensus here; certainly you can point to a few with a neo-Confederate obsession, but even those don’t spend legislative time on the subject, insisting that the issue was “settled” by the compromise of 2000.)
No, our problem is that lawmakers will not spend ANY time on the issue. And as long as they don’t, those of us who want the flag gone have no way of exercising our will (remember, lawmakers would have to take up the issue even for the referendum some of y’all call for).
Some of this is due to their fear of a no-win issue. For them, it really doesn’t matter how many people call for removing the flag; they fear the angry minority that will take its revenge upon them. And for a Republican, utterly dependent on white votes, that subset of the white electorate can cause really trouble. Or at least, they think it can, which amounts to the same thing in terms of effect on their behavior in office.
Another factor is the NAACP, which is following a perfect strategy for making sure the flag stays up forever. By capturing all the headlines on the subject, the NAACP has managed to frame the issue as being between South Carolina and an interest group that is set on FORCING South Carolina to do its will, with the threat of economic harm if it doesn’t say “uncle.”
Well, you don’t make white South Carolinians do anything, ever, even if it’s in their interest. (Think, how did the slaveowning minority get all those other poor sap whites to take up arms against the Union in 1860? By persuading them that the gummint was going to try to MAKE them do something, which got their backs up so much they were happy to throw their lives away.) And never mind that the boycott lacks teeth; the problem is that the NAACP means for it to be effective, and white South Carolinian resentment of that intent is so vehement that there is no way lawmakers — even some who may be slightly inclined to do so — will take up the issue, as long as the NAACP succeeds in portraying the issue the way it does.
My periodic campaigns to try to move the flag are timed to moments when I think that maybe we can get a loud enough conversation going to drown out the NAACP (for instance, when Steve Spurrier offered the gift of a figure able to grab headlines in his own right, and even though I am utterly uninterested in football, I was happy to seize the opportunity for what it was worth, which in the end turned out not to be much), so that MAYBE lawmakers will see their way clear to doing the right thing, forgetting for the moment that the right thing happens to be the thing the NAACP wants to MAKE them do. But most of the time, it’s like butting my head against a wall. The media like conflict, and will conspire with the extremists to portray this as a battle between irreconcilables, which keeps most of us from being able to reach consensus.
No, the problem is getting the Legislature to take up the issue at ALL.
Even in 2000, when you may have had the impression that the Legislature was doing nothing but talking about the flag, the real problem was that it was keeping such debate to a minimum. In fact, the reason we’re stuck with this unacceptable “compromise” is that the House refused to spend more than a day on it. The GOP leadership decided that it would cram through the Senate “compromise” in that one day, and not allow any alternative plans to be seriously considered. A lot of attempts were made, mostly by Democrats, to offer plans that would truly have settled the issue. The very best was a proposal by former House Speaker Bob Sheheen to do away with all actual flags, and replace them with an unobtrusive bronze plaque that explained that the flag once flew here — truly putting the flag in its proper historical context, and eliminating it as a present-day issue. But his successor, Speaker David Wilkins, was determined not to be slowed down by considering anything other than what the Senate had proposed.
That was an extremely frustrating day for me. I wrote several editorials, as the debate ebbed and flowed, to advocate for the better ideas. I kept rewriting late into the night as debate wore on, but in the end didn’t run any of them because late that night the House voted, rendering everything I intended to say moot. In other words, the House leadership rammed it through before there could be any input from the public on the various good ideas that were put forth and tabled that day.
Remember, the Legislature’s sin with regard to the flag was then, and remains now, ignoring it, not spending too much time on it…
Related Posts
This issue was resolved in 2000. I’ve ignored it ever since and will continue to do so.
I still think it would look rite purty a flyin’ ovah Tilman’s statue.
“First, no, neither this nor any other legislative issue should be settled by referendum. I’m a stickler for republican government; to me government by plebiscite is an abomination.”
I’m not suggesting all legislative issues should be settled by referendum. But it would be a very useful tool in this case to get a clear sense of what the people of South Carolina think about the issue in order to at least get it out in the open and provide the impetus to the legislature to DO SOMETHING.
