An Open Letter to #AllLivesMatter

All Lives DO Matter

I believe when most people say that #AllLivesMatter they are expressing a good thought. They truly believe that all lives do matter and as a society we should be outraged and saddened when someone, anyone, is killed. It’s true. It’s right. It also misses the point.

Because there’s something more in #AllLivesMatter. It’s not just an idea unto itself but a response to #BlackLivesMatter. In order to be understood, it needs to be placed in context and that requires a little more understanding and awareness of what the #BlackLivesMatter movement represents beyond a hashtag slogan.

First, when people use the expression #BlackLivesMatter, what they’re saying is that Black lives matter too. Because here’s the thing: society very clearly says that white lives matter. When a white police officer is killed in the line of duty everyone says it’s a tragedy. The system (the criminal justice system and society in general) swings into action and no expense is spared to find the killer and bring them to justice. People who kill cops, people who kill white people in general, are the subject of large police manhunts, prosecuted vigilantly by the largely white district attorneys, and punished harshly by the court system. That’s as it should be. It’s already happening and we don’t need any large social movement to make it happen or to improve the system in that regard. You don’t need to say #AllLivesMatter when talking about white police officers because everyone already agrees with that.

On the other hand, when a black person is killed, especially at the hands of a white police officer, the system often treats it as if it doesn’t really matter. It doesn’t get wide coverage in the media. It doesn’t create any outrage or upset in the majority population. The assumption is that the black person deserved it. The system doesn’t investigate it as thoroughly – the police officer isn’t treated as a suspect, they don’t have to give a statement right away, the people who do the investigation are the officer’s coworkers, often their friends, the district attorney who decides if any crime has been committed is a regular partner of the police and is hardly impartial. So while it may be true that the police officer was justified, the system is not a fair and impartial determiner of that fact. That’s what people are complaining about.

And make no doubt, the system is flawed and it takes herculean efforts to prove that white police are in the wrong and that black people have been victimized. There are many cases where the truth is in question and normally nothing comes of it. But it does happen. It happened in South Carolina. It happened in Cincinnati. It happened New York. So we know that sometimes police officers are not justified in their killing of unarmed black men. But what about here, and here, and here, and there’s a list of more here. That’s just this past year. And just the deaths. It goes to reason that there are many more cases where bad cops injured, unjustly detained, or simply harassed Black people without killing them so it was never noticed by the media.

And if you wonder why so many Black suspects resist arrest or try to flee, it’s because they know the system is rigged against them. White people can simply take a ride down to the station and get it sorted out. That doesn’t work so well for minorities. They might not make it to the station, like Freddie Gray. Once in custody they’re still not safe, like Tyree Woodson. And then they face our criminal justice system, has a clear statistical bias against them.

This isn’t to say that all police shootings are wrong or that all police are racist and corrupt. There are lots of fine people working in law enforcement and most are simply trying to do their job to the best of their abilities. But some police officers are bad. Just like some kindergarten teachers are bad. Some cooks are bad, some carpenters, some auto dealers, some doctors and even some politicians are bad. It would be perverse and irrational to assume all police officers are good and decent and perfectly scrupulous and fair when doing their job. No large group of people is perfect. History has many documented cases of bad, racist law enforcement, like the Rampart Scandal and the Chicago Corruption and many, many more. So let’s admit that there are bad cops and instead of arguing about exactly how many we should be trying to find ways to weed out and eliminate as many as we can.

The evidence is very clear that policing in this country is not the same for White people when compared to Black people. If you’re white, you may not have experienced it, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. You can’t look at the statistics, read case after case of racist policing, hear story after story of the daily lives of Black people (including those in law enforcement) and still say our system is fair and equal. The system is broken.

That’s what #BlackLivesMatter is protesting. No one is saying that white lives don’t matter. They’re saying we need to recognize the bias in the system - not just pass it off as a few random, racist people - and make a change. All those fine law enforcement officers who are trying to do the right thing would be better served if the right thing were made a little clearer and the bad apples were removed. The movement is not trying to divide – the divisions already exist. They’re saying that Black lives matter too.

What #BlackLivesMatters wants are a series of policy changes and criminal system reforms that have been suggested before by academics and experts - but without anyone listening because there was no public outcry (at least among the majority). They want less militarization of the police, more community involvement, and more accountability. They want what most of us want: fair and equal treatment with systems in place to better train police and someone outside to oversee their activities. You can read more about it here: Campaign Zero. Don’t read into it what you think it means. Don’t respond to some random quote that was passed around on Facebook. Don’t get offended and reply before thinking. Actually listen their position and understand what #BlackLivesMatter means.

