opendemocracy | When some of the recent Black Lives Matter protests against the
murder of George Floyd ended in riots, the pushback was immediate and
predictable: different visions of Martin Luther King’s legacy were
fought over, rival interpretations of the Civil Rights Movement were
deployed, and contrasting lessons were identified.
There can be no
single interpretation of the turbulent 1960s, but there is much we can
learn from historical work on this period. In particular, Omar Wasow’ s recent analysis of the tactics of the Civil Rights Movement
makes a provocative argument that “nonviolent” protest helped to shape a
national conversation which raised the profile of the civil rights
agenda and led to electoral gains for the Democrats in the early 1960s.
By
contrast, he argues, rioting in US cities after the assassination of
Martin Luther King pushed white Americans towards the rhetoric of ‘law
and order,’ causing large shifts among white voters towards the
Republican Party and helping Richard Nixon to win the 1968 presidential
election shortly thereafter.
This is a controversial argument, even costing political analyst David Shor his job
when he recently tweeted about Wasow’s thesis and received an angry
response from those who saw it as a “tone-deaf” attack on legitimate
protest. At the root of this controversy are important questions about
whether framing riots as a ‘tactical choice’ is appropriate, who that
framing makes responsible for ongoing racial injustice, and what the
fact that we’re having this debate says about people’s views of politics and priorities. As King warned in 1968:
“A
riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed
to hear?...it has failed to hear that large segments of white society
are more concerned about tranquillity and the status quo than about
justice and humanity.”
But social movements can’t afford to
ignore these arguments completely. The idea that violent protests might
be risky is not surprising, since in societies that pride themselves on
being ‘peaceful,’ riots violate many taken-for-granted liberal values.
Wasow’s rigorous, quantitative analysis gives this argument a
historical foundation but it also has obvious resonances for today, at a
time when President Trump is running for re-election on a ‘law and
order’ platform against the background of street protests in cities like
Portland and Kenosha.
However, the implications of Wasow’s
arguments are not as straightforward as they might appear. One immediate
issue concerns his methodology and the size of the effects he
estimates. The models reported in Wasow’s paper don’t include any
controls for time, which are normally included in statistical analyses
to control for general trends affecting society as a whole, trends we
assume would have happened anyway.
0 comments:
Post a Comment