The concerns that Georgia cannot endure a protracted public discussion of the state flag issue — much less the “healing” dialogue over race issues envisioned by Gov. Sonny Perdue in putting up a referendum on the flag — seem strange coming from politicians and journalists.
Yet state legislators, who would have to approve such a referendum, and newspaper editorial boards, who presumably would have some responsibility for keeping the dialogue constructive, have some very real fears over the state’s ability to do it.
Several of the state’s leading newspapers, including this one, have expressed strong reservations about the value of asking Georgians to talk through this issue to some resolution. The harm that could be done outweighs the good, they argue. And the bad publicity it would generate nationwide would have a negative impact on the state’s reputation.
They could be right. Unleashing decades of pent-up frustration for people on both sides of the flag/race relations issue will not happen without some harsh words being spoken.
Politicians would have to show some leadership, acknowledging, for instance, what they believe and why.
Rather than grandstanding on the issue, they would do well to help mediate the discussion — drawing consensus where they can find it and helping foster tolerance of opposing viewpoints when they can’t.
Last week’s minidrama of state Rep. Alisha Thomas’ appearance before the Sons of Confederate Veterans to articulate why she opposed the Confederate battle insignia being a part of the state flag was both hopeful and worrisome going into such a debate.
It was truly hopeful that Thomas felt comfortable enough to show up and say why she felt the Sons were wrong to promote the old flag, but worrisome because the discussion ended when the young African-American legislator from Cobb County was offended by criticism of the NAACP.
This discussion, if we choose to have it, won’t be easy and everyone will have to deal with comments that they find offensive. Working through those will be the challenge.
And here’s where news organizations will have to play a significant role. Basically, we’ll have to exercise some self-control.
I can’t emphasize how much discipline that will take. Whether it is in the choice of people to quote in a news story or letter writers to print on the opinion pages, the instinct we have to find “tension” in an issue would have to be subjugated to a higher goal of illuminating, explaining and understanding.
If that sounds as if I’m advocating ignoring some voices in the debate, then declare me guilty as charged. We know what those voices (on both sides) have to say. We’ve heard them for years. They will not lift the level of discussion. They will sidetrack it and waste our energy, time and emotions.
Rather than being drawn to these fringes, we should tack a course in the middle, concentrating our attention on the voices of many Georgians for whom the flag represents a conflicting message of hatred and heritage. What do they think? How do they feel?
We would need to give fuller voice to those people who despise how the Confederate battle emblem was misappropriated in the 1950s while at the same time respect the family heritage of many of the men who died under it in the 1860s.
We’d recognize the fear of many of these same people that if this symbol is deemed too tainted to be officially sanctioned, other icons of the era may be next on the list.
We would seek the eloquence of those who grew up fearing the symbol itself and listen to how and why this piece of cloth came to represent the worst years of our joint Southern heritage.
More importantly, we’d provide a platform for how to assure those wounds are never inflicted again.
It will take enormous courage, restraint and wisdom to go through such a process and there is absolutely no guarantee of reconciliation. But if it comes to it, we should be willing to lead the discussion.
