Biden Shames Black Vote: Black History Slams Back

When Joe Biden uttered the now infamous words during his recent interview on the Breakfast Club, "You’ve got more questions? Well, I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”, many Americans, Black and White, Republican and Democrat, were shocked, outraged, and speechless. That includes me, which is why I have written this refutation of Biden for his arrogance, entitlement and attempt to shame and intimidate the Black vote to support his candidacy for President of the United States. Through the words of Frederick Douglass, I am convinced that Joe Biden is fundamentally flawed and on the wrong side of history by taking for granted the Black vote and imposing a dangerous racial standard to validate and authenticate Blackness and Black electoral behavior.

As I stated above, Biden's attitude of arrogance and entitlement was fundamentally wrong because his words are a telling example of how he takes for granted the Black vote. History has much to say about controversies surrounding the Black vote and free speech, and Frederick Douglass is no exception.

Douglass’s famed, Plea for Freedom of Speech in Boston is one of his best lectures and speaks compellingly from the past to the present. Toward the end of this historic statement, he highlights the sanctity and inviolability of free speech. For Douglass, there was no compromise when it came to this fundamental right, especially when protests against the evils of chattel slavery were involved. Douglass makes this crystal clear in the following:

No right was deemed by the fathers of the Government more sacred than the right of speech. It was in their eyes, as in the eyes of all thoughtful men, the great moral renovator of society and government. Daniel Webster called it a homebred right, a fireside privilege. Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their presence. Slavery cannot tolerate free speech. Five years of its exercise would banish the auction block and break every chain in the South. They will have none of it there, for they have the power. But shall it be so here?

The quote above shows that any attempt to restrict free speech is hostile to the tenets of liberty and is at odds with our nation's founding principles. But when it comes to voting, is our American election day tradition considered "speech"? Interestingly, the Supreme Court has long wrestled with this very question. Still, there's reason to believe that given judicial ambivalence on this topic, The Court's history remains inconclusive. Consider the very fine analysis in the article, Voting Is Speech by Armand Derfner and J. Gerald Hebert in the Yale Policy and Law Review (Vol 34, Issue 2):

The Court’s relaxed review of voting restrictions would not be surprising if voting were not a fundamental right. But isn’t the right to vote fundamental, when it is “preservative of all rights”?94 And shouldn’t voting be regarded as speech deserving of full First Amendment protection when it serves a clear expressive function? One answer to these questions is that the Supreme Court has never said “No.” Despite the Court’s current jurisprudential confusion, the Supreme Court has never explicitly considered, much less rejected, the argument that voting is speech fully protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court in Harper, the poll tax case, specifically recognized and left open the question of the First Amendment’s application to restrictions on the right and proceeded to decide the case under the Equal Protection Clause.95 Supreme Court case law supports a theory of First Amendment protection for voters. The Court has repeatedly characterized the fundamental right to vote in terms of “voice” and expression. In Wesberry v. Sanders, the Court explained: “[N]o right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws.”

Derfner and Hebert continue their inquiry by arguing that The Court can resolve this dilemma by affirming the nexus between voting and speech as legally justifiable and in accordance with Constitutional integrity. Before concluding, they write: "The Court should correct its course deviation and place the right to vote at the top of the pantheon of rights protected by the First Amendment. The right to vote is both fundamental to our democratic society and fundamentally expressive; it should be properly protected by strict scrutiny alongside other fundamental rights."

When combined, both articles more than affirm the Constitution's free speech authority as a legal basis for safeguarding voting as an act of protected speech. Douglass challenges Biden's lack of historical propriety when it comes to the sanctity of free speech in Black History movements. Derfner and Hebert underscore the viability of voting as a Constitutionally protected free speech act. The end result is the creation of a pathway whereby the argument can be made that Biden's carelessly offensive remark is morally and legally objectionable because it offends the notion of voting as free speech, creates an artificial and derogatory obligation based on race, shames and intimidates on the basis of race, and is used to unlawfully and unfairly validate/authenticate voter's racial acceptability and responsibility in conformity with politically fabricated self-serving norms. No, it was neither a policy prescription nor an act of force but rather a passive-aggressive attempt to guilt, shame, and intimidate the African American vote, which was heard loud and clear by an overwhelming number of Americans. Again, Biden is on the wrong side of history because he expressed an attitude that is morally and legally indefensible, one that is more in keeping with Jim Crow era politics.

