- Joined
- Apr 22, 2019
- Messages
- 47,009
- Reaction score
- 22,904
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Historically in the US, white people have been a large majority, and black people a minority ranging from very small to large in different regions.
This has led to power determining that policies and politics were pretty good for white people. Even when morality was respected more and policies more moral, it was because of power recognizing many white people supported that.
If the situation were reversed - black people with power and white people without power - we'd presumably see something similar in reverse.
Now, we're seeing demographics shifting and power and politics shifting.
Who is more likely to get black votes - the candidate who says, "OK, now let's have fairness and justice", or the candidate who does what politicians have long done for white people - who panders to black voters, and tells them they're victims (rightly or wrongly) and demonizes their opponents and is more radically backing them?
The same thing that has long worked for many white politicians pandering to white voters, should be expected to work for politicians pandering to black voters.
And just as too many white voters didn't care about 'justice' but instead liked pandering, we should expect many black voters will similarly prefer pandering to justice, given the choice.
I see an example of this expected result, IMO, with the protests over the officer who shot a black man accidentally and negligently instead of tasing him.
She has been charged for that crime of negligence; that is justice. But the protesters are demanding it's not enough, she should be charged with murder.
They're wrong. That's a demand based not on justice but on power - if we CAN demand it, why not?
Now, how should it be decided? Leaders could 'do the right thing', base their decision on justice, morality, the law. But is that our system? If these politicians are responding to the protesters based on their having power, the votes to vote them in or out, then they have ever incentive politically to do what the protesters want, and charge the officer with murder.
This is the difference between power and morality. Whether politicians try to look for what is justice, or look for what gets them the votes best. And our system is designed to reward the vote chasers and punish the justice seekers, when there is a conflict.
I don't have an easy answer to this. Any alternative seems worse. It seems like it's basically a competition between demagogues willing to try to use pandering to appeal to voters, and politicians who try to convince voters to support justice, and it's up to voters which they choose.
Which side do you expect to win over the protesters between the side saying, "you are wronged, demand a murder charge", and the side saying, "be fair, manslaughter is the correct charge for the negligent but unintentional accident"?
How do you try to help justice in this system? One way we've tried is by providing some insulation between the decision maker in the criminal justice system, and the politicians/voters - but that cuts both ways, sometimes providing insulation for wrong policies, and the political pressure still often finds its way into the process.
I don't know that we have a good answer for this. What we have are some better leaders who try to persuade society to choose morality over selfish pandering, which is not easy.
This will come up many, many more times.
This has led to power determining that policies and politics were pretty good for white people. Even when morality was respected more and policies more moral, it was because of power recognizing many white people supported that.
If the situation were reversed - black people with power and white people without power - we'd presumably see something similar in reverse.
Now, we're seeing demographics shifting and power and politics shifting.
Who is more likely to get black votes - the candidate who says, "OK, now let's have fairness and justice", or the candidate who does what politicians have long done for white people - who panders to black voters, and tells them they're victims (rightly or wrongly) and demonizes their opponents and is more radically backing them?
The same thing that has long worked for many white politicians pandering to white voters, should be expected to work for politicians pandering to black voters.
And just as too many white voters didn't care about 'justice' but instead liked pandering, we should expect many black voters will similarly prefer pandering to justice, given the choice.
I see an example of this expected result, IMO, with the protests over the officer who shot a black man accidentally and negligently instead of tasing him.
She has been charged for that crime of negligence; that is justice. But the protesters are demanding it's not enough, she should be charged with murder.
They're wrong. That's a demand based not on justice but on power - if we CAN demand it, why not?
Now, how should it be decided? Leaders could 'do the right thing', base their decision on justice, morality, the law. But is that our system? If these politicians are responding to the protesters based on their having power, the votes to vote them in or out, then they have ever incentive politically to do what the protesters want, and charge the officer with murder.
This is the difference between power and morality. Whether politicians try to look for what is justice, or look for what gets them the votes best. And our system is designed to reward the vote chasers and punish the justice seekers, when there is a conflict.
I don't have an easy answer to this. Any alternative seems worse. It seems like it's basically a competition between demagogues willing to try to use pandering to appeal to voters, and politicians who try to convince voters to support justice, and it's up to voters which they choose.
Which side do you expect to win over the protesters between the side saying, "you are wronged, demand a murder charge", and the side saying, "be fair, manslaughter is the correct charge for the negligent but unintentional accident"?
How do you try to help justice in this system? One way we've tried is by providing some insulation between the decision maker in the criminal justice system, and the politicians/voters - but that cuts both ways, sometimes providing insulation for wrong policies, and the political pressure still often finds its way into the process.
I don't know that we have a good answer for this. What we have are some better leaders who try to persuade society to choose morality over selfish pandering, which is not easy.
This will come up many, many more times.