September 23, 2020
In this era where people of all political persuasions can afford to pick and choose which issues and facts they'd prefer to consider, we find an issue that not even extremists can ignore in The 2020 Race Riots. Not a single bit of this issue has gone unchallenged to some degree or another. Whether the term "riots" should even be used to describe what others call "protests" is a very hotly debated point, and whether a certain amount of violence is justified has become yet another point of contention. Addressing all these sub-issues would require a book to cover properly, so this treatise only discusses one of the many claims that has been made: Republican politicians can be reasonably held accountable for the violence which has taken place in the last four months and/or Democratic politicians can not be reasonably held accountable for the violence which has taken place in the last four months.
Generally, the claim fueling the allegation that Republicans are to blame for this violence often relate to the idea that Nazism and racism have experienced a resurgence in America since the election of Donald Trump to the office of President. However, a group of not even 1000 people (the largest gathering of Neo-Nazis since 2016) scarcely represents a trend worth discussing at length. The Neo-Nazi movement in the United States is about as relevant to politics as the Westboro Baptist Church is relevant to Protestantism. They're a small, stupid, over-publicized group of extremists who don't affect any tangible change. Far too much time is spent discussing this point, and because it's such a non-starter I won't even continue on it. Let's widen the scope a bit and take a look at racism more broadly. It's alleged that somehow or other there is a resurgence of racism in this country as well, not just Nazism in particular. That's quite a bold claim, and certainly is broad enough to necessitate evidence to even be considered. Oddly enough, evidence is rarely presented in the discussion of this issue. I went to the liberty of finding some stats that I've heard referenced to support this claim, in particular the claim "Black people are disproportionately killed by police in the United States, relative to their population".
This claim is actually true, black people are overrepresented in those killed by police by a factor of roughly two,[1] but this stat is wildly out of context. First of all, properly analyzing this issue would require addressing each case and determining if the use of lethal force was authorized. Since that's not feasible, controlling for demographic variables would be a bare minimum for drawing conclusions from this data. The most important demographic variable to consider for this issue is the crime rate, which is a statistic shrouded in controversy, but it need not be. There is a legitimate discussion to be had about racial bias in the justice system, but recall that verdicts are delivered by a jury comprised of citizens who live in the county where the crime was committed. This geographic control on juries along with the fact that almost all violent crime is intraracial should eliminate significant racial bias from verdict passage. That said, black people make up 12.7% of the population,[2] yet committed 38% of the total violent crimes in 2018.[3] That is to say, this demographic is actually underrepresented in police violence relative to the crime rate in that same demographic.
Perhaps the alleged racism isn't in law enforcement as much as it is in the general population, then. Let us consider racially motivated violence, which we would expect to be experiencing an upward trend if racism is a significant problem in this country. Is there any such trend, then? There is not. There has been exactly one lynching in the United States in the last 20 years.[4] Admittedly, this event (the terrible Ahmaud Arbery case) took place in the last year, but a single event hardly constitutes a trend. Perhaps I'm being too heavy-handed by only discussing violence, so let's consider a poll from a fairly centrist source that attempts to measure a trend in race relations. According to a Gallup poll, black adults responded that "relations between Whites and Blacks" have been steadily getting worse, but this trend began in 2013 and the rate of decline has been unaffected by the events in the last 7 years.[5]
All this to say: The "return" of racism in the US is a phantom at best, there's no evidence I can find to suggest that it's tangibly there. Furthermore, there's actually some evidence to suggest that racism is very nearly dead. Most importantly, there is absolutely no evidence which sufficiently demonstrates that any particular trend in race relations can be laid at the feet of Republican politicians or policies, as alleged.
George Floyd died on May 25, 2020. One week later, $500 million dollars in property damage had been done in Minneapolis-Saint Paul alone.[6] The worst was yet to come. 2 weeks after Floyd's death, six city blocks of Seattle was annexed by rioters until the end of June.[7] This is, as far as I can tell, the first time since the American Civil War that any piece of American soil has been successfully annexed for any length of time.
During the 23-day life of this new state, there were no fewer than four shootings. Total crime increased by more than 500% during the short life of the state. The Seattle City Council voted to defund their police department a month after CHAZ was disbanded.[8]
I could go on about the riots which have occurred in Atlanta (twice), Kenosha, Colorado Springs, Rochester, and other cities that were sparked by killings for which the police are not to blame. I could further go on about the countless assaults and the surge of murders that have occurred during "protests". I certainly could discuss the increase in violence by greater and greater margins each month in major cites.[9][10][11] Instead, though, I'm going to get right into the issue at hand, which is the response to all of this unrest by politicians.
Nancy Pelosi said "People will do what they do", in response to a mob tearing down a statue of Christopher Columbus.[12] Kamala Harris tweeted a link to bail "protesters" out of jail in Minneapolis, shortly after two murders and 150 properties were set on fire there.[13] Harris further said on the subject of what she called protests: "They're not gonna stop, and they should not", making no mention of the rampant violence at these "protests".[14] Congressmen Jerry Nadler of New York, when asked to "disavow the violence from Antifa happening in Portland right now" responded "That's a myth".[15] Beyond these particular remarks and many others like them spoken by Democrat politicians, 13 American cities run by Democrat mayors have voted to defund their police departments.[16] Not all Democratic politicians have obeyed this trend, but it is a sufficient majority of influential Democrats to be considered the mainstream Democratic stance.
Does all of this make the Democratic party responsible for four months of violence? Unequivocally, yes it does. In the very best case, they have shirked the most fundamental responsibility entrusted to governments: Keeping the nation's people safe from violence. This alone is a moral crime, because governments are only entrusted with the power of overwhelming force under the precondition that they will use it to uphold the law. Recall that these are the best case scenarios. In the worst cases, Democrats have actively supported this insurgency by disabling our government's ability to respond effectively. Should we, as a society, reconsider the way we enforce the law? Perhaps, but the time to get rid of an expired fire extinguisher is not as your house burns. This would be the time to deal with insurgents who have declared their intention to destroy The Republic.[17][18][19]
What kind of government fails to protect its people from violence because it politically sympathizes with the aggressors? A few infamous regimes come to mind. The actions of these politicians are not merely disingenuous and dishonest, they are directly antithetical to the principles of a free society and equality under the law. It has been argued that Democracies die because of the rhetoric of a head of state.[20] That's often how it starts, but it's certainly not how it ends. It ends with the government deliberately allowing political violence, provided that the politics behind the violence align with the politics of the government.
Are both sides to blame for this violence? No, absolutely not. Democrats have generally done all they can to ignore or abet the riots. Republicans have generally done all they can to end the violence and restore order by upholding the law. Drawing an equality between these two behaviors is categorically impossible. Furthermore and more importantly, the precedent of allowing lawlessness because it serves a political end poses what may be the greatest threat to the Republic it has ever known.