The political pendulum has swung away from Trump. But there’s time for it to swing back.
HILLSBORO, OHIO » Our political pendulum typically swings in short, almost imperceptible strokes — for instance, modestly left in 1992 from George H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton, to modestly right again, from Clinton to George W. Bush in 2000. Occasionally the arc is wider, as in 1980’s dramatic shift to the right and Ronald Reagan, and 2008’s shift leftward with the Barack Obama victory.
Seldom has the pendulum swung as fast and far as 2016, when Obama gave way to Donald J. Trump, giving Americans whiplash and confounding pundits who thought that Obama’s election had ushered in a new era.
A pendulum swinging so wildly one way will, sooner or later, rebound just as wildly. That is what we are witnessing now. The battle cry of resistance is rousing the nation’s most pugnacious left-wing elements — in response to recent events, including the horrifying killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer, but also to the continuing existence of Trump.
Floyd’s death has prompted a long-overdue reckoning on racial bias throughout U.S. society; addressing the issue should transcend partisan politics, though of course there will be disagreement on the best way forward. Attitudes toward Trump, however, are a matter of right-left partisanship through and through.
While most pendulum arcs are demarcated by presidential elections, the wild leftward swing of our current ride has been so abrupt that it might reverse itself even before November. Consider recent developments, some understandable, but many bewildering in their rejection of law and embrace of chaos.
Big city governments are seriously considering dramatically defunding their police departments. The mayor of Seattle gave her blessing to a citizen takeover of an entire police-free neighborhood, finally ordering the so-called Capitol Hill Organized Protest area cleared out only after entirely foreseeable acts of violence, including two fatal shootings. In Baltimore, police stood by as protesters toppled a statue of Christopher Columbus and tossed it in pieces into the city’s Inner Harbor. Like the novel coronavirus, new pandemonium hot spots emerge every week.
Most people can understand the fervor behind assaults on Confederate symbols and statuary, but the effort to correct that history of inequity has led to a mad competition to define everything as racist. Last week, a CNN reporter described Trump’s remarks at Mount Rushmore as the president “standing in front of a monument to two slave owners and on land wrestled away from Native Americans.” Her worst-possible-light characterization easily outshone all rivals that day.
On a lesser scale, but just as annoying for being unnecessarily divisive, are recent decisions from entertainment and news media designed to demonstrate their wokeness. HBO Max tacked a four-minute introductory disclaimer onto “Gone with the Wind,” “contextualizing” the film’s romanticized depiction of the Old South — foreshadowing the application of 21st century sensibilities to other classic works of art. We used to credit viewers with the ability to “contextualize” works from a previous era all on their own.
The Associated Press joined a growing list in media announcing it was altering its style to capitalize the “B” in “black” when referring to people “in a racial, ethnic or cultural context.” That’s fine, and so the same goes for “white,” right?
No. AP decided that the white population will keep the lowercase “w,” at least for now.
Columbia Journalism Review struggled to explain why it adopted the same rule, noting, among other tidbits, “For many people, Black reflects a shared sense of identity and community. White carries a different set of meanings; capitalizing the word in this context risks following the lead of white supremacists.” Or it might just treat both races with equal respect. It is telling that an editor’s note was later added: “This piece has been updated for clarity. An earlier version included an explanation that was off-base ... We . . . will continue to discuss this subject internally.” Clearly, a decision in search of a reason.
After Floyd’s death, Americans of every stripe were in broad agreement that we must more aggressively address racial disparities. But it would be a mistake to confuse that consensus with a radical mandate that could end up making Trump appear reasonable by comparison — an outcome that the president might try encouraging by abandoning his proconfederate rhetoric, focusing more attention on crucial police reforms and ending attacks that too often appear race-baiting.
The speed at which events have swung their way has made the left’s social justice warriors giddy with anticipation that one white man in his 70s will be forced from the Oval Office in favor of another white man in his 70s. But misreading the moment could send the pendulum hurtling just as quickly and fiercely back in Trump’s direction.
After Floyd’s death, Americans of every stripe were in broad agreement that we must more aggressively address racial disparities.