Skip to content

500 BLM protests resulted in property damage last year

Published on 141 Comments on 500 BLM protests resulted in property damage last year

I saw this yesterday:

I'm not sure this does the work the author intends. The percentages may well be correct, but public perception is driven more by raw numbers. In this case, it means the civil rights movement produced about 40 incidents of property damage per year. By contrast, BLM protests produced about 500 such incidents in 2020 alone.

Likewise, the civil rights movement injured police about 20 times per year. BLM protests injured police 250 times in a single year.

There's more to this, but it's critical to understand how the public views things and how the media covers them. No ordinary person knows how many BLM protests there were. How could they, especially when so many were tiny marches in small towns? And the national media only covers large protests, where property damage and police injuries are most common. Researchers and policymakers (and readers of this blog) may be interested in percentages, but it's raw numbers that most people respond to.

Of course, you can toss into the mix all the breathless coverage on Fox News and other right-wing media outlets. But if these numbers are correct, BLM protesters gave them a lot to work with.

141 thoughts on “500 BLM protests resulted in property damage last year”

    1. cfkdaddy

      It sure seems like a large coincidence that in the summer months prior to the election Dems had large leads in polling across the board. Cue the summer of BLM protests, Defund the Police, large scale protests, looting, etc and all of a sudden every close race is lost, the House advantage falls to a paper thin majority, the Senate is screwed, etc, etc.

      Talk about popular stuff. Dont talk about unpopular stuff. Big picture BLM is a net loser politically. Increased minority turnout drove even more conservative turnout.

      1. Austin

        If only everybody protested in the approved way, surely their opponents and the mushy political middle of this country would listen to what they had to say.

        4. Jasper_in_Boston

          If only everybody protested in the approved way, surely their opponents and the mushy political middle of this country would listen to what they had to say

          Raw political power is what matters in America when it comes to making substantive change. Democrats need to win more elections. It really is that simple. That which prevents Democrats from doing so is bad for the country (because by definition it helps Republicans win more elections).

      2. Spadesofgrey

        Russia clearly was behind blm in terms of massing protests. These are the same protesters who didn't show up on "January" 6 . Which disorganized the Trumptards.

        2. cfkdaddy

          It was close. Something like 60K votes go the other way and Donald Trump is back in business. Democratic candidates won two special elections otherwise the Senate would be where Bidens agenda goes to die. The Dems won by the skin of their teeth, Biden won the electoral college but it just as easily could have gone the other way.

          The point is that by amplifying unpopular messages, you drive up turnout on the other side. There arent enough minorities and college grads to win everywhere. You have to win some of the working class vote if you want to govern and retain power. Liberals are a third of the population, clustered in a few places and the crazier they sound the more the rest of the country will reject them.

          2. veerkg_23

            2016 was close. 2000 was close. Even 2004 was close. 2020? Not really. No Republican has had such a victory since 1988. The only Dem with a bigger victory since then was named Obama.

            How are they unpopular messages if THEY WON? Secondly, the working class isn't turned off by violence. If they were they'd never vote for Republicans again. The "working class" likes people who stick to their guns and don't back down, and fight. So maybe if you want to appeal to them on a class basis, that is what you have to do.

          3. Spadesofgrey

            College grads??? Nope. Look again, they tied. A large 3% of white swingers with or without a college degree up north? Yup.

        3. Jasper_in_Boston

          Dems won in 2020, despite massive odds against them.

          2020 saw the sharpest economic downturn since 1932 AND a devastating public health crisis—all of it covered in GOP fingerprints. Democrats most certainly didn't have "massive odds against them."

          It could've been worse (I for one didn't think they'd pull of the double in Georgia), but let's not kids ourselves: Democrats very nearly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and ultimately saw a much less successful election than they should have. And as Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema remind us daily, they're now paying the price for that lack of success.

          1. veerkg_23

            Looking at State level elections, or even elections in other countries, the pandemic didn't have much an effect on a governments popularity one way or another.

            Dems were facing a loss in early 2020. Getting rid of an incumbent is hard. By mid 2020 they had turned it around. This was the 3rd biggest Dem victory since 1988. Don't kid yourself on what Dems did, and are still doing. Or did you miss the California Recall? This isn't 2004 anymore.

    2. veerkg_23

      Or that he was wrong given Dems won in 2020 despite all his attempts to say the oppossite was going to happen. OOOPS!