The problem with our “republican government” is that a very small number of elected officials representing a minority of the state actually control the debate and control what laws get passed. Without term limits, that power is concentrated in the hands of a couple people in this state. That is not right, fair, or good.
Bobby Harrell and Hugh Leatherman do not represent me. They do not represent the majority of South Carolinians. A referendum is the only power we have to remind them they are PUBLIC servants.
Mississippi has the Stars and Bars in the upper left hand corner of their state flag. Georgia incorporated the Confederate flag into their present state flag. Are either of these states under the threat of a boycott by the NAACP or any other African American organization? So far, nothing has turned up so I guess the issue for these two states is settled.
In 2000, the Confederate flag was removed from the dome and moved to another location on the grounds after an agreement was reached between the dissenting parties and the issue settled as far as everyone was concerned. It was settled for me and I was a supporter of removing it from the dome since the Confederacy is no longer in existence except in history books.
So, what is the actual underlying reason for the ongoing contentious nature of the flag being flown in its current location? It has no official standing and has been relegated to a place displaying it in the context of our history. It no longer flies above the Capital. It is not integrated into our state flag like the two others states mentioned.
What good does the continued boycott do for the state considering the fact that the NCAA has cancelled a tournament site at Myrtle Beach because of it? Is it in the best interest of African Americans who live in South Carolina to lose events and badly needed revenue, especially for a state so dependent upon tourist dollars?
I agree with bud on this one. Let it go already. There are too many other issues facing us that need resolution first.
First, Bart: The reason why the NAACP isn’t boycotting those places — places that in any logical scheme would be far more likely, since they actually incorporate the flag into their own sovereign symbols — is because the boycott of SC is driven from within SC. The SC chapter of the NAACP has long had a lot of pull with the national organization. This campaign is driven by people inside South Carolina who are using the clout (such as it is) of a storied national organization as a bludgeon to use upon their neighbors in an effort to get their way. These are folks who do NOT believe in representative democracy or the deliberative process the way I do; they believe, deep down, that the white folks who run the state will never do the right thing unless they are coerced into it. This betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the psychology of white South Carolinians: Back them up against a wall and they will die rather than do YOUR will.
As for Bart’s and bud’s ideas of forgetting the flag: Despite my years of writing about this, I’m still failing to get across what I think is important about the flag. It’s because I think of it VERY differently from the way the NAACP does. Personally, as much as I want it down, I do NOT want to see it down on the NAACP’s terms, because that would defeat the whole purpose of bringing it down.
To me, bringing the flag down is a desired effect, not a cause. To me, the flag is like a windsock — it’s an indication of prevailing conditions. What we MUST do in South Carolina is change the conditions, and then the flag will come down.
Basically, we have to reshape our politics so that we can put behind us the kinds of childish, racist, petty, me-vs-you nonsense that keep the flag flying. It will only come down (and SHOULD only come down) when the people in elective office have matured to the point that they can achieve a consensus that we need to put this foolishness behind us.
The only process that I think is worthwhile with regard to the flag is one that brings black and white, left and right together to say we’re going to stop this foolishness, take the flag down and stop making a spectacle of ourselves.
If we don’t do that, if we don’t reach that level of maturity, there’s no point in taking the flag down. And if we took it down on the NAACP’s terms, we would just be guaranteeing ourselves another generation of resentment and conflict.
South Carolina must be PERSUADED, not FORCED, to take down the flag. We must decide it on our own, because we have decided we’re better than this, or there’s no point.
Sen. Glenn McConnell and the Rev. Joseph Darby have nearly identical frames for their positions on the flag situation. See their recent op-eds in The Post and Courier (or in The State’s on-line edition).
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/sep/19/acc-should-be-ashamed-back-naacp-boycott/
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/sep/24/put-flag-in-historicalcontext/
The frame that they clearly (to me, anyway) agree on is that SC should be compared to our neighboring states. Sen. McConnell says that we’re doing basically the same, perhaps even less, than our neighboring states. The Rev. Darby says that if we were — but we’re not — doing the same as our neighboring states, then that would be fine.
