So apparently, Mike Huckabee, running for the Republican nomination for President of the United States, has decided that a symbol of racism is not an issue for a candidate who wants to be President of the United States needs to address.
“For those of us running for president, everyone’s being baited with this question as if somehow that has anything to do whatsoever with running for president, and my position is it most certainly does not,” Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor and Baptist preacher, told NBC News on Sunday.
I have to wonder, though, if the racism symbolized by flying the flag of the traitors and armed insurrectionists who were in favor of keeping fellow human beings as property might be worthy of some sort of comment from someone who claims to have the correct morals to be president.
“If the state government of South Carolina wishes to address an issue in their state, that’s fine,” Huckabee continued Sunday. “If you can point me to an article and section in the Constitution in which a United States president ought to weigh in on what states use as symbols, then please refresh my memory on that.”
How about the Preamble, where we made the Constitution in order to promote the general welfare? Or Provide for the common defense? Or maybe, right there in the beginning, where we are hoping to form a more perfect union? Is it really a more perfect union when a state government endorses a symbol that says, “We wish you were all still slaves” to a large part of its constituency? How does that promote the general welfare of the people?
I’m guessing you have no problem condemning the swastika as a symbol of anyone not blonde-haired and blue-eyed being less than human. Why can’t you say the same thing for the symbol of southern racism?