I’ve heard the story many times in many forms since I arrived in Atlanta more than five years ago. A history lesson that has surprising relevance today. It goes like this.
Back in the middle of the last century, Atlanta and Birmingham were emerging cities in the South. They were of about equal stature and reputation, and both had ambitions to become the region’s leading city.
Some thought Birmingham had the advantage, with its long history of Northern-style manufacturing, while Atlanta had a half-cocked mayor insisting on the idea of creating a large airport.
As the nation and the region lurched into the difficult Civil Rights era, the approaches of the two cities — proxies for their states — couldn’t have been more different.
Georgia’s leading town developed the “Atlanta Way,” led by cool-headed folks, both black and white, who met in private, brokered deals and kept the city calm, even in its most trying moments.
Birmingham, on the other hand, had unwise and less-skilled leaders who let its reputation take shape on national television, as police officers used violence to subdue blacks who sought equal treatment under the laws those police were supposedly enforcing.
The difference is perhaps best captured in the words of Frederick Allen, former Atlanta Constitution columnist, in his book “Atlanta Rising:”
“Atlantans could always count on their neighbor to the west, Birmingham, to provide a worse example. In the South during the 1960s, racial enlightenment was very much a relative question. Atlanta might slip from time to time, might move slowly and grudgingly, might offer a juicy target for liberals with a nose for hypocrisy — but then there was Birmingham, serving as Exhibit A for anyone who cared to watch raw unapologetic racism carried out at the express direction of the governing authorities, namely the city’s infamous public safety commissioner, Eugene “Bull” Connor.”
The course Atlanta chose wasn’t easy or simple or perfect. Many, at the time, undoubtedly thought it was the wrong course. But today’s leaders fondly remember the names of that era. How they worked behind the scenes. How their courageous push for progress cost them old friends.
Even the most cursory examination of this history shows that Atlanta’s leaders were well ahead of the popular sentiment. In fact, that’s exactly why the story gets told. They faced withering criticism, and populist efforts to undo the change they were leading. Some politicians took advantage of the unpopularity of their stances. But in the end, enough of Atlanta’s leaders did what was right, not what was popular. And who would look back now and say they were wrong?
They put Atlanta on the right side of history because great leaders see the future, and act accordingly, before the people they represent can see that future. No one represented Atlanta’s forward thinking better than Mayor Ivan Allen Jr., who would be the only white Southern elected official to testify in favor of the civil rights bill that President Kennedy proposed.
Our Atlanta story is instructive in these times. And one of our leaders is once again standing on the right side of history, despite strong opposition.
An emerging rival to the north, Charlotte, finds itself the leading city in a state caught up in an ugly fight over — of all things — a law over use of public bathrooms by transgender people.
This situation boils in North Carolina in the aftermath of a wave of “religious liberty” laws that several state legislatures considered or passed. All of this is evidence of the country’s effort to come to terms with rapid social change — not unlike that of the civil rights era.
In a story reported by J. Scott Trubey, the AJC examined what happened in Indiana, which last year passed a religious liberty law that it later backed away from.
“Though Indiana lawmakers walked the measure back a bit by adding language to ensure the measure couldn’t be used by government or business to discriminate against the LGBT community, the damage to Indiana’s reputation remains, business groups say,” Trubey wrote.
North Carolina has had entertainers cancel appearances and has faced other criticism from outside the state. History will decide North Carolina’s reputation. But you have to wonder why a state that was poised to emerge as a Southern economic powerhouse found itself with leaders whose top priority became who could use which public restroom. In the current national consciousness, that’s top-of-mind when North Carolina is mentioned.
Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal, on the other hand, defied the agenda of the state’s social conservatives. He vetoed the religious liberty bill passed by the legislature.
It was not a moment he sought, and it wasn’t one he seemed comfortable with.
His agenda has been pro-business and nothing about his persona or style indicates a comfort with complicated social policy.
But when the time came, he acted with courage, looking to the future.
“We are working to make life better for our families and our communities,” he said. “That is the character of Georgia. I intend to do my part to keep it that way.”
Amidst our current social tumult and in one of the nation’s most conservative states, our Republican governor made his feeling and intentions clear. He has the advantage of not worrying about being re-elected, and he’s at the end of his political career. But make no mistake about it, it has and will cost him.
Legislators will make another run to pass the bill next year; it has some popular appeal.
But someday, I expect that Deal may be part of those stories that get told about great leaders. Leaders who do what they believe is right, even if they are ahead of the people they lead. Leaders who have a sense of the moment and make history.
About the Author