      1. Salamander

        Democrats won the Presidency in 2020. Lost lots of governorships, statehouses, and seats in Congress (excluding the Senate!)

        Democratic voters must some day figure out that it isn't just about who's President! Will everyone turn out to vote next year, the so-called "mid-terms"? I hope so, but past experience...

  2. DFPaul

    I dunno. The LA protests were in my neighborhood and the LAPD strategy was mass engagement with the BLM protesters, who held a peaceful rally, then a march into the nearby streets. Meanwhile the LAPD left the surrounding area -- one of LA's biggest shopping areas, Melrose Ave, unprotected. Not terribly surprisingly, looters chose that moment to hit Melrose. Looters who had less than nothing to do with BLM. Did that property damage get counted against BLM? If so, I'd say the police have gotten very savvy in figuring out how to make it look like protesters caused something they didn't. If you don't believe me, an LA city government report found all of the above...

    https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-03-11/new-report-faults-lapd-for-mishandling-summer-unrest

    A sample from that article...

    "Officers formed skirmish lines and squared off with unthreatening protesters who had their hands up, even as others who were throwing objects at police from deeper in the crowds and organized groups who were running teams of burglars into surrounding businesses were left to operate freely, the report found."

    Which is not to say that Fox News can't spin it. Of course they can... But you might be surprised to learn that young voters don't buy the "BLM = violent" story. And this is why.

    1. rick_jones

      If action 1 causes police to be pulled away and so action 2 happens I suppose it is a litmus as to whether action 2 is the fault of the police or of action 1.

      1. veerkg_23

        The police obviously. What is their job? To harass peacful demonstrators or go after criminals? If they are doing the latter and not the former why would you blame anyone else?

        1. rick_jones

          And when the police go to the location of action 2 instead, those actors go to the location of action 1 and the police get blamed for not covering/protecting action 1.

          1. veerkg_23

            If the police go after the wrong target and let crime run rampant, who'se fault is that other than the police? If you want civil groups and demonstrators to do the job of the police for them, then why have the police at all?

          2. DFPaul

            Maybe send an appropriate number of police to both "action 1" and "action 2", or is that not allowed in this game theory example?

            Back in reality the LAPD sent an unnecessarily large number to the BLM rally and left the famous nearby shopping street unprotected. Dastardly BLM to force the LAPD to make such bad decisions!

    2. cfkdaddy

      Young voters are not important in this. Its the low information, casual uninformed, moderate voters who see this stuff and end up thinking BLM = Anarchy and then go and vote republican.

      1. veerkg_23

        And what makes you think they weren't voting Republican anyway? May I remind you that dems lost in 2016, with no BLM, and won massively in 2020, after BLM.

        1. cfkdaddy

          The Dems fell massively short of expectations. They lost every competitive house seat. The fact they won the senate was an anomaly due to the Georgia special elections. In other words, they got lucky, fell far short of polling predictions, and relying on lightning in a bottle twice in a row is a recipe for disaster.

          1. veerkg_23

            Uh, your expectations maybe. Dems were facing defeat in early 2020. By mid 2020 they had turned it around. That's just a fact. This was the 3rd biggest Dem victory since 1988. Secondly, not sure how you can call Georgia an "anomaly" since Biden also won that State. Dems targetted GA - they won Georgia. They won Arizona and several Red States too.

            Trump got lucky in 2016. Not Dems in 2020. Facts.

            2. KenSchulz

              Trump was lucky to an unprecedented (unPresidented?) degree. No one before had ever lost the popular vote by millions, and yet won in the anachronism known as the Electoral College.

            3. cfkdaddy

              Dems absolutely got lucky.

              Here are the margins by which Biden won three critical states.

              Arizona: 10,457
              Georgia: 14,028
              Wisconsin: 20,565
              Total: 45,050

              Heres my source. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/11/18/how-2020-election-was-closer-than-2016/

              45K votes go different and its game over. Electoral college is tied 269 to 269, and the House State delegations vote trump in. Absolutely legal, nothing anyone can do about it.

              2020 was decided by 45,000 people. Dont tell me the Dems won by a mile when they didnt.

              1. KenSchulz

                But votes are not independent random events. If some factors in the 2020 campaign had been different, yes, those 45,000+ voters might have voted Trump instead of Biden. But those different factors would also have led to millions of voters in other states voting Trump.

