Could George Allen’s ‘flag fetish’ help his political prospects?

May 4, 2006

Last week, TNR’s [tag]Ryan Lizza[/tag] caused quite a stir with a devastating article on Sen. [tag]George Allen[/tag] (R-Va.), whose disconcerting background on racial issues — and odd affinity for the [tag]Confederacy[/tag] — made for a series of embarrassing questions for the presidential hopeful.

Allen and his allies have fought back against the Lizza article, accusing the writer of trying to “smear” the senator, almost immediately after it was published. This week, Lizza responds by exploring Allen’s fixation with the Confederacy in even more detail.

For example, Allen told Lizza that he removed the Confederate [tag]flag[/tag] from his home in 1992, but in 1993, the flag appeared “in the very first ad that Allen broadcast in 1993, when he ran for governor.” It adds a certain salience to Lizza’s observations — if Allen had just latched onto these cultural icons as a rebellious teenager, it’s merely embarrassing. But the point is, Allen was still embracing the Confederate flag as a gubernatorial candidate and continues to either display the flag to express approval of the emblem as recently as 2000.

Perhaps the most important point, however, is what all of this means to Allen, the likely GOP presidential candidate, now.

On the right, a debate is now brewing about what Allen’s four-decade embrace of the Confederate flag means for his presidential ambitions. Some are bothered by the revelations. At the influential conservative website Redstate.com, the blogger TheCollegian, who volunteered for Allen in 1993, writes, “George Allen did not simply adopt an affection for the South, but the South at a certain time: a time when it was fighting to keep slavery legal. Even this would be ok if he had some family tie to the region at that time, but he doesn’t. I find that to be disturbing.”

But there’s a second view. It is best expressed to me by [Greg [tag]Stevens[/tag], Allen’s 1993 media consultant], now a consultant to John [tag]McCain[/tag]. He argues strenuously that I should not write a piece about Allen and the Confederate flag. He says it would be unfair to Allen. But, when I explain Allen’s record on the issue, he makes another argument that has nothing to do with fairness, and I figure out why he is so forceful.

“Well, you also realize you’re getting him votes for the primary, right?” Stevens says, alluding to key states in the South. He raises his voice to a shout: “You’re getting him votes! Big time!”

Maybe Stevens was kidding, maybe not. But the fact that it’s plausible that Allen would garner additional support from Republicans in the South because, not in spite of, his affinity for the Confederacy, is telling.

I don’t think there’s any doubt that guys with flags in their pick-ups will identify with Allen just because of that issue–especially if they feel he’s being crucified by libruls for it. He could win the Confederate yahoo vote unless they go for someone even more macho or right wing. Whether that’s enough to make the difference in getting the nomination is unknown. I’d guess that that constituency alone is not big enough in the New South all by itself and is probably less definitive than his stands on God, guns, and gays.

  • Allen wants to get all he can out that racist rag, with none of the back draft. I’m glad it’s coming out (at last).

  • “Well, you also realize you’re getting him votes for the primary, right?” Stevens says, alluding to key states in the South. He raises his voice to a shout: “You’re getting him votes! Big time!”

    I don’t think he’s kidding. I think he’s trying to defend Allen. He shifts from saying “It wouldn’t be fair to him” to arguing “It’s not in society’s interest to draw attention to him”? Please.

    If Greg Stevens’ concern was really with the second argument, then why not make that argument in the first place? Sorry, but it really seems to me that he was being disingenuous.

  • The confederacy never admitted defeat. Politics is just war by other means. And the republican party is their party of choice, ever since the dixiecrats joined the republican party. It is not a stretch to say that the confederacy, in the guise of the republican party, has won the civil war. They are now fighting hard to keep that victory going.

    Ever since the progressives joining the democrat party, back I think the 1920s, the democrats has been the party of Lincoln.

  • I’d tell Greg Stevens that for every vote Allen gains in the South, he’ll lose a vote apiece in the Northeast, the Midwest, the Northwest, and the Southwest. So let them bring it on; this is a “battle worthy of fighting any ol’ day of the week, y’all.” And, there’s the crux of the whole thing, in that Stevens knows full well that “talking about Allen’s flag-fetish” will bring out those overwhelming numbers of anti-Allen voters.

    There comes the moment when every dictator-to-be needs to step out from the darkness and into the light of day, promoting their scapegoat. Hitler wanted to blame Germany’s problems on the Jews; Allen wants to blame Amerika’s problems on all non-whites, with specificity concentrated on Blacks.

  • I think that all this will probably get Allen more votes in the GOP primary. After all, the neoconfederates in SC are the ones that decide who wins the primary. As far as the presidential election, well, I would agree with the above poster that it will kill him in the general.

  • Could be Stevens just wants Republicans in general to be defended from the stink when this particular piece of dirty laundry hits the air & the light of day.

  • Sometimes is just embarrasing to live in Virginia.

    Then I remember that I was born in Nebraska.

    Then I remember that Nebraska is one of only four states where a majority still supports George Bush.

    This is God’s punishment, isn’t it?

  • “George Allen did not simply adopt an affection for the South, but the South at a certain time: a time when it was fighting to keep slavery legal. Even this would be ok if he had some family tie to the region at that time, but he doesn’t. I find that to be disturbing.”

    Does this idiot mean to suggest that it would be “ok” for Allen to affirm the criminal Confederacy if he, Allen, had “family ties” to slave owners?? If Allen had no “family ties” to the South at the time of the Conferderacy, then who is he pandering to by displaying the Confederate flag? I mean other than the jug-heads south of the Mason-Dixon line.

    • Comments are closed.