So What?

Matt Drudge is breathlessly reporting that the Democrats are going to hold a debate at a theater on the University of South Carolina campus named after the secessionist Augustus Longstreet. He has since updated and all but retracted the story. But his correction doesn't change the general tone of disapproval in the story. And my problem here isn't with the Democrats, but with Drudge and the political correctness police in society today.

As I view the situation, the Dems wanted to hold a debate in South Carolina (why not Georgia or Virginia - more important states electorially I don't know). They decided to hold the debate at the University, I'm guessing as a way of proving that they are all for promoting free speech and diversity of thought. So far so good.

The University would have examined their facilities and then determined that this theater, the Longstreet Theater, was the venue best suited to such an event. The naming of the theater probably never came up, as it shouldn't have. The University had decided at some point in the past that they wanted to honor Longstreet and did so.

The point is, the Democratic Party of today had nothing to do with the naming or selection of the theater as the place for the debate. The were looking for an adequate venue on a college campus and they found it. What's wrong with that?

Now Drudge in his story is implying that the Democrats are being hypocritical. I'm sure that argument would be along the lines of "Democrats 'fought' for equality and desegregation. It would be wrong for them to implicitly support those institutions by honoring the name of Longstreet by debating in a place named for him."

Longstreet is a historical figure and, at least according the people of South Carolina, an important one. Important enough that they named a building for him. But that was the people in South Carolina that named the building; not John Kerry; not Al Sharpton; not Carol Moseley-Braun. That fact that the State Democratic Party of South Carolina chose an "inappropriate" venue should not in any way reflect on those running for office.

Speaking at the Longstreet Theater would not imply a support for slavery. It wouldn't imply a support for secession from the Union. Those were the battles of seven score ago. To try to create a link between the two issues (speaking and slavery) is just wrong.

(My parents will hate this next part - sorry Dad.)

I'm Southern. I was born and raised in Florida. Both of my parents are from up north, but a pride in being Southern has taken hold in me. It is part of who I am.

And whether I like it or not, the legacy of the Confederacy is part of my history. Large parts of the story of the South disturb me. I don't like the history of slavery or segregation. I'm appalled by the Klan and Jim Crow.

But there are other parts of the Southern tradition that I love. The grace and dignity of men like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. The desire for decentralized government (though I didn't like their reasoning for it).

The history of the South, like that of any nation or region, has its high points and its lows. Failed nations like the Confederacy usually fail because the foundations are weak and as a consequence there are more lows to write about in histories than highs.

To use history as a lesson for the unreformed (see France) is acceptable. There are times, when the same mistake is being repeated again and again and again, that it is necessary to openly remind people of the consequences of repetitive stupidity (appeasement anyone?).

But the South has made great strides in reforming from our ways of 150 years ago, 50 years ago, or even 5 years ago. Are we perfect? No. But is there a problem with slavery and secessionist movements? No.

The South has moved beyond that. It's not right that some people keep dragging out the slavery excuse every time they don't like something Southern.

I'm ticked at Drudge for not being honest with who he's mad at and for what reasons. He's mad at the Democrats for being Democrats. Fair enough. Drudge is politically motivated most of the time. I have no problem with that.

But if he is upset with the people of South Carolina for having named a theater after Longstreet, he needs to say so. I don’t think Drudge likes the legacy of Longstreet. That's fine. It's obvious that he really doesn't want a building named after a man like Longstreet. That's fine too.

But neither one of those problems is a problem of the Democratic Party. To say it is is disingenuous.

If you want to attack the Democrats, go right ahead; just don't drag out my history as a convenient evil for cheap potshots.