Black lives matter. This is an undeniable truth not to mention brilliant piece of sloganeering. Some people object to the slogan as if it in and of itself it were discriminatory, implying that black lives matter and white lives don’t. But reading this into it is so far off the mark, it doesn’t merit consideration. Others object to the idea of a new civil rights movement. Didn’t we do this already? And they might be right if this were simply 2.0 of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, an academic attempt to eradicate any and all vestiges of white prejudice and racism, as if problems could be wished away with good intentions. On the other hand, it would be wrong to say that it has no connection to the 60s Civil Rights Movement because it is clearly linked; potentially nothing less than an attempt to finish the job of previous civil rights eras by lifting up those who for whatever reason or combination of reasons were left behind.
Of course, on the surface Black Lives Matter is principally about cops killing, otherwise mistreating and discriminating against blacks, and a host of related downstream issues implicating the entire criminal justice system. But it’s not just that the criminal justice is inherently racist or otherwise mysteriously went awry. It went awry for a reason, and that reason is that the criminal justice system came to be the de facto replacement for the social welfare system that began to be systematically dismantled under the Reagan Administration. This Darwinian economic and Orwellian political reality led the mainstream Economist Magazine to somewhat shockingly declare what had become only too obvious to many: that the richest nation on earth was all too willing to tolerate enclaves of third world life among its citizenship. Such is not just to say that poverty is rampant in certain neighborhoods as has unfortunately always been the case; third world conditions imply a separate and unequal set of standards. The Bill of Rights offers precious comfort and protections to those living in America’s first world, but in third world America, it may as well not exist.
Seen in this context, the challenge facing Black Lives Matter is as clear as it is broad: to put an end to third world conditions that persist in the United States whether they are related to poverty, health, or safety. Viewed in this light the Affordable Care Act which pulled many out of third world health care in one fell swoop was the most significant civil rights act of the twenty-first century, and the House Republican Don’t Care Act is not just flawed policy based on hysterical opposition to a former black president, but a broad statement that for them black lives simply don’t matter.
Of course, it’s not always a matter of black and white. Black Lives are not the only lives that don’t matter. For the most part the poor don’t matter, black or white. If you watch the nightly news one can’t help notice that the unattractive matter less than the attractive, those without a compelling story line less than those who fit neatly into a tidy narrative. One could argue taken together a majority don’t matter. This has to be turned around sometime and it may as well begin with Black Lives Matter. Whatever it takes to pull blacks out of their third world lives will just as assuredly benefit poor whites because as President Obama often said the fate of all of us are intrinsically tied together.
Where does the Donald fit into all this? As with all authoritarians Trump is right about some things, if wrong about most. The lives of the black underclass are not what they should be and Trump has said as much. This applies to the white underclass as well, and this too is recognized by Trump. As to what to do about it, this is where things fall apart. Trumps response to Black Lives Matter is Cops Lives Matter. Of course, they do. A cop’s job is tough and anyone on the left who thinks anyone will ever score a political victory by picking a fight with the police has got to be nuts. Picking a fight with individual cops though is altogether a different matter. Every good cop should be only too happy to be rid of the bad cops that bring down an entire force. Attorney General Holder was proceeding in a sensible fashion and A.G. Sessions’ reversal of federal oversight is a slap in the face to every good cop and a disservice to the public at large.
Many forget that in the seemingly distant 90s the nation was humming along so smoothly pundits claimed that there was very little of great importance for a president to do. A mature economy with an advanced civil society, an efficient bureaucracy, and Congressional Republicans and Democrats limited to disagreements around the edges, the country tended to run itself. The implication was that any idiot could run the country and things would work out just fine. (Who would have imagined then that the day would come when this would actually be put to the test?)
During the 90s, as there was with so many matters, there was a growing political consensus on matters of race. It was commonly agreed that no individual or group was wholly responsible for his or her station in life, and might need help from time to time. (Democratic position) On the other hand, it was commonly conceded that but for a few severely disadvantaged and in rare circumstances, no person or group was entirely free from responsibility for his or her station in life, and that government assistance should not necessarily be unconditional. (Republican position) If one were to watch the media coverage of the police killings of recent years you’d think the country had never dealt with issues of racism before and there was no collective wisdom whatsoever to draw from. Of course, this is another area in which there is a sliver of truth to what the so-called President says: the American media, or infotainment industry if you will, is indeed flawed, but in a way totally at odds with what’s been alleged.
