A Ku Indeed!

Huckabee on the Flag

Posted in Life, Politics by Chris on January 19, 2008

flag.gifI thought that for sure this issue had died in American politics. Clearly, the reports of its demise were exaggerated. Yeah, it’s the “flag” issue. Not the “burning the flag” issue, the confederate flag issue. As has been reported in the news, (here, as well as criticism from the left here, and from the right here), Huckabee came out and asserted that he felt there was nothing wrong with flying the Confederate flag in front of government buildings, or displaying them inside such buildings, and so on. In taking this stand, he ‘called out’ the other Republican candidates to make a stand of their own. One so far, McCain, has come out against the displaying the flag. What should we make of all of this?

First, let’s call it what it is. Huckabee is shamelessly pandering, in the most transparent way, to a certain contingent of Republican voters in SC. After all, the issue of the Confederate flag isn’t even a live one in South Carolina politics anymore. The citizens of SC voted already to not display the flag on top of the statehouse (government property). So Huckabee’s tough-talk about how “no one tells people in my state what to do” is disingenuous and amusing, since no one is telling the people of SC what to do. Their own citizens did that. Do others outside of SC have opinions on it? Sure. But the federal government (or ‘the North’) isn’t making SC do anything with their flag.

Second, whether a person thinks that the Confederate battle flag should be prominently displayed (on government property or not) seems to depend on what you think the flag stands for. Some claim that is stands for nothing but (a) ‘southern pride’ whereas others think it is a symbol for (b) embraced (overtly or not) racism (just as much, I suppose, as some think that talk of “states’ rights” is code for something else).

Honestly, it’s hard to say what the flag means, because defining the nature of a particular symbol is a difficult thing to do. I have no doubt that for some individuals, the flag means just southern pride. Still, even if you buy this, it seems hard to believe that this is all it means because symbols are public. So even if some individuals say it means X, that doesn’t mean that as a symbol (a public icon) that X is it’s only meaning.

Part of what determines the meaning of a public symbol is the context in which it is employed. Part of this was, in the case of the flag, “the notion of the south as an entity.” After all, the flag was associated with the Confederacy. So there’s a sense in which it can legitimately stand for southern pride. But it was also used as the battle flag for a particular war, one which was fought over the right to have slaves (whether it was really a fight over ‘states’ rights’ seems a side point to me, given that it was over the states’ rights to have slaves in this case). So this can’t be left out of the context, whether one likes it or not. As a result, it’s hard to believe that the flag doesn’t carry — as a symbol — racist overtones. Moreover, the issue in SC brings this point out even more: the whole issue of being proud of the flag was non-existent in SC until 1962, when the SC establishment decided to display it publicly, clearly as a response to the civil rights movement (if you ask me, that adds some real context).

One thing is clear: whether the flag is only about racism, I can’t say. Probably not, though as a Northerner (living now in the Midwest), that’s pretty much all I see in it. I didn’t grow up in the south, so I don’t experience the symbol in that way. But I can acknowledge that it very well may have such significance in part (for some). But even if it’s not only about racism, old Dixie sure has been tainted heavily by it (even my wife, a native Arkansan, sees it primarily as about race). As a result, the question to me is a simple one: is it highly insensitive to fly it, given it’s checkered past? It seems to me that the answer to this question is a clear “yes”. Basically, it says “I don’t really care what many people think it stands for or if it offends them.” For an individual to say this is one thing; for the government of SC to say it is a different matter altogether. In any case, for me, in the end — if it’s not racist, it’s at least highly insensitive and callous. Or both.

Which says a lot to me about Huckabee, and something different about McCain (who, interestingly enough, supported this issue in 2000, and then later on took himself to task for it, calling it an act of “political cowardice” — a case of virtuous flip-flopping perhaps). Of course, depending on whether you think the flag stands for (a) or (b) says a lot about ‘who’ you think Huckabee is talking to in drudging up this defunct issue. He could be addressing the feeling of anti-elitism in the south (the “the north don’t tell us what to do” crowd) or he’s addressing a deep-seated racism in that area of the country, and telling them that “he’s one of them.” Even if he’s addressing (a), Huckabee isn’t an idiot. He surely knows about (b), and that makes him callous. If it’s (b), then he’s worse still.

In my opinion, a lose-lose for the Huck in as much as my judgment of him is concerned.

UPDATE: The panderer lost the SC primary. Karma must exist.