How should you respond to #BlackLivesMatter? That’s up to you. If you have issues with any of the points of Campaign Zero, go ahead and argue them. Tell us about the specific problems with having police wear body cameras or why for-profit policing is actually a good idea. Explain how having an independent body reviewing police actions is bad even though our country is built on the idea of checks and balances in government. Try to defend the fact that many minority neighborhoods are policed by mostly white forces and how that’s a good thing. At least that would be a productive discussion.

But if you say #AllLivesMatter, you’re saying the system is just fine as it is and we don’t need to address any issues regarding race in America. You’re discounting the lives and experiences of millions of minorities. You’re trying to silence the disadvantaged who are crying out for justice. I don’t think that’s what most people want to be saying, but it is. If you really believe that all lives matter, then you should realize Black lives matter too.

Shout 'em down!

One of the most important questions in any movement, idea, philosophy is: how do we win people over? It's a question that seems lost in much of today's world, thrown away like so other reasonable things in the quest for attention. Exposure is everything. Get the word out whatever way you can. Go viral. Blow up Twitter. If enough people are made aware the correct answer to the problem with obviously be chosen.

I disagree. Moreover, I hope it doesn't work that way. The loudest voice should not rule the day. I don't think our society is best served by choosing which issues to face and which to ignore by who mount the slickest ad campaign and who is most media-savvy. We shouldn't decide to tackle only those ideas which fit comfortably into a slogan and only try to save that which is photogenic.

The counter-argument I hear and see is that it's a two-step process. First you garner the attention; then you provide the solution. While that could work, and sometimes it has, it also poses a great risk in that by the time an idea is well-known it's already divided the populace and driven away those it needs to reach with its angry rhetoric. People's minds get made up early and it's much harder to change that which is already set.

I see this most in movements attacking the status quo and pointing out the privilege of another group of people. The attack often comes before the argument and thus it's already lost. If you want the system to change, those most able to accomplish it are the people in power. Sure, if you get enough of the masses on your side you might be able to upend the power structure and affect change. But what if you could convince those who have the power now to relinquish some of it? What if you could influence to gate-keepers and visionaries to begin dismantling the privilege from the ground up? Where would that lead?

Recently the Black Lives Matter movement shouted down the most progressive presidential candidate, preventing him from giving a speech to people who had come to hear him. The point seemed to be that he wasn't progressive enough, hadn't given enough to the cause and shown his solidarity. The answer was to drown out his voice, show antagonism to the group's best ally and his supporters, and further entrench the other side's opinion that the cause was about unjust anger and unnecessary complaining. It brings attention but advances nothing.

I do understand the urge when it seems like measured discussion leads nowhere. When the powers that be ignore the message. But there has to be a better way.

The greatest success I've seen lately has come from the LGBT movement. They've largely won over the hearts and minds a great many of their previous opponents. They've won in the court of public opinion and in the laws of the land. The struggle is not over and a great many opponents are still fighting against equality, but it does feel like a tide has turned and people are moving in the right direction. How was this accomplished?

While there may have been some yelling and arguing, most of that was in the past. It seems like things changed on two fronts. One, people changed on an individual level. It became about LGBT members and allies talking to their friends and families. Having discussions, simply existing. Politicians being swayed by conversations instead of petitions. Instead of fighting for a specific action or changing of society it was about expanding understanding and acceptance on a human level.

And perhaps more importantly it was about educating the next generation. While it's normally the old guard that holds the reins, it's the young who set the agenda. Those in power become very adept and reading the winds of change and enough of them will realize when a shift is coming and get out ahead of it - the better to stay in power. Instead of telling them their days are numbered, point out their chance to keep their crown by leading the people where they already want to go.

I wish it were about logic, fairness, an honest appraisal of history and unbiased look at the future. But that's not what wins the day. Nor does the squeaky wheel always get the grease - sometimes it gets replaced and thrown away. If you want to change the world, stop yelling about it. Especially stop shouting down those who are in position to help you. Instead, make friends with the enemy. They'll find it much harder to fight against their allies.

The Republican Problem

The colloquial definition of insanity is to repeat the same behavior and expect a different result. That’s the fundamental problem I have with the Republican Party. Their ideas are reasonable and their goals laudable, but a few simple facts and a quick look at history show that their plan doesn’t work.

They are generally considered the party of the free market. They espouse a belief that capitalism will solve many of society’s ailments by unlimited growth – if we make everyone rich then we won’t have to deal with the problems of poverty. That opportunity exists and if you work hard, make good decisions and follow the rules, you will succeed. It’s a worldview based upon their own lives. It’s true for middle-class white people so it must be true for all. It’s not.

