The terrible events in Charlottesville last weekend have heightened public awareness of the growing boldness of white nationalists and neo-Nazis alongside the election of Donald Trump. But the flashpoint of the Robert E. Lee memorial in that city has also thrust the question of Confederate monuments more into public view as well. Already, the city of Baltimore has removed its Confederate statues from public view, and other cities are beginning to debate the appropriateness of their continued display.
One of the most important pieces of information to emerge more broadly into public view over the last week is that most of these statues were not put up in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War to commemorate the Southern war dead. Rather, most were erected decades after the war, as an affirmation of the establishment of post-bellum white supremacy and the South’s delayed victory on this key front. Their construction is also related to the way that the North, as a method for reconciling the splintered U.S., allowed the South to construct a narrative that the Confederate fight was not to preserve slavery, but was instead a patriotic battle for liberty. As Josh Marshall discusses at Talking Points Memo, “[w]hat is little discussed today is that the North and the South made a tacit bargain in the years after the Civil War to valorize Southern generals as a way to salve the sting of Southern defeat and provide a cultural and political basis for uniting the country with more than military force.” As Marshall also notes, this approach was coupled with the North’s move to leave African-Americans in the south to the mercy of their former overlords, leading to decades more of Jim Crow and African-American disenfranchisement.
So the history behind these statues is shot through with racist intent, and the recent right-wing protestors at Charlottesville show us that at least white supremacists know this. So now that these statues have become a flashpoint for rejection of a far-right resurgence, and their real meaning becomes more broadly understood, what’s the best strategy to take? Should removal of the statues become a full-court press by progressives?
This seems to me a slightly more fraught question than I had initially believed, because I think most people on the left would agree that there is a larger issue that needs to be addressed, which is defeating Trump and the forces of white supremacism that have energized his presidency. So, adopting language inspired by the militant backdrop here, the question becomes, how best to use the battle of the statues to advance the war against these retrograde forces? The right-wing march on Charlottesville, and Donald Trump’s response, have vividly demonstrated the synergy between the president and these illiberal, un-American groups; it is crucial that this synergy be keep in full public view as much as possible. At this point, there seems to be momentum, including from conservative politicians, to remove them from some Southern cities. But as much as I personally despise the presence of these statues and instinctively would like nothing more than to knock them all down overnight, I think we need to consider how such a project can be carried out so as to maximize the political damage to Trump, his Republican Party enablers, and white supremacists.
When Steve Bannon says it would be a good idea for his brand of politics if people keep knocking down statues, I don’t think it’s letting Bannon play head games with the left to stop to consider why he might say this. I think an important part of the answer can be gleaned from Bannon’s phone call to American Prospect’s Robert Kuttner shortly before his departure from the White House, when he said, “The Democrats, the longer they talk about identity politics, I got ’em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.” I think the grain of truth in his words is that reinforcing a narrative in which the left seems to ONLY care about race and identity is indeed not a great idea for Democrats and other progressives; it can be leveraged to alienate white voters, and to make the case that the Democrats are a party that no longer cares about economic justice.
I realize the question of identity politics is a fraught and complicated topic, and that I make such a quick digression into it at my peril. But here’s why I bring it up: I think the moral power of the fight to remove Confederate statues is maximized when progressives and others make it clear that these are emblems not simply of subjugation of African-Americans, but have become a modern-day inspiration to forces that hate nearly ALL Americans - white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and neo-Confederates, for whom the only acceptable American is Christian, southern, probably male, and of course white. Don't make it an issue of black Americans versus white Americans; make it an issue of normal, decent Americans versus treasonous, racist, anti-Americans. Keeping up the fight is also a huge win by continuing to put Trump’s defense of these hate groups in the public eye as the struggle to remove them continues; because at this point, the clear and immediate danger, more than whatever inspiration the monuments give far-right forces, is the fact that they have a president who showers them with approval from the highest office in the land, laying the groundwork for greater white supremacist violence.
Bannon’s line of thinking is that the statues are yet another issue that can be used to drive a wedge between Americans along racial lines, while the president continues to talk about “economic nationalism.” What Bannon seems not to grasp, though, is that the rally in Charlottesville, and the discussion it has opened up about the president’s defense of white supremacists, has made it increasingly difficult for Trump himself to talk about anything else. Indeed, it makes it easier than ever to see that “economic nationalism” is a euphemism for a politics of benefitting white Americans, including by means of un-American voter suppression efforts, against perceived advantage-taking by privileged minorities; otherwise, why would Bannon be positing some sort of obvious opposition between economic nationalism and the interests of non-whites? Bannon seems not to understand the significance of the fact that it’s Trump who started this fight, when he gave a nudge and a wink to racist elements during the campaign and after his election. Trump is the one who stood behind the podium at Trump Tower and talked about the “fine people” at a neo-Nazi rally. The statues have become a gateway into a heightened discussion of the fact that our president has thrown his weight behind the most hateful and violent fringes of our society. Removing the statues from their pedestals is a powerful new way to talk about removing Trump from office.
An effective strategy around the statues is also one that doesn’t simply call for tearing down, but for building up - in this case, constructing new statues in the place of the old that celebrate our SHARED American history. A good place to start are abolitionists and African-American soldiers who served in the Civil War - there are many heroes to be found in both groups, including people who should be better-known than currently. One name I have seen mentioned is Robert Smalls, whose amazing story encompasses stealing a Confederate ship and being elected to the House of Representatives. More broadly memorialized, these people would be an inspiration that decent Americans could celebrate together.
And speaking of driving a wedge - there is one area where Democrats and progressives can force Trump’s Republican enablers to choose sides with little risk and maximal moral righteousness. Ten U.S. Army bases are named for Confederate generals, and now a group of House Democrats has proposed a bill under which the defense secretary would have to rename military bases named after anyone “who took up arms against the United States during the American Civil War or any individual or entity that supported such efforts.” It is shocking that U.S. military facilities would be named after generals who fought against the United States. Once again, the roots of this phenomenon go back to a time when it was seen as important to placate the South. According to Politico, “A number of the bases got those names in the early and mid-20th century, at a time when military leaders needed to fill the ranks and relied heavily on Southern states. Some were named in the lead-up to World War I and others on the cusp of American entry into World War II. Many of the names were put forward by the states, and the Army, in desperate need of manpower, agreed.”
I cannot believe that this is an issue on which the cause of retaining these names will find many defenders. It is logically nonsensical for a military base to be named after someone who fought against that same military: as nonsensical as, say, naming a base after German general Erwin Rommel. And if this legislation were to be passed, it would set a powerful precedent that would help to re-define the conversation about Confederate monuments, and those like the president who mistakenly view them as beautiful elements of both our public parks and history.