We could resolve the situation simply by choosing the NC solution (fly the flag only on the holiday — H.3588, basically) or the Alabama solution (move the monument to the side and keep the flag flying year round). I prefer the NC solution.
I didn’t think they are spending a lot of time on it–I agree that they want to ignore it. I also believe that Glenn McConnell et al. want it to stay there, despite the obvious inappropriateness of it.
The flag is an emblem of treason, secession, the dissolution of our country. It does not belong anywhere but in a museum. Ever.
And let’s meltdown old Ben Tillman and sell him for scrap to pay for better schools in the corridor of Shame. Seems fitting.
and Doug has a very good point about the disproportionate representation. I love my representative James Smith and Sen. Courson is okay, but I feel largely disenfranchised in terms of influence in state government…..
I’m in favor of South Carolina keeping the flag up. It reminds the rest of the country that there are still backwaters of racist idiocy.
If our legislators behaved like mature, reasonable people would we have had a political year like the past one?
Actually, the legislature reminds me of nothing so much as the old Polish senate (back in the 17th-18th centuries) in which any senator could stop a proposed law by crying out “I object!” While I agree with Brad on a preference for representative government vs. plebiscites, watching the General Assembly in action sometimes makes me reconsider my position.
Perhaps the time has come for a constitutional convention. The new constitution would be much shorter, only addressing the basic structure of government, more difficult to amend (look at all of the local government exceptions in current version) and divide power in a more rational manner between the branches. I would favor a much stronger executive. Perhaps a unicameral legislature (as in Nebraska). Eliminating all statewide elective offices other than governor. Allowing local governments to raise revenue in virtually any manner they see fit. Eliminating all mandates for elected county officials other than council (we do it that way for cities, why not counties). Prohibit single county special purpose districts.
The 1895 Constitution has lasted longer than any in our history. Its flaws become more apparent with each passing year. It is time to gather the courage to start anew.
Perhaps you’re right, Greg. I may finally be at that point.
But how do you answer the question that has kept me from endorsing the idea thus far: How on Earth do you make sure a Con-Con would indeed produce that rational result? The creation of the convention and its membership would be (I think) in the hands of the very lawmakers whose fecklessness leads us to this conclusion. Frankly, I think the chances of a rational result are low.
The only reason to call for a con-con would be because we’ve reached the fatalistic conclusion that any mess they came up with would be better than what we have now…. Sort of like a pilot deciding to eject from a jet, which has been described as “committing suicide to keep from getting killed“…
Great idea, Greg, and good point n the caveat, Brad. One more concern: our Constitution is so baroque and has so many tentacles in so many issues, how do we just rewrite it without dealing with them. I’m thinking special purpose districts, TIFs– stuff that never belonged in the Constitution. Now the Constitution supplies the legal backbone for many activities that won’t just cease to be if there’s a new one.
Kathryn, you bring up a good point. Perhaps retain matters not specifically contradicted by the new constitution for one legislative session to give a chance for statutory provisions to be passed.
Brad, you also have a good point. Article XVI section 3 of the current constitution requires a 2/3 of both houses in order to put the question to the people. If they approve it the General Assembly shall decide how the delegates shall be selected.
How then do we get out of the morass? Piecemeal change does not seem to be working. There needs to be a statewide expression of dissatisfaction with the current system and currently that does not seem to exist. A not of carping about the current system but no real will to change. Is ther any way out or shall the legacy of Ben Tillman survive us?
You know, I really don’t worry too much about the backwaters racist idiots. There just aren’t that many of them anymore. It’s probably the more subtle racism that is pervasive and thus the bigger problem in this country.
And if one really feels the need to be reminded so much of this country’s racism, I suggest he or she looks into flying the flag on his or her own damn property and not in another state.
Mr.W,
I am an editorial cartoonist from Greenwood, SC. I actually drew and sold for publication a toon about the NAACP and their holding our state hostage over a failed policy. Recently, I began sending emails to the SCNAACP and even went so far as to send out a mass email to everyone in my address book asking them to do the same. It’s time the NAACP quit hurting the good people of our state. Please give me some suggestions as to what else I can do to speed this along. Thanks!
-Mike Beckom