By Steve Brawner
© 2017 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

On Monday, Arkansans will join Mississippians and Alabamians in honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and General Robert E. Lee on the same day.

It might be the last time for Arkansas.

The three states are the only ones that combine the holidays – and that includes Lee’s home state of Virginia, which separated them in 2000.

The dual holiday here stems from the fact that Arkansas was already celebrating Lee’s birthday each Jan. 19 when the King holiday was created in 1983 and set for the third Monday of each January. Because the holidays were right on top of each other, legislators combined them in 1985. Then-Gov. Bill Clinton signed the legislation.

Some state legislators tried to separate the holidays in 2015, but they failed. Vocal opponents filled committee rooms and argued their case – which, I’m telling you, can be a surprisingly effective tactic, particularly if legislators have mixed emotions or are unsure which way the wind is blowing on an issue.

Gov. Asa Hutchinson began that legislative session without a strong opinion on the holiday and eventually supported separating the days, but he didn’t really fight for it. Since then, he has made it an emphasis. In July 2015, he wrote the state president of the NAACP that he would “do what is in my power” to give King his own day. Last January, he said lawmakers should separate the holidays and said he would attend events honoring King that day without mentioning anything about honoring Lee. In December, he presented a list of 19 priorities for the upcoming legislative session, most of them relatively noncontroversial, but the holiday was one of them. In a press availability Jan. 4, he said Lee was “on the wrong side of history,” a noteworthy comment in a state where some people still revere Lee. He said he wants to move Lee’s day to October but not make it a holiday for state employees.

Hutchinson is not the type of governor who relishes a big fight over a hot-button social issue. Those kinds of controversies are bad for business, which is why he’s been trying to persuade legislators not to introduce a transgender bathroom bill like the one in North Carolina.

But in this case, Arkansas’ current situation is already bad for business and bad for the state’s image. For a Southern state to pair the country’s greatest civil rights leader with a Confederate Civil War general just looks bad, and it doesn’t help persuade out-of-state and out-of-country business executives that Arkansas is a forward-looking place. Meanwhile the dual holiday makes a statement to the state’s own citizens that we really aren’t all-in on civil rights.

When the bill comes up in committee, it probably will attract the same opponents it attracted last time – those who will argue that Lee was a man of honor and an important figure in Arkansas and American history, and that the day commemorates Southern heritage, not slavery.

It will be interesting to see which legislators oppose the separation, and the reasons they give. It was only a few months ago that a few of them were threatening action against the University of Arkansas because some female basketball players knelt rather than stand during the national anthem. Yet the entire state honors alongside Dr. King a general who fought to give us a different anthem entirely. Had Lee succeeded in his efforts, you and I would be Confederates, not Americans, standing only for “Dixie.” For us, “The Star-Spangled Banner” would be just a historical reference to a country we used to be a part of, the equivalent of “God Save the Queen” now. The American flag would be just another country’s flag.

The fact that the still-powerful governor has prioritized giving King his own day makes it much more likely it will happen. But nothing is certain. Dr. Martin Luther King had a dream, but he couldn’t predict the future, and neither can I.

Related: Arkansas flag’s one star a reminder or a celebration?

By Steve Brawner
© 2017 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

If you’re one of 435 Americans who can get yourself elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, then by definition you’re probably politically astute – which makes what happened this past week all the more hard to figure.

After being handed the reins of power at just about every level of government everywhere, House Republicans made it their first order of business to replace the independent Office of Congressional Ethics with a weakened and muzzled office overseen by the House Ethics Committee – in other words, by the very Congress the office investigates. Moreover, this happened during a behind-closed-doors meeting.

Among Arkansas’ congressional delegation, Reps. French Hill and Steve Womack voted against the plan, while Rep. Rick Crawford was traveling but said later he opposed it. Rep. Bruce Westerman voted for it. All of them said reforms are needed – just not necessarily these reforms, or these reforms done this way.

The backlash against the move was immediate and included not only Democrats but also President-elect Donald Trump, who questioned the timing and priorities in a tweet that concluded with “#DTS” – in other words, “drain the swamp.” On Tuesday, hours before the full Congress was to vote on the new rules, House Republicans hastily met and voted by unanimous consent to remove the controversial provision.

Why stumble so badly so early? House Republicans had heard complaints from some of their fellow members who said they had been unfairly targeted by an office that too aggressively investigates anonymous and/or frivolous complaints. Congressmen were then forced to spend large sums of their personal money – we’re talking $100,000 – to defend themselves and try to clear their name.

As a journalist, I talk a lot to politicians, mostly at the state level but occasionally with members of Congress as well. I don’t believe most elected officials are crooks – and granted, I’m writing the first draft of this paragraph on the same day an Arkansas state legislator pleaded guilty to steering $175,000 to two organizations and receiving $38,000 in bribes in return.

I think most elected officials are OK folks whose jobs force them to make professional and moral compromises to meet unattainable, sometimes contradictory public expectations. They’re expected to stand for their beliefs but represent their constituents’ will, and they’re expected to raise millions of dollars to fund their campaigns but not to be overly influenced by those donations, which of course come from people trying to influence them.

So when all four members of Arkansas’ congressional delegation say this Office of Congressional Ethics needs to be reined in a little, I buy that, as long as it’s reined in, not gutted, as part of an open, transparent, bipartisan process. Which this wasn’t.

What’s more concerning is what Congress is planning to do in the next few months. It’s poised to repeal Obamacare without any consensus on a replacement, which could throw the entire health care system into a state of confusion and uncertainty for years. It will do so through a budget reconciliation mechanism that, as Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, is pointing out, continues the grand old tradition of adding trillions to the national debt. And if it follows the president-elect’s lead and does as past Congresses have done, it soon will cut taxes without cutting spending, all while promising the difference will be bridged by future economic growth.

This behavior is perfectly legal. You might even say there’s nothing personally unethical about it. It’s just highly irresponsible. And it happens partly because of those same unattainable and contradictory expectations by voters, who tend to want easy answers without hard choices. If you’re a politician who wants to stay in office, just keep your hands out of the cookie jar, cut taxes but don’t cut spending, and find someone or something to blame so voters don’t blame you or themselves. The ones who really pay the price are members of future generations, and they don’t vote.

Members of Congress should pay a personal and financial price if they act illegally. If they act irresponsibly, they should pay a political one at the ballot box. Apparently, a handful are punished even when they haven’t acted illegally, and Congress should fix that. Few are punished when they act irresponsibly, and the voters should fix that.

Related: Please, Congress, if you cut taxes, cut spending too