A quick look at the facts shows that our country does not have a lot of social mobility, especially among disadvantaged groups. You can debate the reasons, you can argue that opportunity still exists, but it’s impossible to say the playing field is level and the result is optimum. The truth of the matter is the system doesn’t work for many people in this country. People who start out poor, those who lack any connections to the well-to-do in society, or merely possess the wrong skin color, face a much harder path to middle class. Their access to a decent education is limited. They are treated differently by society (more likely to be suspended for the same infractions, more likely to be denied with the same application, more likely to be judged negatively in any interaction). To start a race in the lead and say those behind simply have to try harder is not only morally bankrupt, it’s self-delusional. They will never catch up, and in the end that drags down the entire team.

It's also logically inconsistent to blame the disadvantaged for their own position while at the same time expect them to be the ones to change. They disregard the poor, deny the effects of discrimination and disenfranchisement, and generally lay the blame for the ills of society on those who suffer from them the most. Then they turn around and suggest the solution is for those same people to spontaneous stop making poor decisions (like voting for the other party) and lift themselves up by their own bootstraps.  Any program that redistributes money from the 'successful' to those who didn't earn it is a travesty because only the rich know how to use money effectively. If you show no respect for 47% of the population how do you expect them to fix their own mess? Is it not obvious that they will need more education, more support and guidance to make better decisions? Isn't that how we should be spending our resources?

Even if we could grow the pie for everyone it wouldn’t create the result Republicans seem to expect. Many of them already argue that America’s poor are actually well off when compared to the rest of the world. They have phones and indoor plumbing, for heaven’s sake! But if the goal is to make everyone rich it will fail on two accounts. The first being rich is a relative term. It doesn’t matter how many luxuries our poor have - if they have less than the rest of society they will still be poor. They will rightly realize that other people not only have more stuff but they have more opportunities. They will feel poor. It’s human nature. And that’s why the second point is more important: our goal is not wealth but happiness. While some people equate wealth with success and success with happiness, on a societal level that doesn’t hold. It’s true that a growing economy does lead to more people feeling good about their lives, but it doesn’t reach everyone and it never will. It becomes a question of whether we want a world that is good for most people or do we want to help everyone.

The kicker is that if Republicans do believe the answer lies in the economy, they should vote Democratic. It’s very hard to look back at our history since WWII and not see that our economy has consistently and measurable done much better under Democratic presidents. Our debt has grown because of Republican presidents. We all do better when the wealthy are taxed higher and income inequality is lower. Expanding social welfare (Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Affordable Care Act) has succeeded where the free market has failed. The things that have made people’s lives better are, for the most part, more socialist than capitalist.

On foreign policy, the Republican approach starts with a similar prejudice that what is good for us is good for everyone else. That if the world could be converted into a democratic, capitalistic society everyone would be happy. They truly believe bombing bad regimes into submission and destroying corrupt governments will create a void into which Judeo-Christian beliefs will spring and free markets will arise. Once again it ignores the reality of the world that now exists and the history of such actions which have failed time and time again. We can’t create democracies. We can’t expect everyone else to share our values. We can’t destroy without the ability to rebuild and expect people to be thankful for our efforts.

On an individual front, Republicans are simply self-contradictory. They argue against government interference and for individual rights, yet they want our laws to be based upon their religious beliefs. They say everyone should be treated equally but ignore all the data which shows it isn’t happening. They advocate for choice when it comes to owning guns and running a business but not when it comes to who to marry or what to put in your own body. The overarching theme is that as long as people are similar to them, believe what they believe and act in a way they approve, we can let them be. If not, we should try to change them for the better. It’s for their own good and the good of society. It’s hubris.

I believe that most Republicans approach these questions looking for an honest way to help everyone. Their hearts are good and their intentions honorable. They are doing what they think is best and a lot of what they say sounds like it should be true. But it’s only truthy. The world isn’t homogeneous and because of that it doesn’t operate the way they would like it to. What works for them won’t work for everyone else and we have decades of evidence to show the failings of such an approach. It’s hard to admit you’re wrong. Life is complicated and it takes a lot of work to study reality and accept solutions that don’t fit your personal beliefs. Republican ideals - creating a better world for everyone where people have freedom and opportunity and a fair chance to succeed – are worthy goals. But we haven’t gotten there following their policies. That’s not the world we live in or what their positions lead to. Instead of expecting the result to change, perhaps they need to change the approach.