By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In observance of Inauguration Day on January 20th, Governor Kay Ivey has directed that all Alabama state flags, currently at half-staff for President Carter, be raised to full-staff. This action complies with federal law. Flags will return to half-staff on January 21st, continuing the 30-day mourning period for the late president. This follows similar actions by other governors, including Texas Governor Greg Abbott.
Read the original article here
Alabama Governor Orders Flags to Return to Full-Staff for Inauguration Day
Alabama Governor Kay Ivey’s decision to order state flags returned to full-staff for Inauguration Day has sparked significant controversy. The move, mirroring a similar order issued by Texas Governor Greg Abbott, is seen by many as a deliberate slight against the recently deceased former President Jimmy Carter, whose 30-day mourning period mandated half-staff flags. The timing, coinciding with the inauguration of a new president, further fuels the perception that this is not merely an oversight but a calculated political maneuver.
This action is being interpreted by some as a blatant attempt to curry favor with the incoming administration, prioritizing political expediency over honoring a respected former president. The implication is one of unwavering loyalty to a particular political figure, regardless of established traditions or norms of respect for former leaders. The perception of prioritizing personal gain over established protocol deeply troubles many, who view it as symbolic of a broader trend.
The decision raises concerns about the erosion of long-standing traditions. The 30-day mourning period for deceased presidents, though not ancient, is nevertheless a significant customary practice. The disregard for this tradition, seen by many as a small but symbolic act, is viewed by some as part of a larger pattern of disregard for established norms and institutions.
The concern isn’t simply about the flag’s position; it represents a broader anxiety about incremental erosion of societal norms. Critics argue this is a tactic often employed by authoritarian regimes: subtly dismantling traditions and institutions piecemeal, making the erosion so gradual that it goes largely unnoticed until irreversible damage is done. The comparison isn’t meant to equate the current situation with full-blown authoritarianism, but rather to highlight the insidious nature of chipping away at established practices.
The precedent of accepting a felon for the highest office in the land is cited as a case study for this pattern of incremental erosion. The acceptance of such a deviation from established norms is pointed to as evidence that seemingly small actions, like ignoring flag protocols, can contribute to larger, more concerning changes in the political landscape. Each small norm broken is seen as a step further down a slippery slope.
Many see the governor’s decision as a stark display of disrespect, not only to President Carter but also to the very traditions and values the flag represents. The strong reaction underscores the deeply felt emotional attachment to these symbols and the sense of betrayal felt when they are seemingly manipulated for political gain. This is especially profound given President Carter’s esteemed reputation and service to the nation, including his military service. The lack of respect shown to him is viewed as a double insult.
The question of whether there’s a federal mandate requiring flags to be at full-staff on Inauguration Day has been raised. While some believe there is such a law, research suggests that there isn’t a specific federal statute mandating this. This raises further questions about the governor’s motivation, suggesting that the stated rationale for the decision may be inaccurate, or at the very least, misleading. The governor’s actions are seen by some as a willful disregard for established protocol, regardless of the legal basis.
The intense emotions surrounding this seemingly small issue highlight the deeply personal connections people have with national symbols and traditions. For many, the flag is more than just a piece of cloth; it embodies values, history, and respect for past leaders. The perceived disregard for these symbols fuels anger and frustration, further emphasizing the division within the nation. The governor’s action is considered an affront not just to President Carter, but to the fundamental ideals that many believe are integral to American identity.
In conclusion, the Alabama governor’s decision to order flags returned to full-staff for Inauguration Day is more than a simple matter of flag protocol; it has become a flashpoint, sparking broader concerns about the erosion of norms, political posturing, and the respect shown to former presidents. The intensity of the public reaction underscores the emotional weight placed upon these symbols and the deep divisions within the country. Whether it will be remembered as a minor political misstep or a significant symptom of a larger problem remains to be seen.