While Biden has since apologized, his comments remain problematic and a real concern for the body politic because of the attitude he so freely and flippantly communicated to the public. Douglass's plea cuts to the core of Biden's wrongness and in the process elevates history as the necessary corrective to his flawed political worldview and derogatory attitudes around race, identity, and electoral behavior.

The Immorality of Vigilante Injustice in Georgia

The killing of Ahmaud Arbery is one of the most despicably unjust and inhumane examples of community violence and aggression I've ever witnessed. From home security video, we see the last minutes of Arbery's life as he visits a home construction site during one of his routine daily jogs. Minutes later, a phone camera records him running for his life, confronted by and engaged in a tussle with one of his pursuers, and then fired upon and maliciously killed.

This all happened back in February in Brunswick Georgia, when Gregory and Travis McMichael (father and son) apparently fed up over recent burglaries and break-ins in their neighborhood, suspected Arbery of criminal behavior and decided to make a "citizen's arrest", or at least until they resorted to handguns and shotguns that ultimately stopped Arbery cold in his tracks. Again, this was a brutal, cold-blooded, and savage killing, and from all that we now know, the ends don't justify the means whatsoever. The McMichaels are now in police custody, albeit three months later and after fierce public outcry over the graphic video-footage that caused so much controversy and pressure. So intense was the protest, both locally and nationally, that the Georgia Bureau of Investigation decided to take over the case and arrest the McMichaels. So far, the circumstances proffered offer a very flimsy defense, one that speaks little to the realities captured in the lethal video that's gone viral.

From the local attorney general to local law enforcement, the reported police conflicts of interest, administrative incompetence, procedural injustice, and outright shenanigans combined to implode the case thus necessitating immediate state and federal intervention. Complicating matters even more, Arbery is African American, the McMichaels are white, and Glynn County, GA is notorious for cover-ups and various levels of police misconduct, thus making the civil rights implications obvious and indefensible. The handling of the Arbery case by local officials is unjust on its face. I, however, want to weigh in on the issue of vigilante justice, or as the title suggest, "vigilante injustice".

In the article Vigilante Justice in America that appeared in the Claremont Journal of Law and Policy (Nov. 7, 2018), the author, Daisy Ni, rightly points out the following:

Vigilante justice, as defined by the Legal Information Institute, is the “actions of a single person or group of people who claim to enforce the law but lack the legal authority to do so.” Vigilantism itself is not illegal under U.S. law but involves actions that are oftentimes illegal. It is notably associated with Ku Klux Klan lynching, which clearly demonstrates its dangers. Differences in perceptions of justice—often based on preconceived world views—can lead to horrific abuses and widespread discrimination, promoting a system based on revenge and retaliation and the rise of anarchy. Even when vigilantes are well-intentioned, vigilantism can undermine or disrupt actual law enforcement operations to maintain order

Ni goes on to highlight the numerous benefits of vigilantism on a community level that are rooted in the Constitution, which allows for revolution when rogue regimes become despotic. Even in government systems today, you can easily find examples of state codes that authorize private citizens to make arrests when known crimes are committed. The famed Guardian Angels in New York are probably the most popular example of a modern-day neighborhood watch organization that exists to preserve public safety and apply citizen arrest powers when called upon. Ni's article then proceeds to make an important qualification to reasonable and justifiable vigilantism.

