Moving Forward From The Virginia Mess

I'm a few weeks late again in blogging, and there's quite a bit to catch up on.  But I think I'll start with a story that was on everyone's minds a few weeks ago, and (as is par for the course in T****land) has been pushed aside by subsequent chaos.  Unfortunately, it's far too important to let it get lost in the media sauce:  the news that the white Governor and Attorney General of Virginia wore blackface in former parts of their lives, while the African-American Lieutenant Governor of the state is facing an investigation based on two accusations of sexual assault.

As per the SOP of legacy media and right-wing social media, this news became, and probably remains, grist for the "Dems-in-disarry" meme on which they are stuck when it comes to covering Democrats and progressives more generally.  It's difficult, however, for me to see this as anything but a southern-specific, and especially a Virginia-specific, issue when it comes to the blackface episodes in Ralph Northam's and Mark Herring's lives.  I mean, let's be realistic:  does anyone believe that their are any Virginians in either party who could be professional qualified to take the place of Northam or Herring, and who has not worn blackface at some point in their lives?  Can I just get a on that one, and move on?

I'll go so far as to say that this is perhaps the main reason why this story has faded to a significant degree in the MSM's coverage priorities.  Again, this is Virginia, the state in which Northam's 2017 opponent, Ed Gillespie, spent the better part of the campaign dodging accusations that he was a bigot.  And then, going back a few years or so, there was then-Senator George Allen, who thought it best to run for re-election by insulting one-sixth of the planet's entire population (and a significant portion of Virginia's population as well).

Perhaps the more significant reason that the story has faded from the electronic headlines is simply this:  the "Dems" aren't in disarray over the Virginia situation.  Even single Democrat who has publicly condemned all three men, and demanded their resignations.  In doing so, their statements have made it clear that the behavior of which they are accused runs contrary not only to the values of the Democratic Party, but also to the ideals of public service.  Yes, all three men deserve due process, but that is a right, while holding public office is a privilege. 

And the ability of a public servant to act honestly and fully on behalf of the people he or she serves must never be called into serious question without consequences for that servant.  This is especially true in the case of Justin Fairfax, the state's lieutenant governor.  Blackface, for which there is never any justification, is an act of psychological violence, but sexual assault is an act of physical violence.  If the first duty of a public servant is to promote safety (and I believe it is), then there can be no questions about a public servant's ability and willingness to do so.

In spite of these arguments and others, Northam, Fairfax, and Herring all seem to be intent on staying on the job, without regard of the potential for compromise to their status as public servants, or the larger damage that staying on may, eventually, do to the larger goals of the Democratic Party in 2020 and beyond.  Maybe they have confidence in the Republican hypocrisy on issues of race and gender to not feel immediately threatened with removal from office.  Maybe they genuinely believe that there is some value to trying to ride out the controversy and repair their damaged relationship with the people of the state.  And maybe, just maybe, they feel safe where they are because they know that national Democrats can't do much more that call for their resignation.

Or is there?

What about members of Congress who display an open affinity for another country, to the point at which their loyalty to the Constitution of the United States might be called into serious question?  Say, for example, the Russian Federation, or the Confederate States of America?  Should they be allowed to serve in Congress, even if they meet the constitutional requirements of age, citizenship, and residency?

I mention those requirements because the Supreme Court, in the 1969 case of Powell v. McCormack, stated that a member of Congress could not be denied a seat so long as those requirements had been satisfied, and the election results as certified by the relevant state showed that the individual in question had won the election.  This is why members of Congress, such as Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey (to cite a recent example) can stand trial for criminal charges without being forced to relinquish his seat in Congress.  And this is why someone like Fairfax, despite the allegations of sexual assault, could not be barred from being seated in Congress.

But blackface, like the use of other antebellum symbols of the Confederacy and Southern culture (such as the Confederate battle flag) represents something even more significant than a violation of criminal law.  It raises the question of national allegiance.  It asks whether or not the users of those symbols are trying to resurrect the proverbial "Lost Cause."  In fact, it ultimately begs the question of whether or not the user can, with a full and sincere heart, swear an oath of loyalty to a Constitution and a nation that fought and vanquished the nation associated with those symbols.

I think it's a fair question.  And I think it's high time the Democrats acted upon it.

Which is why I'm calling on the Democratic leadership in both houses that, should they retain (in the case of the House) or acquire (in the case of the Senate) control, they should refuse to seat any elected member who has ever, in any way, been associated with the symbols and ideals of the Confederacy, with the provision that they may be seated if they renounce in writing the use or support of those symbols, and the knowledge that they may be expelled if evidence emerges that they have not been faithful to that renunciation.

No battle flags in their campaigns, or on the walls of their offices.  No "off-color" racial jokes.  No appeals to "heritage" (whatever that really means).  Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.

Does this offend you?  Does this seem like some kind of infringement of First Amendment rights?

Let me be clear.  The First Amendment has no more passionate and absolute supporter than this blogger.  There is a constitutional right to be a bigot.  There is no constitutional right to be a traitor, or to support the interests of a vanquished nation while swearing an oath to uphold the laws of another one--specifically, the one that did the vanquishing.  There is no such thing as "dual citizenship" in the Union and the Confederacy.  You belong to one, or to the other.  And since, as I wrote earlier, public service is a privilege and not a right, it's not at all unreasonable to demand loyalty to the government and the flag to which members of Congress swear a daily oath.  (Yes, that's right; the Pledge of Allegiance argument works both ways).

We have a "President" who likes to go around saying that you can't have a nation without borders.  Well, you can't have "one nation under G-d" with two flags.  Make a choice. And if the Stars and Bars is your choice, well, at least we know where you stand.  And we can act accordingly, not only with our votes, but also with our Congressional leadership withholding the privilege of serving a nation you do not fully support.

If the Northam-Fairfax-Herring mess in Virginia can do nothing else, it can help to clarify our national values, and the expression of those national values in our national government.  Jesus said that no one can serve two masters.  Let's see the Republicans, who would like to use the Virginian mess for their own purposes in the singleminded pursuit of power, make a choice.

And let's see if they get it right.

And withhold the privilege of public service if they fail to do so.