Dinner seen as due for re-brand

Party looks at president names

The days are likely numbered for calling the state Democratic Party's largest annual fundraiser the "Jefferson-Jackson Dinner," party Chairman Vince Insalaco said Tuesday.

Although removing those two names from the party's largest fundraiser of each year has been discussed in the past, there have been no serious steps taken to do it, Insalaco said. But, the party is probably ready now to drop the "Jefferson-Jackson" label, he said.

The dinner is named for former Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. Jefferson, from Virginia, was the nation's third president. Jackson was born in the Carolinas and lived in Tennessee. He was the nation's seventh president. Both owned hundreds of slaves.

On July 18, presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton attended the party's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner at Verizon Arena in North Little Rock. The former Arkansas and U.S. first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state helped the party raise more than $500,000 that night.

"The discussion going on right now around the country is not new, specifically, it's not new to Arkansas," Insalaco said.

"I do think it's something that will happen," he said of the dinner's name change.

The event has been held for at least 50 years in Arkansas. Re-branding it would make Arkansas the latest to scrap the names. Missouri, Georgia and Connecticut are among other states where Democrats are changing the event's name.

"Current events [have] pushed the mood. People evolve, things change," Insalaco said. "I don't think anybody in Arkansas has raised anything derogatory about Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson, I just think they'd like more of a contemporary figure that represents more contemporary values of the Democratic Party in Arkansas."

Beyond being a slave owner, Jackson pushed for the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which forced American Indians in the southeastern United States to leave their homelands and move west of the Mississippi River. The journey became known as the Trail of Tears.

The question of whether to change the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner name comes at a time when many Americans are re-examining the nation's history, according to Ouachita Baptist University political science professor Hal Bass.

"I think we live in an age where there's a heightened attention to symbols and symbolism, and I think especially the events of the last few weeks with shootings in Charleston [S.C.] and the Confederate flag have elevated the consciousness of it," Bass said. "It think it's event-driven as opposed to some sort of natural evolution."

Insalaco said he remembers a 1980s discussion about renaming the dinner. He was president of the Young Democrats of Arkansas at the time. He remembers another discussion in the 1990s, but he said no action resulted.

A push by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People helped prod the change in Connecticut, Insalaco said, adding that there's been no lobbying effort in Arkansas for the name change.

Nonetheless, after speaking with party officials, Insalaco said, he believes there's support for a new name.

"Usually, good things come from difficult situations. It's time to move on with this," he said. "I think when we change this name, 100 years from now, they're going to change it again."

Bass said removing the Jefferson and Jackson names from the dinner in Arkansas is "more significant" than it is in Connecticut, given that the two former presidents were both Southerners.

But, for Democrats, there are bigger problems than renaming a fundraiser, Bass said. The "Solid South" -- once dominated by Democrats -- is now predominantly Republican.

"Now the question is, how does the Democratic Party now restore its Southern base?" he said. "I guess that it's something the authorities are trying to struggle with, this question is part of the conversation."

Arkansas Rep. Vivian Flowers, D-Pine Bluff, said a discussion about renaming the dinner raises a "relevant question," but that ultimately, she is more interested in addressing policies that promote institutional racial bias and inequality.

"Symbolism is always an important and relevant question, but I think it's a distraction right now given the gravity of problems we're facing in this state and this country," Flowers said. "The question is, what are we going to do about these actions behind the symbolism? ... I'm not interested in removing all racist symbols but not dealing with racism."

Metro on 07/29/2015

Upcoming Events