                1. KenSchulz

                  To put it another wat, Trump had a much bigger challenge than it appears - he would have had to win millions more votes across the nation in order to win the small number he needed in Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin. Unless you believe that the voters in those quite different states are highly similar, but very different from voters in the other 47.

              2. Jasper_in_Boston

                Dont tell me the Dems won by a mile when they didnt.

                Democrats also lost, what fourteen House seats? When's the last time the White House changed hands and was accompanied by such utterly craptastic House numbers? (Answer: never).

                Again, it could've been worse. The flipping of Arizona and Georgia (and Penn, Wisc, Mich) is objectively good news. Ending the Trump presidency means a lot! As do those Georgia Senate races. But everything I've read indicates Democrats were headed to a much stronger win at mid year (soaring unemployment will tend to do that). And then something happened. What might that be? I do think blaming BLM alone is a bit simplistic. Seems to me Defund+urban unrest in general are the bigger culprits (BLM just got things started). And Barr and Trump's corrupt-as-fuck DOJ played the hard left like a fiddle (eg, Seattle, Portland). So there was a lot going on. But it was a very narrow victory. In some ways not unlike Trump's victory in 2016. In both cases we saw objectively positive conditions for the ultimately victorious party undermined by different factors (candidate quality in the case of 2016—Trump's obnoxiousness nearly blew a very winnable election for Republicans—and urban unrest in the case of 2020). The latter factor clearly had an impact on non-college voters last November: and unfortunately for Democrats, this time said effect wasn't confined only to whites.
                https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1014967344/latino-voters-are-leaving-the-democratic-party

          2. ScentOfViolets

            And of course you've done innumerable Monte Carlo simulations using reasonable model run on comprehensive, well-manicured beyond-reproach data sets before stating with absolutely no caveats that the Democrats 'got lucky', amirite?

            Look, this isn't an audio conversation. You've got plenty of time to edit whatever dribbles out from your brain through your fingers before posting it. And make no mistake, you're not one of those people who are light edits, as they say in the biz.

      2. Jasper_in_Boston

        Young voters are not important in this. Its the low information, casual uninformed, moderate voters who see this stuff and end up thinking BLM = Anarchy and then go and vote republican.

        From what I understand there's strong evidence a critical cohort that responded to BLM by switching to Republicans in fact was non-college educated Hispanics.

            1. MontyTheClipArtMongoose

              Similar to Rmoney, much lower than W. In 2004, the GQP pulled over 40% of Hispanic voters. In 2012, 2016, & 2020, the GQP got under 30%.

          2. Jasper_in_Boston

            Trump improved his performance with Latino voters by 8-10 points over 2016. He also beat Romney's 2012 numbers. This despite unemployment soaring above 20% among Latinos last year.

            Why might that be?

        2. Art Eclectic

          That was true across a bunch of different groups, even liberal voters. Most people want to live their lives in relative peace and safety. Anything that threatens their property, children, or ability make a living is a big deal.

          Tolerance for people who disrupt is thin. Californians are angry about homeless people camping in their neighborhoods and taking over parks. Homeowners are tired of people living in motor homes on their streets. Nobody wants to live near low-income people because they are noisy, throw trash everywhere, and don't take care of their vehicles/houses.

          People who've managed to create solid, respectable lives for themselves (people of all races, I might add) are just tired of the people who behave badly and can't get their shit together.

          I've been saying this on Kevin's blog for years: what are we going to do with all the people who simply cannot take care of themselves and who cannot make the transition into a modern digital world?

          That's what we are really fighting at an electoral level, the real nutbars don't have all that much support. But they're pulling in more support from average folks who are just tired of chaos and people who can't take care of themselves.

          1. cfkdaddy

            I cant state how strongly I agree with this. People hate chaos, and BLM was an embodiment of chaos as perceived by low info voters. You throw in some cross minority racism from different groups and yeah, I can absolutely see Hispanic/Latino voters jumping ship.

    3. Austin

      Can the LAPD not respond to incidents in 2 different parts of the city at the same time? Is it that understaffed or just incompetent?

      2. iamr4man

        They were not in 2 different parts of the city. The looting was in shops adjacent to the street where the protest was. The police engaged the peaceful protesters while ignoring the looting just steps away.

