How do we think about the George Floyd murder?

An absence of leadership has led America into crisis

Question: How do we think about the George Floyd murder?
Position‹3 of 5›: Leaders create nations: George Floyd's murder exposes the ongoing American political crisis
Argument‹5 of 6›: An absence of leadership has led America into crisis

There has not been poor decision making from above. Because there has not been any decision making from above. President Trump’s White House blackout and decision to ignore the escalating national crisis as it began, gave the riots space to flourish. As the Washington Post reported: “Trump and some of his advisers calculated that he should not speak to the nation because he had nothing new to say and had no tangible policy or action to announce yet, according to a senior administration official.” Proponents of this view include Fox News journalist Tucker Carlson and The Atlantic writer David A. Graham.

The argument

The lack of leadership in America caused the horrific death of George Floyd. As the public was forced to come to terms with the presence of systemic racism in the United States after the video of Floyd’s death was released, they were also forced to reckon with the absence of leadership that had allowed this systemic racism to continue. American leadership’s inability to address the serious issue of structural inequality at both the local and federal levels has been clear for years. Data has been collected displaying troubling facts such as 54% of deaths related to police violence in 2019 were people of color whereas in 2014 it was just 50%. Beyond police violence, the general standard of living for black Americans is worse than that of white Americans. The average lifespan of a black man is 71.9 years while an average white man is 76.4. These inequalities have reached every aspect of life, and yet American leadership has done nothing to fix these structural injustices. The growing tensions caused by the absence of a president willing to reckon with the issues of inequality that so blatantly face everyday American citizens has reached a tragic climax with the death of George Floyd.

Premises

[P1]American leadership has for years failed to address structural inequality, evidenced by data such as people of colour making up a rising share of police-violence deaths (50% in 2014 to 54% in 2019) and Black men's shorter average lifespan (71.9 versus 76.4 years). [P2] The absence of leaders willing to reckon with this entrenched inequality allowed systemic racism to continue unchecked until tensions reached a tragic climax in the murder of George Floyd. [C] An absence of leadership therefore led the nation into crisis — showing that leaders create nations and that Floyd's murder exposes an ongoing American political crisis.

Counter-arguments

Many supporters of Trump's Presidency would argue that the President's public condemnation of racism is a testament to his work towards ending racial inequality in America. After the El Paso shooting, the President made a speech denouncing racist attitudes and stating that "In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy." Many of his supporters would argue that setting a clear example and denouncing racism is enough to end inequalities in current society.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The figures are given without sources and neither supports the claim drawn from it. A shift from 50% to 54% in a share of police-violence deaths across five years is a small movement in a proportion that depends on how the underlying data are compiled, and differences in life expectancy track income, insurance, housing and environment as much as anything a leader controls. Both are evidence of structural inequality — which the position already assumes — rather than of a failure of leadership specifically. [Rejecting P2] "Allowed systemic racism to continue unchecked" is asserted, and the causal chain it needs is never built. The premise moves from a general absence of political will to one killing by one officer with nothing linking them, and "tensions reached a tragic climax" describes the protests that followed rather than the murder itself. [Rejecting C] The conclusion also claims more than it shows. That a nation's problems go unaddressed demonstrates a failure to lead on them, whereas "leaders create nations" is a much larger thesis — one the argument's own evidence, concerning structures that persist across many administrations, tends to undercut.