Flag change is unwarranted amid budget shortfall

This editorial was published in The Columbian of Vancouver, Wash.

———

From the “solution in search of a problem” file, we bring you a new proposal in the Legislature.

House Bill 1938 would create a committee to redesign Washington’s state flag, the familiar banner with the state seal — featuring a portrait of George Washington — centered on a green field.

As The (Tacoma) News Tribune reports: “The bill text says that the current flag often gets criticized for its poor design and lack of relevance to the state’s identity, and that it’s too complex and hard to reproduce because it features a detailed portrait of the first president.”

The bill also says: “Additionally, while George Washington is an important national figure, he has limited historical connection to the state itself. This makes his image less meaningful as a symbol for the state.”

Each of these assertions is defensible. And yet, they are rather pointless. With the state expecting a $12 billion revenue shortfall over the next four years, discussing the flag is akin to sitting at the dining room table and arguing about the tablecloth when we should be discussing how to pay this month’s mortgage.

Our state’s connection to the nation’s first president is, indeed, thin. Washington apparently never traveled west of the Ohio Valley, and he died decades before the region became a U.S. territory and later a state.

In 1853, when Congress officially created the Washington Territory, the idea was to name it the Columbia Territory. But some members of Congress believed that would create confusion with the District of Columbia. So they compounded the problem by naming it Washington from their seats in Washington, D.C.

The state flag, with George Washington’s visage prominently displayed, was adopted by the Legislature in 1923 and has undergone only minor changes since. It might not be the best state flag, but it certainly is not the worst. (Well, in 2016, a writer for Medium.com ranked it as the worst, but we disagree.) Either way, it is ours — instantly identifiable by being the only state flag with a green background and a recognizable person.

House Bill 1938 calls for “a new state flag design that better reflects the diversity and values of all Washingtonians.” While such inclusion is valuable, it also represents the kind of language that generates dissent and divisiveness.

As Rep. Hunter Abell, R-Inchelium, said: “So many schools, streets, counties, institutions, military bases, roads and bridges are named after our first Founding Father. To be the only state in the nation to be named after a president is a distinct honor. One that we should not take for granted and we certainly should not be ashamed of or attempt to eliminate him from our flag.”

Actually, the legislation does not explicitly call for the elimination of Washington from the flag. Nor does it suggest that we should be ashamed of our connection to the original president. But it does touch upon other important discussions.

Because he was a slave owner, Washington’s legacy warrants renewed scrutiny. But his flaws do not mitigate the crucial role he played in the establishment of our representative democracy, and they do not outweigh his historical importance. They merely provide a more complete picture of the man.

So, while discussions about that legacy continue, the fact remains that our state is named after the first president of the United States, and that fact is not going to change in the foreseeable future. There is really no good reason for our flag to change either.

TNS