American Politics Journal -- Symbol Over Substance Over Symbol



Home • Latest • Archive • Search

Guest Editorial
Symbol Over Substance Over Symbol: George W. Bush and the Confederate Flag

by Jack Gillis

This essay was first published in November 1999 in Jack Gillis's Liberal Socialist Elite Commentary web site, and is reprinted with permission.

It is a commonplace of late for pundits to bemoan the triumph of symbol over substance in current affairs -- while commenting on officials who engineer empty photo-ops eagerly covered by reporters who then deliver the substanceless images upon which the pundits then solemnly disquisit. (It is no small irony that the pundits's very complaint is itself a triumph of symbol over substance, as will be shown.) But there is, in truth, some justification to the complaint, and no more so in American politics than on the subject of race.

Consider: In October 1997, the Nation of Islam community in Lafayette, Louisiana attempted to change the name of the "Cajundome," the local coliseum, arguing that the name is racist at the very least by virtue of the fact that the "Cajun" reference implied cultural and ethnic exclusion of the non-Cajun area citizenry.

How sad. Even if they have a point (and maybe they do) the point is so inconsequential compared to issues of real substance -- for instance, a criminal justice system weighted heavily against Blacks -- that it's almost irresponsible to focus resources something so trivial.

Similarly, the Reverend Jesse Jackson was in the forefront of the move to change the nomenclature from "Negro" to "Black" in the late 60s. That was fine considering that the former word was imposed by force consequent to the early slave trade and the word is etomologically linked to the grossest of racial epithets (fair warning: that word comes up later in this column). But then in the last few years Jackson led a movement to change it from "Black" to "African-American." Again, how sad: Throughout the nation Black schoolchildren are not being effectively educated compared to whites and deciding what ethnic name to adopt is the big argument?

Such arguments are merely another triumph of symbol over substance. Not one life in will be improved even the slightest bit even if the arguments advanced by the N.o.I. and the Rev. Jackson over building names and community identity prevailed. The more such petty bickering occurs the less public discourse is invested in truly substantive debates.

But there's another reason why such minor symbolic issues should not be focused on: Other symbols cut so deep into our psyche that understanding them is imperative; changing them may really change lives. Though relatively rare and increasingly difficult to identify in a polity drenched in shallow and superficial symbolic disputes, complex and powerful symbols can drive substantive policy if for no other reason than that they are so highly charged with emotion that they can affect substantive decisions. These rare and resonant symbols can also reveal deeper truths of personal character in persons and unstated premises in partisan ideology. So the problem isn't the triumph of symbol over substance because some symbols are substance, some symbols weigh more than others.

One such is the Confederate flag, which has consistently generated controversy for the last few years. A couple of years ago, for instance, Tommy Tuberville, then football coach at the University of Mississippi, called for students there to stop waving that flag at games because, he claimed, it hurt recruiting. Despite rebuilding an Ole Miss program that had been demolished by sanctions for serious rules violations committed by the previous regime, Tuberville's simple and valid request created such animosity towards him that he left for Auburn a few months later.

Tuberville's claim was valid because for most Blacks in America most of the time the Confederate flag mostly means "I hate niggers." This is just a guess, but at least 80 percent and probably over 90 percent of Blacks feel that way. That's why a black prospective recruit may not have wanted to carry a footbal under such a flag.

Note carefully the what the previous paragraph says and does not say. It does NOT claim that the Confederate flag means exclusively what "most Blacks" think it means. The previous paragraph does not present a lexical definition. It postulates a sociological generalization about how a community of people feel about a specific symbol. If you doubt that claim, simply print off this column, highlight the relevant passage and show it to every Black person you know.

There are indeed other elements to the meaning of the Confederate flag. There is, for example, the argument that the Civil War -- and hence the Confederate flag -- wasn't about slavery. (Although as Princeton historian James McPherson points out in a review of 3 books in the Oct. 23, 1997 New York Review of Books -- Michael Morrison's "Slavery and the American West," Maury Klein's "Days of Defiance," and Charles W. Ramsdell's "Behind the Lines in the Southern Confederacy" -- and as McPherson points out in his own book "For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War," slavery was indeed the root of that conflict.)

Then there's the argument that the flag memorializes the valiant and gallant men fighting under the Stars and Bars. (Of course, General Rommel was brave and decisive as he swept across Northern Africa under Hitler's Swastika. Does that make Nazism more acceptable? In the entire history of the world there may be no city that more gallantly and valiantly resisted a siege than Stalingrad in the winter of 1943; should we fly the Communist Hammer and Sickle in celebration?)

Such arguments in favor of the Confederate flag are to a certain extent valid. Weak, but valid. The key question is, which of the meanings, all of which are contained in this image, prevails?

The current controversy over the Stars and Bars relates to the NAACP's call for a national boycott of South Carolina tourism so long as that flag flies over the state capitol; that proposed boycott, in turn, is founded on a continuing controversy in that state over the flying of the flag. The previous Governor, David M. Beasley, a Republican, probably lost his re-election bid because a compromise he proposed (flying the flag over another building on the capitol campus) failed miserably in the state legislature. Having demolished the career of a Republican incumbent, this little piece of colored linen is now wreaking havoc on the local Democratic party, as anti-flag party officials threaten to punish pro-flag local Democrats -- and some of those office holders threaten to switch to the Republican party.

Into this seething cauldron of animosity stepped this Labor Day past the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for president, Texas Governor George W. Bush, who promptly displayed a breathtaking combination of ignorance and cowardice.

He showed ignorance regarding the Confederate flag controversy when he repeatedly declared that the "good people of South Carolina can . . . . make that decision," when, manifestly, they cannot. They've tried and failed. He showed further ignorance when he declared that the proposed boycott was the work of "some people who don't live in South Carolina, evidently." No, not really: H.H. Singleton, a local NAACP chapter president, was harshly critical of Bush's stance as quoted in the AP story from which Bush's quotes were also taken.

And yes, Bush showed a fine intuitive sense of the triumph of symbol over substance over symbol when he fundamentally evaded the provocative issue, but he showed neither courage nor leadership. The image of Governor Beasley's failure combined with Bush's tactical understanding that his rival Senator John McCain intends to halt Bush's drive for the nomination in South Carolina no doubt inspired his idea "for people who don't live in South Carolina to butt out of the issue."

The false implication, of course, is that the Confederate flag is little more than a zoning problem, some minor local contremps that should be of no concern to outsiders. But that misreads the symbolic power of the image. Is the Governor of Texas prepared to argue that only citizens of South Carolina have a right to care deeply about the Confederate flag? More than few of his Texas constituents might beg to differ -- on both sides. Is he prepared to reject the historical, emotional, legal, political and cultural impact of this essentially American symbol merely to avoid being embroiled in a potentially injurious controversy? It appears he is.

We live in a free country, of course, and display of the Confederate flag by private citizens should never be prohibited. However, symbols that powerful and that complicated move people's souls, to pride perhaps, but also to anger or disgust. Persons who display a symbol that powerful should first know what it means to others and second realize that there may be consequences.

To deny that fact, as George W. Bush in effect has by claiming the conflict is a "local" issue, is to abdicate one of the critical responsibilities of leadership.