Flag issue raised in Georgia

Charles G. writes:

A liberal friend of mine up in Atlanta just sent me this video, in which Romney criticized the Confederate battle flag. I said I was not worried. But I am. The Democrat precinct people have been told to get this in the hands of as many people as possible and to have it distributed to prospective Republican voters. They obviously prefer McCain as an opponent this fall and I’m certain that McCain’s various gaffes will be used against him right after the convention. Latest polls show Insane McCain ahead here. What a nightmare.

LA replies:

Any damage that might have been done to Romney was undone by the neo-Confederate rant by the YouTuber right out of lewrockwell.com. I have nothing against people honoring their ancestors who fought in that tragic war. But that’s not what the YouTuber was about. This guy showed that what HE meant by the Stars and Bars was to stand for the Confederacy and argue for the right to unilateral secession. He is still fighting the Civil War, which he calls the “War of Northern Aggression,” and he absurdly thinks that Romney should support him in that.

If people are going to defend threatened symbols and traditions, how about defending symbols and traditions that don’t represent the attempted destruction of the United States of America? The flag advocates can’t have it both ways, claiming that the flag is simply about honoring ancestors, and then saying that the flag is about upholding the right of secession, which was, of course, the very thing the Civil War was fought over.

Charles G. replies:

But, dear Lawrence, APPEARANCE IS REALITY. Where I live you can travel 500 miles in any direction and see vehicle tags with that flag and porches with that flag flying. (Not on mine. I fly the stars and stripes.) Even those people who don’t put the confederate flag on display do not like having their ancestry dissed. It’s a sensitive issue and one that decent people here won’t talk about to strangers. Did that kid in that video seem like a redneck? He did not. He sounded like a northerner and an educated person. Let me put it this way. If you were trying to canvass for votes in the NYC area and someone asked about displaying the Israeli flag, would your answer be designed to encourage Jewish people to support you … or alienate them? Southerners resent being compared to KKK rednecks and they would greatly desire that the confederate flag NOT be used by groups like that. Romney made no distinction.

His answer was shrill and thoughtless and he’ll now pay the price.

Look at this video which recently came out. This is not the work of an ignorant redneck.

This kind of reaction is solely the result of Romney’s unfortunate remarks. It didn’t have to be this way. This is NOT the debate we wanted to hear. If Mitt Romney were to come forward and modify his remarks and say that he spoke in the heat of the moment, it might help him. Might.

LA replies:

I agree with you that Romney’s answer was ill-thought out and impolitic, and interestingly the first time I’ve ever seem him get emotional on an issue, though I must say it was such a refreshing change to see him speak from emotional conviction that I liked him for it. I’m talking about the impression created by the questioner’s follow-up YouTube disquisition on the right of secession. And I didn’t suggest the YouTuber is an ignorant redneck. I said he was a neo-confederate ideologue.

As for recovering from any damage. Romney could say that he has no problem with people using that flag as a memorial, but that the YouTuber was not talking about honoring ancestors, but about re-opening the Civil War, and he, Romney, was offended by that. He could add that he understands that in today’s liberal America there is a concerted attempt to demonize and delegitimize the past, and that we should understand that this attempt will not stop with the Confederate battle flag, but will logically extend next to the U.S. flag, since slavery existed under the U.S. flag for meny years. He could say, “Washington, D.C. was our nation’s capital during slavery: should Washington D.C. be razed to the ground? That is the logic of those who seek to eliminate anything to do with the past.” (Not that I would expect him to say this, but it is what I would say.) But then he could adopt Fred Thompson’s position that while the flag may be appropriate in the context of a memorial, it has no place as a prominent state symbol. Alternatively, he could say this is a state issue and not a federal issue and why is he, a presidential candidate, being asked about it? Since the people who like that flag presumably believe in states’ rights, why are they trying to involve a presidential candidate in a purely state issue?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 02, 2008 09:35 AM | Send