Citizen’s arrest seems to speak to the validity of vigilantism, suggesting that individual involvement within law enforcement could be necessary or even desirable at times. However, a legitimate citizen’s arrest must adhere to a stringent set of qualifications, limiting it in the scope of application. Citizen’s arrest commonly permits only reasonable, or not more than necessary, use of force, used only in the process of subduing the other person. Additionally, its validity is contingent upon the actual occurrence of a crime. Individuals invoking citizen’s arrest have less leniency for mistake and are held to a higher standard of accuracy when compared to law enforcement. Those who exceed the permitted limit of force, or those who arrest someone who has not actually committed a crime, risk criminal and civil liability.

The quote above is an excellent cautionary statement against "vigilante injustice". As such, "Actual occurrence of a crime" is a crucial qualification that should be emphasized by public officials to deter vigilante abuse. Unfortunately, it is the primary or necessary condition that's sorely lacking in the Ahmaud Arbery's case, one that the McMichaels failed to consider. This absence renders the Arbery case criminal and immoral. Whether ignorant, fearful, or overzealous, the McMichaels did not witness nor were the victims of a crime. Consequently, they, more than likely, will face the full weight of the criminal justice system and the ire of public opinion for many, many years to come. The fact that this occurred in a sleepy Georgia town where the "system" undermined procedural justice and suppressed fairness is an American travesty and outrage irrespective of race or region.

Now that this case has seemingly regained propriety and due process, as outsiders looking in, we have a duty to now allow the legal process to proceed without imposing cynicism or hostile judgement given our limited knowledge of the truth and facts from the ongoing investigations. Yes, we all have a profound sense of righteous indignation over what took place, and we must continue to follow the story and hold local leaders accountable in our remote and isolated way, but we must not resort to our own form of "vigilante injustice" by unlawfully arresting the truth out of fear, ignorance, or, even worse, racial or political bias. When justice has finally run its course, the pathway to reconciliation must begin without compromise so that community and civility, in both spirit and practice, are restored.

"March against whiteness" is "wrongness"

Despicable, deplorable, obscene, and intolerant are words that come to mind every time I see this story, "Mass Shooters & the March Against Whiteness". I pray this event fails due to low turnout and public disapproval. Americans should see this as hostile to unity and a direct threat to racial reconciliation.

With the words, "We the people" and "for domestic tranquility", our Preamble, in all its brevity, undergirds and proclaims the spirit, values, and principles in our Constitution as virtuous and essential to human flourishing in America. The event highlighted above does nothing to advance American ideals. In fact, it does sheer violence to our very notion of who we are as the "United States of America" no matter our faults and failures historically. That said, Christians must reclaim the argument on race by extolling the virtues of biblical truth and what it means to be made in the image of God as expressed in scripture. Equally, Christians MUST reclaim the public square by rallying around biblical truth and using it as THE source to challenge and defeat racial untruth and divisive racial dogma.

From the body of Christ to the body politic, America has been plagued by the problem of racism ever since(1). Slavery, injustice, oppression, inequality, conflict, violence, and stigma have been the destructive outcomes of racism and its pathology, and the American experiment has suffered greatly. In both spirit and practice, Christians must acknowledge the wrath of racism in our history, but affirm that humanity’s inherent value is centered in the eternal truth that we are beings created in the image of God and that this essence is inviolable and incompatible with any notion of racial superiority whatsoever. We affirm that through God’s sovereignty and authority, we are empowered over the evils of racism to reconcile with one another to create better realities whereby humanity can truly prosper and flourish. This is the message that must overcome and overwhelm all that the March against Whiteness represents. We must stand united as one race and for the common good in America.

___________________________________________

1. Harry Jackson Jr. and Tony Perkins make this point with the the following statement: "Racism is one of America's original sins and one of the toughest problems to overcome. It has plagued the nation since before its independence. At the same time, African Americans have embraced Christ almost as long as they have bee on this continent." See pg.134 in Personal Faith, Public Policy. Chapter 8 is devoted entirely to the topic of race and reconciliation and provides great historical analysis and perspective through a Christian worldview.