In London, woke protesters clashed with police, notionally in solidarity with black Americans. Descending into surrealism, they chanted “hands up; don’t shoot” at puzzled British coppers.
“Don’t shoot”? Seriously? British police, as everyone knows, don’t carry guns. Unlike their American counterparts, they are not protected by powerful labor unions or qualified immunity.
Sure, British rozzers have their faults. They can be achingly politically correct. They have a bizarre obsession with child abuse that recently led them to harassing a number of obviously innocent people on the say-so of deranged fantasists. They have had a bad lockdown, ticking people off for driving too far or buying luxury items, and yet they “take the knee” when confronted by mass protests. Still, they enjoy high levels of public trust, largely because they are citizens in uniform with no more powers than anyone else except insofar as those powers are temporarily and contingently bestowed on them by magistrates.
It is a measure of the cultural hegemony of the United States that leftists around the world import its political slogans without bothering to adapt them. About 1,000 Americans are shot dead by law enforcement officials every year. In Britain, over the past 30 years, that number is 74. Not 74 per year, 74 in total. Yes, we have our racial problems, but British voters come at or close to the top of international surveys that ask whether people approve of immigration, whether they favor mixed-race marriages, and the like. The self-image of the protesters as 1960s-style civil rights marchers is absurd, yet most commentators take them at their own estimate.
For two months, Britain’s media were unbearably prissy and censorious about the lockdown. Sunbathing in the park was frowned on, going to the beach unconscionable. A car journey by a government adviser to an isolated cottage on his father’s farm was the lead story for a week. Yet when tens of thousands of people congregated to demonstrate against racism, it suddenly became bad form to mention social distancing.
It is worth standing back and asking why the horrible murder of George Floyd has sparked global protests. Unlike some cases of alleged police brutality, there was no shade of doubt about what happened. Everyone saw the atrocity. No one is defending the police officer, who was promptly dismissed and will soon be on trial. Against whom, we might ask, are the marchers marching?
It is hardly as though they have no other causes to choose from. In Hong Kong, for example, democracy is being snuffed out by a totalitarian state that routinely arrests dissidents and shoots people. Unlike the Minneapolis abomination, this is a genuinely contested issue. China has plenty of defenders. And, unlike with the Minneapolis abomination, the British government is directly responsible, being an international guarantor of Hong Kong’s political order.
But protests, these days, are a kind of conspicuous consumption. The demonstrators are not trying to change minds in London, Washington, or Minneapolis. Rather, they are letting the world know what kind and caring people they are. Hence, paradoxically, the spiral of competitive aggression. Since no one denies that Floyd’s death was a hideous crime, the demonstrators can distinguish themselves only by being visibly angrier than everyone else, an attitude that is bound to lead, sooner or later, to violence.
Addressing only each other, the protesters alienate the vast middle ground — that is, people who are both anti-racist and anti-looting. In Britain, as in the U.S., there is a rift between the broadcasters who report on the unrest as a “protest” and the viewers who see violent thuggery. Those viewers have no time for the sophists who seek to explain or contextualize looting. Not being intellectuals, they refuse to see “I smashed up your stuff because I was angry about something else” as a valid excuse.
Which is why, contrary to almost universal belief, this unrest is likely to boost support for President Trump. Commentators have rightly called him out for trampling on the rights of the 50 states, for pushing at the limits of constitutional propriety, and for threatening to deploy troops against U.S. citizens. As Tim Carney pointed out, his photo op at St. John’s Episcopal Church was profane. His self-pitying tone, amusing enough in normal times, now seems jarring. His erstwhile Republican supporters have gone quiet.
None of it matters, though, as long as Trump is the candidate likeliest to restore order. Every electorate has an illiberal streak, and the coronavirus has exacerbated it, making people warier, less tolerant, more patriotic, and hungrier for discipline. Trump’s entire philosophy is suited to their current mood. If he wins in November, he will have the protesters to thank.
