The Senate Armed Services Committee voted last week to pass the National Defense Authorization Act for 2021, and it has Congress taking a leading role in an initiative to change the names of military bases that memorialize Confederate soldiers.
The bill’s final language has not been published yet, but an executive summary outlines its creation of a commission “to study and provide recommendations concerning the removal, names, symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia that honor or commemorate the Confederate States of America.” The commission’s plan would be implemented after three years.
The summary is a bit more ambiguous. That question can be answered once the final language is made public, which will be at some point this week, according to an Armed Services Committee spokesperson.
In any case, charging a commission to explore how and why to change base names adds dignity to a conversation which, in an age of online activism, is apt to lack it.
Over the weekend, Democratic Sen. Doug Jones and Jeff Sessions, who are competing for the same Alabama Senate seat, participated in a petty back-and-forth on Twitter about the issue. Sessions called Jones “history,” among other things. Jones told him to delete his account.
These are adults.
Doug, you are a radical leftist, a pawn for Chuck Schumer. You voted to impeach President Trump, reject Justice Kavanaugh, voted against an end to late-term abortions, and now you join with the woke mob to erase history.
YOU are history. https://t.co/wtS63iSfGY
— Jeff Sessions (@jeffsessions) June 13, 2020
Delete your account Jeff. This came out of a Republican controlled Senate committee on a strong bi-partisan vote. I know it’s tough for you to be on the right side of history when it comes to the Confederacy, but you should give it a try. https://t.co/Nuhl5LW9dx
— Doug Jones (@DougJones) June 13, 2020
It’s unclear at this point who would sit upon such a commission, were the NDAA to pass as it is. As it stands, President Trump might not sign it anyway, considering what he has said about the base names. Still, the right move would be to enlist historians, military leaders, philosophers, and theorists who are concerned with something larger than a question of the moment and whose motivations are apolitical.
They can dignify questions that impassioned leaders and public proponents and opponents would not be as willing to ask: What’s in a name? Does a base’s name inherently glorify its namesake? Why were these bases named for Confederates in the first place? What are the consequences of renaming the bases? In what sense does it matter what a base is named?
With a commission rightly constituted, and hopefully multiple hearings to accompany its findings, a question of this magnitude can be taken seriously. Without it, the national conversation will be mostly informed by angry op-eds and intellectually underserved spats on the internet.
