Tuesday, Rep. Jeff Smith was the guest speaker at the Columbus Rotary Club. Smith, who has been in the Legislature since 1991, prefaced his remarks by saying his talk would be short in order to allow for questions from the audience.
“When are we going to see some leadership on this state flag issue?” Chance Laws asked.
Smith was about as comfortable with that question as a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs, as the saying goes.
Aside from noting that “no flag has every killed anybody,” he was evasive about whether he favored changing the state flag.
“It’s going to be dealt with,” said Smith, who said he gets calls daily on the issue. Clearly, the flag issue has staying power, even if Smith and his fellow legislators try their best to duck the issue.
It should be noted that during his tenure in Jackson, Smith has never been an “issues guy.” His expertise lies in the gears of politics, how that body operates. He has proven to be a great tactician, if not an outspoken advocate.
Yet Smith’s hesitation to clearly state his opinion on the flag is far too representative of the Legislature as a whole. House Speaker Phillip Gunn was the first legislator to state his position on the flag and he stated it clearly: The flag must be changed.
But the majority of his colleagues have been silent. When the Clarion-Ledger contacted every representative and senator in the state and asked for their position on the flag, the greatest response was no response at all: Of 122 House members, 46 either did nor respond or refused to answer the question. It was even worse in the Senate: Just 17 of 52 senators answered the question.
In case you were wondering, Smith was one of those who did not respond. Neither did Sen. Chuck Younger. Rep. Gary Chism said he was opposed to changing the flag.
We will give credit to Chism on this point, not for his position, but for willingness to answer the question.
It is an election year, and we realize that stating a position on this issue involves some risk.
When Gov. Phil Bryant ducked the issue and said he would not call a special session to address the matter, sighs of relief could be heard from one end of the state to the other.
Politicians want no part of this. They would much prefer to wrestle with this issue when the regular session begins in January and the election has passed.
But in many respects, refusing to answer the question is the worst response of all.
We see a similar response from judicial candidates, who have dodged the question about whether they will perform same-sex marriages.
But these issues matter and the people have a right to know where candidates stand before going to the polls.
When more than one in three representatives won’t state their views on this subject and two in three senators dodge the question, it makes a pretty strong argument against incumbents.
If a candidate won’t answer that question, you have to wonder if the candidate is really deserving of your vote.
Where is the leadership?
The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 41 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.