Whether a life mattered is decided at the trial of the killer. And if there's a killing but no trial, can anyone really say the lost life truly mattered?
"All lives matter" -- to the parents, or to people who see themselves as someone who might be next. But a life doesn't matter to a society if a court ruling -- assuming there is one -- says it doesn't.
That view of the matter never fully dawned on me, an old white guy, until I heard Circuit Judge Wendell Griffen in Fayetteville on Monday night. He was a member of a panel putting the "Black Lives Matter" movement into both historical and contemporary context. The event was organized by the Black History Team of Compassion Fayetteville and hosted by the St. James Missionary Baptist Church. By the next morning, I concluded that was one of the most important rallies I'd covered in 35 years of reporting. More about that in a minute.
Griffen talked about one of those moments like 9/11, or the space shuttle exploding, or other epic things where everyone remembers where they were and what they were doing when it happened. For him, such a moment was when George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch member from Florida, was acquitted of all charges for killing teenager Trayvon Martin.
Note how the moment wasn't when Martin died. The frozen moment was when the killing was sanctioned by a jury. Griffen said all American blacks remember where they were and what they were doing at that moment. I have no reason to doubt him.
That was a hard truth. I don't get to hear much of that in my job. Politics -- especially at rallies -- is usually multi-faceted blandishments and blarney reinforced by fear-mongering. Monday night's meeting was different. Things are tough, panelists told the crowd, and it will be tough to change anything. The honesty alone was refreshing. Two things were more important, though. First, the overall tone was one of determination to do something -- whether progress was made or not. They sure weren't going to take any steps back. The second thing was that more than half the people at rally were white.
What makes this rally matter isn't the action the people in the room might take. What's important is the clear demonstration that the "Hope and Change" faction hasn't lost hope. They didn't get the change they wanted, but they haven't quit. They weren't euphoric. They are resolved.
I've covered politics full time since 1998, and more or less since 1981. The experience taught me to beware euphoria more than anything else. People get swept away by the thought of sudden, decisive, complete victory in which all their problems will be solved. A crash always follows.
I saw conservative euphoria with George W. Bush's victory in 2000. It ended in massive deficits, a misbegotten war and a bailout. In economics, I still remember a young financial reporter confidently saying that the boom and bust business cycle was a thing of the past. Modern information technology made business decisions too fast, nimble and rational for that. That euphoria was in 2007.
On the liberal side, Barack Obama got elected president in 2008 in another wave of euphoria. Two years into the "post-partisan" new age, his party got shellacked. I could go on. In fact, I will. Conservatives were euphorically sure the country had missed them and had returned to its senses. They could nominate anybody they wanted for president. Now the guy who won is losing to the woman who lost to Obama.
There are such things as revolutions, but the Arab Spring -- not the Spirit of 1776 -- is the usual result. So even if there's a revolution, it requires years of hard work to make it succeed.
There are no magic politicians waving wands that turn pumpkins into carriages. Even if there were, the spell would end at midnight. "Change" is hard. "Hope" requires long-term commitment. Whether the goal is a social justice revolution or a return to the old days and old ways, whoever seeks it is in for a long, hard slog. He'll probably lose. Anybody who says different is lying.
The people at that meeting Monday night get that. That gives them an advantage over everybody else. It may well be their only advantage. If this paid professional observer had to pick only one advantage for a group to have, though, that one would be it.
Commentary on 08/27/2016