South Carolina’s state flag is beloved but has a big flaw. Here’s how to fix it. | Opinion

State flags are in the spotlight. South Carolina should capitalize on it.

Minnesota, whose governor, Tim Walz, is now the running mate of Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, has had a new state flag since May. Maine voters may approve one in November.

They both look cool, but not as cool as ours. Sadly, lawmakers in our state, whose flag is a point of pride and ranks among the best in the U.S., can’t agree on a standard design, color or other elements to cement its status as the best. They should stop waving off this issue and protect the flag.

It would take a small effort, but it’s no small thing. We’re not even talking about a redesign like Minnesota’s or Maine’s. This is about ensuring South Carolina flags simply look alike.

State law has left that to flag manufacturers since 1940, and they don’t.

A push for consistency began in 2017 when Newberry political consultant Scott Malyerck noticed different state flags in different state buildings and turned to the politicians who could and should protect the sanctity of the state’s most recognizable symbol. They have before, but they repealed the flag’s standards in 1940 when the law required Clemson University to make state flags at cost, and the university balked.

That means low bidders on any flag contract can make the tree look too weak or the crescent more like a moon than the cap badges of the 2nd South Carolina Regiment from the Revolutionary War on which it is really based.

New standards emerged in 2020, but South Carolinians blasted the proposal, which featured a tree based on a sketch used for the flag in 1910.

In The Post and Courier, reporter Avery G. Wilks eviscerated it: “The flag looks feeble, its wiry fronds resembling Freddy Krueger’s murderous fingers, some claim. Others say it looks like the tree just survived a major hurricane or a lengthy addiction to meth. The palmetto could pass for Charlie Brown’s pathetic Christmas tree, more than a few have commented. Some wondered if it was sketched by a particularly uninspired juvenile.”

Legislation to rectify that by Sen. Ronnie Cromer, R-Newberry has gone nowhere in recent years.

His bill would have established Pantone 282 C as the flag’s color to match the indigo shade of uniform worn by Col. William Moultrie’s troops in the Revolutionary War. And it would have based the crescent on one on a flag dating to the battle of Sullivan’s Island when Moultrie’s men beat the British and altered the course of U.S. history.

Those soldiers built their fort with palmetto logs that withstood British Navy cannonballs and became such a symbol of strength that the palmetto tree was added to South Carolina’s flag in 1861.

All of this history is incredible and incredibly heavy, as are thoughts of the patriots who perished so that we can attach such reverence to a crescent and a tree. That symbolism is why it’s so absurd when anyone says South Carolina has bigger issues to attend to than a flag.

South Carolina’s lawmakers can easily juggle priorities when they reconvene in January, and the state flag should be a priority of prime significance. Just give us a sturdy tree. The more unique, ubiquitous and unchanging a symbol, the more powerful, and flying a flag over the Statehouse that isn’t the same as those in other buildings — or those inside the Statehouse itself — is not just a bad look. It’s disrespectful.

But there’s another reason to do it this year. Malyerck, who championed consistency for the flag more than anyone else, died in August at 61.

He served South Carolina as the executive director of the state Republican Party and as deputy state treasurer, he spearheaded many successful political campaigns, and he helped secure the state’s first-in-the-South primary.

But his fight for the flag was righteous and would be special to reward.

“Let’s make it consistent,” Malyerck told state senators in 2018. “It shouldn’t be up to a flag manufacturer to tell us what flag we’re flying atop the State House dome.”

That argument has been dismissed as government overreach. It’s not.

It’s the government understanding the ties that bind our past, present and future — and stitching them neatly together.

Send me 250-word letters to the editor here, 650-word guest essays here and email here. Say hi on X anytime.