        1. ScentOfViolets

          You're not actually asking that the good folks in the LAPD actually put themselves in the way of bodily harm, are you? Tsk, tsk.

    4. SamChevre

      I'll also note that if "peaceful" protestors are staying between the police and violent protestors, and the violent protestors are throwing things at police, setting things on fire, breaking windows, and so on--that sounds like a violent protest with human shields, not a peaceful protest with unrelated violence..

  3. bbleh

    Some of it, alas, was vandals completely unassociated with the protests, and some of it was, per federal indictments and IIRC even a plea bargain or two, work of right-wing agitators, specifically the Boogaloo Boys.

    The paranoid RWNJs complain constantly about "false-flag" attacks, but in this case, there really were RWNJs trying to discredit BLM by committing acts of violence in proximity to the protests.

    1. Spadesofgrey

      Please, the "right wing" invented false flag attacks. Who do you invented these Johnny come lately groups like the Proud Boys or Bugaloo idiots. The elite. So many Jews in those groups. So many.

      2. KawSunflower

        Oh, please. You know that most of those in both groups are similar to you - bigoted & definitely NOT Jewish.

        Try again; some fine day, you may make a rational, reasonable comment.

        1. Vog46

          Now Loxley

          John Gruden has to vent somewhere doesn't he
          Anti black
          Anti women
          Anti Gay
          Anti player safety
          Now Anti Semitic

    2. Austin

      The right-wing always projects its own flaws and crimes onto its opponents. It would be good if regular Americans realized this some day.

    3. iamr4man

      Not just vandals, murderers:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_boogaloo_killings

      I’m willing to bet that most Fox News watchers think BLM was responsible for the Oakland officer’s death and few if any know about the other murders. How often does even the MMS talk about the deliberate attempts by groups like the boogaloos to make looting and violence appear to be BLM? And yet there are so many GQPers who actually believe that the violence on January 6th was ANTIFA and BLM infiltrating the happy go lucky Trump protesters to make them look bad.

      1. Loxley

        Only the inbred morons of the Trumpbase would believe such a comically bad and obvious lie as blaming January 6 on Antifa...

        And that accusation, of course, proves that right-wing violent radicals had done precisely the same thing during BLM protests (as you point out). They are ALWAYS guilty of what they accuse others of doing. It's as certain as the sun rising tomorrow over what's left of the Constitution...

    5. KawSunflower

      Those facts have been reported, but the sources were drowned out by Fox & other propagandists. It's disappointing that countering such wrongful "alternate facts" seems impossible.

      The only BLM marchers I have witnessed were in Fairfax County VA, a diverse group who were cheerful, positive, & nonviolent. This was a daylight event. Can't imagine any of that group initiating any kind of trouble, but remember reading of rightwing agitators operating where BLM protests were held at night in urban areas where infiltration by opponents would have been easier.

    6. cephalopod

      There were definitely right wing race war mongers in MPLS protests. Several have since been arrested.

      The sheer size of our protests left many parts of the city vulnerable to outsiders looking for easy targets for theft. It was pretty obvious when I noticed that the stores in my neighborhood were vandalized/robbed based on a pretty clear pattern: stores that show up first on Google maps as you start to zoom in, and that have high value merchandise were the ones that got hit. Trader Joe's liquor store, yes. Independent local liquor store two blocks away and known only to neighborhood, no. Major drugstore chain, yes. Local drug store, no. Jewelry store, yes. The dozen nearby stores without high priced merch, no.

  4. Spadesofgrey

    BLM: failed brand. Now all they got is millionaire players in the NFL whining because they aren't billionaire owners.......

    Society needs a cleansing. From Wall Street, to the Republican party, to black activists.

      1. KawSunflower

        Too bad it can't start on jabberwocky. The troll iseems an unlikely registered Democrat or even Independent but reminds me of certain Libertarians. A pity the Know-nothing Party name fell into disuse.

  5. jdubs

    Seems unlikely that the people who are bothered by race or civil rights related protests will put any weight into the percentage or the total number.
    Any number greater than 5(?) will allow for endless recycling of photos, videos, made up stories, actual anecdotes and fear.
    But its great to see we are blaming "BLM protestors" for the response, Fox News would be proud.

      2. iamr4man

        Why don’t I ever see you decrying the violence and destruction committed by right wing groups such as the boogaloos?

