Our Civil War of Stupidity

By Jim Geraghty

Tuesday, June 09, 2020

 

For a brief moment, we had a broad, bipartisan national consensus that the police should not kill those in their custody. Then, our warring factions of idiots went and ruined it.

 

On May 25, Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin did something terrible, pressing his knee on the back of George Floyd’s neck for more than eight minutes, during which time Floyd’s heart stopped beating and he died. Chauvin’s fellow officers, Thomas Lane, J. Alexander Kueng, and Tou Thao, stood and watched. This angered many Americans, if not almost all Americans.

 

Then, some residents of Minneapolis chose to respond to Chauvin’s actions by setting fire to the Third Precinct headquarters of the city police. The country had not yet finished discussing important questions such as, “What is the appropriate consequence for these officers?” and “Is this incident representative of systemic problems in police forces in Minneapolis or the rest of the country?” But the arson in Minneapolis and provocations such as firecrackers thrown at police during protests outside CNN Center in Atlanta had already prompted the country to leave those questions unresolved and move on to other heated debates: “Are these protests ‘mostly peaceful’?” “Is looting justified?” “How much of what’s happening on city streets is driven by Antifa?” “What counts as Antifa?”

 

Our national discussion was quickly overrun by those who wanted to use the actions of Chauvin and his fellow officers to define all police across the country, and those who wanted to use the actions of the looters and rioters to define everyone participating in the protests. Anyone with eyes can see that not all police officers are Derek Chauvin, and not everyone who attended a protest, march, or demonstration in response to Floyd’s death was looting and committing acts of violence. But if some cops are bad, then police forces across the country might have to accept changes in procedure. And if some people who came out to protest exploited the moment as an opportunity to commit selfish crimes, the protesters would be forced to acknowledge that the police play an irreplaceable role in protecting the public and restoring order at times of unrest.

 

Loud voices on each side had their narrative, and they weren’t going to let a little inconvenience like the truth get in the way.

 

As the violence in Minneapolis worsened, President Trump responded by tweeting, “Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!” This turned the discussion into the familiar territory of, “What do you think of what Trump tweeted?” with reaction splitting down the usual partisan lines.

 

CBS News reported that on June 1, President Trump had a “heated and contentious debate in the Oval Office” demanding “the military put 10,000 active duty troops into the streets immediately. . . . Attorney General William Barr, Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley objected to the demand, the official said.”

 

Later that day, shortly before the president spoke from the White House Rose Garden, members of the U.S. Park Police and the National Guard forced protesters out of Lafayette Square using horses, batons, riot shields, and, depending upon who you ask, either “tear gas” or “pepper balls.” (The Park Police initially said they had not used tear gas, then said they’d used chemically similar “pepper balls,” then went back to insisting that tear gas had not been used.)

 

And on and on it went, as even the most pressing question of “How do we end the rioting and looting and restore order?” slowly got squeezed out by such other matters as whether the president could invoke the Insurrection Act, ignore the objections of mayors and governors, and send the troops in himself. After more than a week of violence in America’s cities, some protesters and organizers believed they had found the appropriate solution: to either “defund the police” or “abolish the police.” Nine Minneapolis City Council members — a majority — declared over the weekend that they will “begin the process of ending the Minneapolis Police Department and creating a new, transformative model for cultivating safety in Minneapolis.”

 

The two loudest voices in this debate about American policing were, on one side, a president who wanted to send thousands of military personnel onto the streets of our cities against the recommendation of his top staff, and, on the other side, protesters and city lawmakers whose big takeaway from this crisis was that law enforcement should be eliminated entirely.

 

It’s enough to drive a good person insane: No matter what the news of the day, the dumbest possible response is guaranteed to emerge on one side, triggering the dumbest possible reaction from the other side.

 

In dealing with the coronavirus, one side’s loudest argument is that the desire to reopen society is primarily driven by whining about a desire for haircuts, and that anyone who wishes to reopen a business is pro-killing grandma. (Or that was the argument, before large numbers of young people and African Americans wished to march in the streets to protest Floyd’s death.) Loud voices on the other side argue that the death rate is exaggerated. There is now a partisan divide over who should wear masks.

 

When good news comes down the pike, such as the recent drop in the unemployment rate, allegedly respectable voices such as Paul Krugman and Howard Dean speculate that the numbers are fraudulent, and that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is lying in order to help Trump’s reelection. We can’t discuss “what should be the next step to help the economy?” because we have to spend time arguing about whether Brad Pascale is running the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

 

Our 24/7, warp-speed news cycle and the endless game of talking-head Rock ’Em Sock ’Em Robots that comes with it never take the time to figure out a workable consensus solution to one problem before zipping along to the next one. The rhythm of the news is a crisis, followed by a provocation, followed by an overreaction, followed by an overreaction to the overreaction, followed by another crisis . . . over and over and over and over again.

 

The president deserves plenty of blame for this state of affairs. His instincts are always the same: accuse, blame, inflame, castigate, threaten, bellow. But his opponents shouldn’t get off scot-free, because they never seem to be satisfied with declaring, “This is bad, and the president is wrong.” Trump’s statements and actions must always be the worst of the worst, the greatest outrage in the history of outrages, and the response must always be to swing the pendulum as far as possible in the other direction. The president wants to restore order in the streets with soldiers; his opposition declares that the proper alternative is to do away with policing entirely. The president wants to reopen the economy; his critics contend that steps in the direction of reopening are an “experiment in human sacrifice.”

 

Where are the sane grown-ups? Isn’t anyone willing to take a break from the usual partisan food fight to spend just a little time trying to solve our actual problems? Or are we just destined to be bystanders in a Civil War of Stupidity indefinitely?