Scare Tactics Versus Black Lives: Round 2

In America’s history, any group hoping to foment social progress, whether it be ameliorative or curative, have always been hit with opposing arguments that seek not to argue the issue on its merits, but employ fear and divisive rhetoric to cast unfounded doubt on the groups themselves seeking the change.

Your neighbors didn’t have to support early Civil and Voting rights initiatives if they believed the movement was infiltrated by Communists and outside agitators trying to disrupt local, southern “customs” and “heritage.”

It was difficult to oppose women wanting equal pay on its merits, so opponents trafficked in fear-mongering tropes that ranged from destroying the nuclear family, pushing a “lesbian agenda” or the oft-quoted canard that women would have to serve in the military.

When it came to early gay rights debates in the 70s, any effort to provide gay people legal protections always ended in the argument that homosexual teachers would pursue pedophilic relationships with your children. These are how reasonable debates on social justice always seemed to be reframed and undermined by those opposing them.

So why am I bringing this up in 2020. Because as America faces a long-awaited reckoning on race relations and police brutality, I see the same kind of fear-based, smoke-screen arguments every day in the press. And believe it or not, by people I know on my own Facebook feed. All are variations of well-worn tactics to diminish public support for the causes espoused by casting aspersions on those seeking justice.

We saw this when Colin Kaepernick and Eric Reid first tried bringing America’s attention to disproportionate police brutality four years ago by kneeling on NFL sidelines. The collective smokescreen thrown at the peacefully dissenting players by President Trump, by the NFL, and the right wing press was that the players were disrespecting the American flag, the National Anthem, and by tenuous extension, anyone who has ever served in the U.S. military. The debate was rapidly reframed from one about the targeting of Black men by overly militaristic police forces to a debate about how unpatriotic these kneeling Black men were. If you liked America and those defending it, you were expected to be opposed to an Afro’d millionaire shitting on the flag.

Now here we are, four years later, and the President of the United States says virtually nothing about the heinous murder of George Floyd. Instead, his race-baiting obsession is on the protesters and some conspiracy-created canal called Antifa that he thinks are behind the protests. Rather than hundreds of thousands of well-intended citizens seeking both police reform and justice for George Floyd. Trump went one step further today claiming that Lafayette Park, the site of Monday’s entirely peaceful rally, was actually filled with “violent protesters” and a “lot of really bad people.” He’s retroactively claiming this as a pretext for tear-gassing innocent civilians prior to his walk to clutch an upside-down Bible. Ironically, his description of the protesters was nearly identical to how he described the phony, marauding migrant caravan he made up earlier in his term to rile his anti-immigrant base before the mid-terms and even trigger the calling of a National Emergency.

But beyond the Conspirator-in-Chief, these sort of smoke screens have even trickled down to his minions on my social media platforms. Yes, we all saw violence and looting on Saturday and Sunday that no one condones. But first, let’s note that this was an almost infinitesimal minority of those who participated in the weekend’s protests. And more saliently, no right-thinking person actually believes that the activists and protesters were the same people as the rioters and the looters. But this hasn’t stopped a noticeable swath of LA Trumpians on my feed to paint both groups with the same swath.

This is by design. By aiming to make protesters the equivalent of looters, they are seeking to delegitimize the whole movement. By focusing on the acts of a minute few they are able to fully ignore the righteous grievances of the many. I’ve even seen them say “of course I believe in Black lives, I’m just deeply opposed to Black Lives Matters.”

To these people, they can ultimately cancel out the group’s message by floating a cloud of aspersion on the group itself. Truth be told, these were many of the same individuals who actively and aggressively opposed the Women’s March of 2017, because they found fault with the resume of one of the march’s national founders.

It’s an age-old political gambit: defeat a progressive agenda you oppose without ever having to come out as a racist, sexist or homophobe in modern polite society. Just generate enough uncertainty about the character and motives seeking the change and their agenda will go away. Like Colin Kaepernick’s previous war on police violence.

Who knows? If America hadn’t bought into the reframing of the debate as a referendum on a Black quarterback’s patriotism and respect for the troops, George Floyd might still be alive today.