        1. Atticus

          I don't see many articles about boogaloos on which I could comment. I'm not even sure what they are. There were thousnds of BLM protests last year. I don't remember seeing or hearing about Boogaloo protests.

  6. jte21

    Yeah, but how much of this damage was actually by BLM protesters and how much was done by unaffiliated anarchists, hoodlums, and (often) alt-right agents provocateur? Of course Fox and other conservative media are doing their best to make sure none of their viewers are made aware of that.

  7. GenXer

    Total data analysis failure on the part of the original article quoted in the screenshot.

    2020: Looked at 12,839 events in 2020 alone based almost entirely on reports submitted by individuals crowd-reporting local events in their neighborhood.

    Comparison data set: news coverage of 2,681 civil rights events that were covered in the New York Times from 1960-1995.

    These databases are not comparable in the slightest. Which local civil rights events are more likely to draw coverage from the New York Times - the ones with people peacefully holding signs on a street corner for an hour, or the ones that result in some property damage?

    2. ScentOfViolets

      That's the problem with the older, mostly-white, non-college set: they'd rather passively view yet another clip of action packed action packed action (not a typo, unfortunately) that they've seen a million times already in one form or another rather than actually, you know, watching critical, informed reportage that requires active engagement with the material. Especially when doing so would require -- shudder -- doing the numbers. In fact, it's my impression that these folks consider being proudly innumerate as just yet another mark of tribal affiliation. Just like an oversized red hat, doncha know; it's

  8. D_Ohrk_E1

    Shooting yourself in the foot or tripping on your own feet while chasing BLM protesters shouldn't count as injuries from protests; it should be counted as injuries due to gross incompetence.

  9. Goosedat

    The saddest part about the 2020 protests against police violence and murder was the absence of a significant number of European American middle class participants. This was also largely the case when Hispanics marched in 2006 for immigration reform. Despite many in the American middle class recognizing police target African Americans and other minorities for extrajudicial 'punishment,' they did not turn out to add their voices to demand the end of this institutional violence.

        1. veerkg_23

          90% of black voters voted Dem in 2020, in line with the 20 year historic average. Trump did worse than even Bush did, so what do you think 2020 showed other than Republicans are a 90% White party who haven't won a popular election since 2004?

          1. Spadesofgrey

            Nope, 82%. Republicans got the highest share of Black vote since 1980. What poor post you made. My guess it falls below 80% by 2024.

          2. Vog46

            A clearer picture will emerge in the years to come. Confirming whom poll respondents actually voted for takes time — for instance, a Pew Research Center study on the 2016 election’s demographic breakdowns of verified voters was published not months after that contest, but in August 2018. AP and Edison pollsters are still adjusting the weighting on their data to ensure it’s as accurate as possible, but here’s what we know right now:

            Black voters made up about 11 or 12 percent of the electorate, according to the AP and Edison, respectively.
            The AP found that 90 percent of Black voters went to Biden and 8 percent to Trump.
            Edison Research determined that 87 percent of Black voters voted for Biden and 12 percent for Trump.
            Both found Black men were more likely than Black women to support Trump. In the AP’s case, 12 percent of Black men voters backed Trump, compared to 6 percent of Black women; in Edison’s case, 18 percent of Black men voters cast ballots for Trump, while 8 percent of Black women did the same

    2. Spadesofgrey

      Because they aren't targets. How about white's injured and targeted by police??? You simply don't get it. This out dated model you live by, doesn't work in post Jim Crow era when white income growth has stopped. Only Asian and Hispanic's have seen growth. Even your 2006 example is toast as that was a heavily driven Mexican American thing. Which has dried up and now caused reversals.

    4. Joseph Harbin

      @Goosedat,

      You got any data to back that up?

      My experience as a marcher and viewer was middle-class whites were over-represented.

      But maybe not if you're watching Fox.

      1. Goosedat

        I don't and you may be right. From the views locally, there were many young persons who participated, and from their apparent ethnicity they could have been from middle class families. Perhaps it was the lack of middle aged European Americans protesting that withheld legitimacy to the BLM protests to the commentators, although it should not.

        1. KenSchulz

          No, it should not, but if middle-aged and older whites were underrepresented, Covid-19 could explain a good deal of that. My impression from TV coverage was that middle-aged and older POC were also underrepresented, for the same reason.