7 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. eyeingtenure said, on January 19, 2008 at 7:02 pm

    Agreed. Huckabee finds himself in the awkward position of being a moderately successful candidate after starting off in a fringe candidacy. He didn’t have a prayer last summer, but the Iowa win didn’t let him stay on the side.

    Now he has to defend the FairTax — bad policy any way you look at it — and feels he has to succumb to the same “political cowardice” that cost McCain South Carolina to begin with.

    The latest CNN exit polls suggest that Huckabee didn’t even win a plurality of voters who said their candidate’s faith was the most important issue in the ballot box. Huckabee’s political posturing is, from now on, a definite handicap. It’ll only backfire here on out.

    Quick with a quip, he’s definite VP fodder. Considering that he has some dangerous ideas, let’s hope he never ascends to the presidency, though.


  2. The Truth said, on January 20, 2008 at 5:41 pm

    He’s toast. I saw his Clintonesque skills at work in trying to evade the question of the flag. He’ll lose the independent and liberal voters who thought he was reasonable a couple of weeks ago.

    Say it ain’t so Mike! I suppose no one will heart Huckabee anytime soon.

  3. Aw Shuck, Huck « A Ku Indeed! said, on January 21, 2008 at 1:27 pm

    […] 21, 2008 by Chris In my earlier post criticizing Huckabee’s support for the Confederate flag, I surmised that he was appealing to […]

  4. Million said, on January 21, 2008 at 8:54 pm


    You brought up an interesting point earlier in saying, “But it was also used as the battle flag for a particular war, one which was fought over the right to have slaves (whether it was really a fight over ’states’ rights’ seems a side point to me, given that it was over the states’ rights to have slaves in this case).”

    At the heart of the issue, I think your analysis is generally correct. The problem is that the issue goes even deeper (As if it’s not complex enough)! State succession actually occured in waves after Lincoln was elected and for various explicit reasons; some of which didn’t include slavery.

    First South Carolina succeeded before all other states. Then the Deep South broke away. Finally, the Upper South joined in. South Carolina mentioned the issue of slavery in their official declaration of succession, but appealed to states rights as their ultimate concern (like you brought up).

    Mississippi and Alabama specifically argued that they left the Union BECAUSE of abolitionism. They were worse than what you brought up. In fact, their mere association with the Confederacy helped to radicalize it even further.

    Finally, the Upper South broke away after Lincoln called for armed volunteers to suppress the rebellion. Their justification was much different than SC or the rest of the Deep South. The difference between the Upper South and most Border States was slim to none.

    Considering this, I think that any arguments – pro or con – regarding the history of the flag are moot. At least that is if they fail to take into consideration the complex environment which led to the flag being created.

    Can it be taken as a racist symbol? Sure. Is it always intended to be that? I don’t believe so.

    Then again, the fact that some people are audacious enough to argue that the symbol of an insurrection against our government should be placed on property now considered as part of that government is incredibly stupid.

  5. Chris said, on January 21, 2008 at 10:23 pm


    Great analysis — my knowledge of the complexities of the politics behind the civil war are limited. However, I’m not asserting that the flag reduces to racism, or that for all people who endorse the flag that they are doing so because of racism. As personal symbols, the flag could mean many things to many people. However, as a _public_ symbol, it is unmistakable that it is associated with racism and with slavery, due to its historical context (and because I have no doubt that for many flag-lovers it _is_ a racist symbol). So, for me, it’s the public nature of the flag as a symbol that matters. Because it’s public image is tainted, to fly it — regardless of what one’s own beliefs about it are — seems to be insensitive in this historical period.

    Similarly, I’m sure that the Nazi flag meant for some people (and maybe still means) nothing more than pride in German nationalism, and has nothing to do with Jewish slaughter. However, it is clear that the flag is contingently associated with such things due to its context, and thus to fly it — regardless of what any particular individual thinks — is insensitive.

    Thus my issue with the Huck. Whether he’s a racist or not I can’t say. But at the very least, he’s insensitive about an issue that requires sensitivity.

  6. eyeingtenure said, on January 22, 2008 at 10:10 pm

    The intricacies of politics are such that you can’t take everything at face value.

    Why did South Carolina declare states’ rights? South Carolinians knew they could not depend on the federal government, which included the North, to defend slavery until the end of time.

    At heart, it was a slavery issue, disguised as states’ rights.


  7. C.C. LESTERS said, on May 25, 2010 at 4:11 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: