Moseley Braun on the Confederate Flag: A Rebuttal to Saletan and Jacobs

Saletan and Jacobs, writing for Slate, have offered a "reality check" on the interpertation of Carol Moseley Braun's fight against the Confederate Flag in the Senate.

I posted her speech here on DU to mark its tenth anniversary.

The Slate argument is here.

Now, I think you can see from the text of the speech that the Slate team is way off base in their characterization of what happened. Carol did in fact and contrary to Slate's assertions "go to the mat," and valiantly. She stood up and gave an emotional speech, adopting a tone which went against her grain, and may have hurt her carefully stewarded image as a moderate, concilliatory voice, in order to ensure that her fellow Senators understood the symbolic importance of the issue. And while Saletan and Jacobs completely missed that meaning, there can be no doubt the Senate was awoken to it.

Was this the real Confederate flag? Saletan and Jacobs think not. Carol says it is, citing documents to prove her case. Yes, it's also a trademark, that's what the Helms amendment covered, but it incorporates the Confederate flag. Can that fact be denied? Uh huh.

So, were Senators swayed, as I asserted, and Jet, and just about anybody who looked at it fairly? Or are Saletan and Jacobs correct in asserting that nobody was "really" swayed? Well, the issue is complicated, because many people rose to speak and gave different reasons for changing their votes. There can be no doubt that 28 Senators changed their votes. What did they say the second time around? And how were Carol's supporters summing up the change?

Here are some quotes:

• Sen. Heflin. Mr. President, I rise with a conflict that is deeply rooted in many aspects of controversy. First, the conflict arises for the love of my southland. I feel today, however, that we also have a conflict in modern America.
  
  I come from a family background that is deeply rooted in the Confederacy . My great-grandfather on my mother's side was one of the signers of the Ordinance of Secession by which the State of Alabama seceded from the Union. My grandfather on my father's side was a surgeon in the Confederate Army.
  
  I have many connections through my family with the Daughters of the Confederacy organization and the Children of the Confederacy , and I have a deep feeling, relative to my family's background, that what they did at the time they thought was right.
  
  History, as we look back, always can give perspectives on what existed at the particular time. But I revere my family, and I respect those who thought whatever they were doing was right at that particular time in our Nation's history.
  
  But we live today in a different world. We live in a Nation that every day is trying to heal the scars of racism that have occurred in the past. We are trying to heal problems of racism in the world in which we live today. Perhaps racism is one of the great scars and one of the most serious illnesses that we still suffer today.
  
  The United Daughters of the Confederacy has done a lot of good work. Its support for soldiers in arms in times of war and national conflicts, and its support for the sale of war bonds, and its charitable donations to orphans, and the countless hours donated to veterans in our national veterans hospitals, are certainly admirable.
  
  I do not believe the organization today really has racism at its heart or in its activity. But the Senator from Illinois, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, is a descendant of those that suffered the ills of slavery. I have a legislative director whose great, great-grandfather was a slave. I said to my legislative director, `Well, if I vote with Senator Moseley-Braun, my mother, grandmother, and other ancestors will turn over in their graves.' He said, `Well, likewise, my ancestors will turn over in their graves.' But I strongly feel that if they were alive today, they would stand for what is right and honorable, and they would agree with me that it is time to move forward in our Nation's history.
  
  I think we do live in a world of symbolisms. Many distinctions can be made, however, between the granting of the extension to the design patent sought by the United Daughters of the Confederacy and flying the Confederate battle flag atop the State capitol dome. But the whole matter boils down to what Senator Moseley-Braun contends--that it is an issue of symbolism. We must get racism behind us, and we must move forward.
  
  Therefore, I will support a reconsideration of this motion, and I do it with conflict. Nevertheless, we must realize that we live in America of today. We live in a world in which we are so proud of the fact that we have made so much progress in removing the ills of racism, and we must realize that we must move forward to eradicate all of the racism that still exists. We live in a country in which we believe that all men and women--as stated in the Declaration of Independence--are created equal and are endowed by our Creator with the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  
  I feel that, today, this is a symbolic step. If we move forward to put the stamp of approval of the U.S. Senate and the Congress on a symbol that is offensive to a large segment of Americans, I think we will not be moving in the right direction, and it is a wrong approach to the ideals for which this country must stand.
  
  
• Sen. Chaffee. Mr. President, one of the purposes of this Senate is to debate thoroughly the issues that come before us and, indeed, it has been called the greatest deliberative body in the world. I want to say this has been a good debate this afternoon, which I was fortunate enough to be able to hear all of practically.
  
  I voted with the majority to table the amendment, dashing up here from lunch, as did others, to deal with an issue that was totally unfamiliar to nearly all of us.
  
  It is apparent from this debate, Mr. President, that a group in our society feels very deeply about this matter, and those views have been very powerfully enunciated by the extraordinarily excellent speech of the distinguished Senator from Illinois. I think her views and the points she made have validity.
  
  I must say, regrettably, rarely on this floor are minds changed. All too often nobody is here listening or, if people are listening, they are only listening so they can jump up and give their speech without paying a great deal of heed to the speeches that have gone previously.
  
  But I have been persuaded by the views that I have heard expressed today, especially by the Senator from Illinois. As I said before, I think they have great validity, and I look forward to the vote that we will soon have coming up on the motion to reconsider. I want to thank the Chair.
  
  
• Sen. Mitchell. The eloquence, the conviction, the power of the remarks made by the Senator from Illinois, the persuasiveness as seen in the subsequent remarks, is something rarely seen in the Senate or anyplace else in our society, and I commend her for the conviction and the principle and the courage she has brought to this matter.
  
  
• Sen. Bennet. I quickly realized, after the motion to table had failed, that a large number of Republicans did not realize the greater implications of what had just happened. I was one of those who, as I circulated among my fellow Republicans, said, do you understand what we have just done? They said no, and I said I intend to make a motion to reconsider (bold mine).
  
  
• Sen. Levin: However, it appears that we are about to reverse that decision. In doing so, the Senate has demonstrated its ability to listen to the courageous voice of a new member and to correct its mistake. Instead of putting its stamp of approval on a symbol that has divided this Nation, the Senate has shown the benefit of debate and diversity. Instead of dredging up the horrors and prejudices of the past, it has shown its ability to look to the future with sensitivity and the hope of renewal. For these reasons, I will be pleased to vote for the motion to reconsider the motion to table the Helms amendment.
  
  

Oh crimeny, it just goes on and on. Several senators said that they just weren't paying attention, as Saletan and Jacobs argue, but, and this is a crucial provisio, they just weren't aware of the symbolism and the political stakes involved. Carol made them aware, and they acknowledged that and for that she was widely praised.

If Saletan and Jacobs are so convinced that this is of trifling significance--and given their near total disregard for the actual words of our Senators on this matter, chances are that it will be no small matter to disabuse them of this pet notion--, perhaps they can be persuaded to turn their journalistic skills towards investigating Sen. Helms' interest in this matter, and ask why he keeps this wretched proposal alive, despite the fact that it has been discredited in the Senate and has no hope of passing--unless perhaps it's surreptitiously inserted in some other legislation at a time when people aren't paying attention. So, there you go, there is a role for journalistic watchdogs, one that doesn't involve specious arguments and half truths and distortions, but merely shining a light on the goings on in our nation's capital.

To check the facts for yourselves, visit thomas and search for "United Daughters of the Confederacy," and follow the debate on Helms Amendment S.610 to the NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TRUST ACT OF 1993, the first motion to table, and the ensuing debate until it is decisively tabled. Carol's initial remarks start on p.9253, I think.

I read the other post you linked to and I thank you because I was unaware of this whole event.
What is Slate's point? Don't they have anything better to argue? How about investigating how black women get targeted for removal from office when they dare speak out?

They'd be more incisive if they were Obsidian, or Flint, or Jasper, or just about any shiny crystalline rock known to humankind. But that's the "point" of slate, isn't it? To be dull and worthless for getting any real work done. It's quite the 90's aesthetic, or rather its more fastidious backdrop. Ah, let's not read into surfaces more depth than they can logically contain. After all irony is dead, or so I've heard.

To be charitable, I think Slate may be hurting for material on Braun--there's only so much lexis-nexus will tell you, for all the reasons you're well aware of. Their professional sensibility and code of honor guided them into tearing her down, and this is what they came up with. Isn't it obvious?

Just stop me before I nick a finger. These Clovis keyboards are treacherous.

I read the Slate article and I was disappointed with it because I didn't see how this related to her campaign. It seemed petty. Now I understand that it was worse than petty - it was wrong.

While I am a Dean supporter, I really, really like Carol Mosley Braun, and both my husband and I make it a point to listen to what she has to say. We both think she's delightful, insightful, and intelligent!

I was thinking I had been too hard on Slate last night, that I was rather disgusted by journalism as a means of contribituting to public debate. However, a quick perusal of daypop reminds me why they have earned the wrath of perceptive readers. Their distorted picture of the congressional record is being accepted as fact.

Slate plays hardball. Slate beans the lady. Is that a sign of disrepect? Is it their fault the ump's asleep? That's not their responsibility, is it?

In the interests of fairness I'm certain Slate will clobber each candidate in turn, but the damage will not felt equally. They know this. We all know this. And what are the consequences, apart from the obvious? One likely outcome of journalism of this sort is polarization of perceived interests, one of the preconditions for the formation of electoral blocs that can justly be described as perfidious.

(....long diatribe against media's racial politics....)

I want to say sensationalistic things like "Not since the murder of John Keats has vile calumny so wantonly havocked the Soul of Liberty." Whatever. The world never has its fill of vanquished Romantics. Meanwhile the day-to-day psychopathologies of reportage erode the foundations of our democracy and diminish us as people.

Boo. Boooooooooooooo.

1. Slate's article has been warmly and uncritically received by the group at alt.war.civil.usa. Bravo!

2. I've found some material on Sen. Helms' attempts to block Moseley Braun's confirmation in 1998. "At a very minimum she has got to apologize for the display that she provoked over a little symbol for a wonderful group of little old ladies," said Helms in 1998. Maybe Slate's little write-up will be the wakeup call that finally leads Moseley Braun to repentence and contrition for her misguided ways. Ahem.