  10. middleoftheroaddem

    A few points

    1) The TYPE of property damage matters. Spray painting a Confederate statue is VERY different than stealing merchandise from a Gucci store.
    2) Chaos matters. Video of fire and tear gas is really different than typical social protest (think the Woman's March).
    3) BLM events had many layers: lots of folks approved of some elements of BLM events and opposed other actions. For example, one could be repulsed by the killing of Tamir Rice and still not support trying to physically hurt police officers.

    1. veerkg_23

      As for 3 - for police officers were hurt on Jan 6th than in the entire year previously (when most of the injuries were self inflicted anyway).

  11. Loxley

    Thanks for carrying the GOP's water for them, Kevin.

    They, too, love to equate the looting and violent behavior that sometimes accompanied- often blocks away and in some cases actually instigated by police- with the organized BLM protests themselves.

    And, as some other shave noted here, equating ALL property damage as being equivalent.

    Does the public perception matter? Sure, so stop giving weight to right-wing propaganda.

    1. Spadesofgrey

      Compared to the 60's, it paled. But being it happened during the Covid lockdowns, inflated the dubious "BLM" franchise which itself has major problems back from the dead, nobody was in the mood for overblown protests based on cherry picked data and events.

      Considering the 3 dykes of BLM are rich with Russian laundering. Maybe Kevin needs to see the links between "BLM" and "Trumpism". Oh what tangled webs we live.

  12. Dana Decker

    Recent protests look worse because nowadays everyone can capture the action with a cellphone. In the past, it was newsprint and a couple of grainy black and white pictures.

  13. cmayo

    Do they break out how many of those BLM property damage protests were the result of white supremacist counter-protesters or agitators?

        1. Atticus

          Not needed. For the same reason it's not needed to have a citation to say there weren't a significant number of Antifa agitators at the Jan 6 insurrection.

  14. Joseph Harbin

    When the public perception is X, but the facts say Y, Drum usually takes the side of Y. That's his usual contrarian schtick. ("People think times are tough but not according to this chart I made.")

    But when the public perception of BLM protests is that the protests were more violent than the actual facts, Drum blames the protests.

    That's called a tell.

    This summer’s Black Lives Matter protesters were overwhelmingly peaceful, our research finds
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/16/this-summers-black-lives-matter-protesters-were-overwhelming-peaceful-our-research-finds/

    In fact, the Black Lives Matter uprisings were remarkably nonviolent. When there was violence, very often police or counterprotesters were reportedly directing it at the protesters.
    ...
    In short, our data suggest that 96.3 percent of events involved no property damage or police injuries, and in 97.7 percent of events, no injuries were reported among participants, bystanders or police.

    Critics claim BLM protests were more violent than 1960s civil rights ones. That’s just not true.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/12/critics-claim-blm-was-more-violent-than-1960s-civil-rights-protests-thats-just-not-true/

    But the media coverage of the two eras was quite different

    Demonstrations & Political Violence in America: New Data for Summer 2020
    https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/

    Authorities have used force — such as firing less-lethal weapons like tear gas, rubber bullets, and pepper spray or beating demonstrators with batons — in over 54% of the demonstrations in which they have engaged. This too is a significant increase relative to one year ago.

    Hard to know where Drum goes next. ("I can't believe I'm voting for the GOP again, but the liberals made me do it"?)

  15. Dee Znutz

    It’s critical to understand that the general public is full of idiotic racists.

    What we are supposed to do with this information aside from wiping these clowns out, I’m not sure.

  16. bebopman

    You mean 50 years after the civil rights movement , *still* waiting for black folks to be treated like human beings made some of the young ones angrier than their parents were? Who would have thunk it?

    1. Spadesofgrey

      Seems to be a bunch of rich blacks enjoy being treated like human beings. Your outdated notions on race represent why post-war liberalism has died out, similar to classical liberalism after 1929.

      Your world you want is gone and you can't adjust. Typical Christian mother crisis.

  17. skeptonomist

    If the goal is to increase overall support for BLM, let alone for Democrats, the polls suggest a pretty clear-cut strategy. Through 2020 up to June public support was increasing. When the protests started support for BLM dropped rapidly, though according to Pew polls it is still favorable. This is probably related to MSM coverage. They gave a lot of play to citizen videos of police abusing black people. People are interested in this and sympathize with those being abused. Then when the protests started that took over coverage. Obviously the reaction was less favorable to that. Most people are not interested in numbers or splitting hairs about who the aggressors were, they just see videos of people causing trouble. "Defund the police" was a particularly bad thing to focus on, as it is opposed even by most non-whites. There is no reason to blame everything on Fox - the MSM are still where possible swing voters get their information.

    Of course this is in retrospect, but there is certainly no reason now to think that mass protests are a good way to increase support for BLM. Get more people keeping the police under surveillance with their phones and get that to the media - that's what works. Kevin had a post on this some time ago. Unfortunately there is little likelihood of much else being done to bring the police under control, protests or no protests.

    Also keep in mind that the Democratic party, if there is really such a thing, was not responsible for the protests, and will certainly not be calling for more in the future.

  19. Justin

    When the Trump Nazis have taken over the government, disbanded congress, and outlawed political dissent, I sure hope that someone remembers how to protest.

    3. Justin

      And all this explains why gang related shootings are up from a few years ago. These terrorists are organized and armed. Whatever the merits of the BLM focus on police brutality after Floyd's death, the public was quickly reminded that the black criminal class was a threat. Sure, some white folks joined in the fray to profit, but the public was pre-disposed to fear black criminals more so the focus stayed on the hypocrisy of the "Black Lives Matter" slogan. Of course not even black people believed that. Look what they do to each other! This was, I think, the real reason support for the concept faded. Speaking for myself only, of course.

      In the last few months, shootings of black teens by other black teens have been reported in the news. Kids with guns shooting up the place. More fun than looting I guess.

    4. Justin

      More on social media fueled violence.

      https://www.vice.com/en/article/7kvnxa/snapchat-is-fuelling-britains-teen-murder-epidemic

      "There is a blood-red thread, from the entrenched, antisocial conditions in society that have given rise to today’s culture of violence, to the individual incidents that spark each killing. It’s a line strewn with state negligence, claustrophobic communities, criminal exploitation and petulant brutality, and it’s what happens when children look to social media and crime in search of an identity."

  20. steveconga

    I typically love Kevin for his sober, sensible, center-left perspective on things.

    However, this post really bothers me, because it seems to be arguing that FACTS DON'T MATTER. Bottom line, study after study has shown that last year's BLM protests were in fact overwhelmingly peaceful. Especially when one understands the sheer volume of protests that occurred.
    More peaceful than the storied "civil rights era" protests that are now viewed with the rosiest of rosy-colored glasses, even by may conservatives who excoriated them at the time with the exact same language they now use to attack the BLM movement.

    There's no reason Democratic Progressives should not continue to hammer on this factual argument, even though we understand that the OPTICS of the protests - especially as exploited by FOX News, et al - are bad for the Democrats politically.

    As a group, we CANNOT cede factual arguments that support our positions.
    It just makes us look weak. In all my debates & arguments with my conservative friends (what can I say...? I run with a strange crowd...) I always respond to their marketing perspective with facts. I refuse to engage with their inaccurate framing. Because if you fight the battle on ground of the enemy's choosing, you're almost bound to lose.

  21. NealB

    There were terribly violent protests, riots during the summers of 67 and 68 as I recall all over the country. No small part of the overall level of protests then were Viet Nam war-related. Beyond that of course, the population of the US has increased by 140% since then, so of course the numbers would all be larger today. The problems causing the unrest certainly haven't gone away.

    1. Jasper_in_Boston

      Trump/Barr's 2020 campaign tactics were nearly identical to those of Nixon's back in '68. The main difference is the former had the DOJ at his disposal. Republicans seize on urban unrest (that is, they try and intensify it) because they think it works for them. I'd say the evidence mainly suggests they're correct.

  22. JonF311

    Is that just saying that there was an incident of property damage somewhere in the city when a protest was happening? If so in any suitably large city of course there was property damage-- it happens all the time. Here in Baltimore there was zero rioting during our protests last year. Both police and protesters were proud of that fact. But during one of the protests at city hall someone smashed a bank window well over a mile away. Did that count in the stats too, even though there's zero evidence the protest had anything to do with it?

  23. KenSchulz

    But votes are not independent random events. If some factors in the 2020 campaign had been different, yes, those 45,000+ voters might have voted Trump instead of Biden. But those different factors would also have led to millions of voters in other states voting Trump.

Comments are closed.