Will the Black Lives matter movement create lasting change?

Partisanship may prevent any major legislative changes

Question: Will the Black Lives matter movement create lasting change?
Position‹2 of 2: No, the #BLM Protests will not create lasting change
Argument‹3 of 4›: Partisanship may prevent any major legislative changes

“Admitting there’s a problem with policing and racism in America seems to have bridged the partisan gap that, well, there is a problem. But creating policy solutions will be harder, and like in so many other instances where there is broad bipartisan support for action (immigration, guns), it may be a partisan divide that prevents anything from changing.” — Amber Phillips, Washington Post

The argument

Partisan lines have continued to solidify and become harder to cross since the US Civil War. After Donald Trump's election in 2016, the Democrat and Republican parties are more separate than ever. The Senate and House of Representatives have been very slow and unable to pass anything other than economic legislation. During Obama's presidency, many white people left the Democratic party to the Republican party, making race an increasingly political issue.Political parties are becoming less racially diverse and are increasingly viewing political opponents in a dehumanizing and enemy-like manner. Making the Black Lives Matter movement increasingly political will trigger political party hatred and create a barrier for change to occur. As the movement loses traction, the public considers Democrats to be fueling the movement and Republicans to be demonizing it. This political divide will continue and prevent major legislation from taking place. The Black Lives Matter movement may bring local change, but federal legislation will not improve in the long term. The lack of government diversity and increasing polarization of political parties in the US government will prevent major, long term legislative changes.

Context

Partisanship has utterly slowed and decreased the amount of legislation that the US Senate and House of Representatives are able to pass. Instead of compromising on important social issues, each party fuels their hatred and bias towards one another through rejecting other party ideas and bills. There are not enough Black or minority Senate members to push Black Lives Matter legislation through the White-Republican majority to support lasting change on a federal level.

Premises

[P1]Partisan lines have solidified since the US Civil War and, after the 2016 election, the parties are more separate than ever. [P2] Congress has been slow, able to pass little other than economic legislation. [P3] As parties grow less racially diverse and view opponents as enemies, race becomes increasingly politicised, blocking major reform. [C] Therefore, partisanship may prevent any major legislative changes, so the BLM protests will not create lasting change.

Counter-arguments

Optimists of long term change claim that the police brutality and other violent aspects that drive the cause for Black Lives Matter are too important and at the forefront of social and economic politics to be ignored. After the series of US riots, local law enforcement in multiple cities have been defunded or disbanded to prevent further racial violence. Media coverage ran around the clock to cover nightly protests and riots. The public will not permit elected officials from either political party to be neutral on issues or legislation to improve the lives and social conditions of Black people in the United States. The United States has not seen this scale of public outcry for change since the 1960s, an era that brought about lasting change for many Americans, including Black people and other minorities. This scale of public outcry will unite Americans and legislators who belong to both the Democratic and Republican parties.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] "Since the US Civil War" is a sweeping historical claim offered without support, and a doubtful one: mid-twentieth-century American parties were notably less ideologically sorted than those of today, so the premise overstates what is nonetheless a real trend. [Rejecting P2] "Little other than economic legislation" understates what a polarised Congress has passed, and federal legislation is only one channel. The changes most directly at issue in policing are made by states, cities, departments and courts, which the argument treats as a minor consolation. [Rejecting P3] Polarisation is real, but the step from it to "no lasting change" is where the argument fails. The Civil Rights Acts passed against fierce opposition, and the counter-argument's comparison with the 1960s goes unanswered. The premise also concedes that local change may occur while the conclusion denies lasting change altogether — a movement's effect on public opinion, prosecutorial policy, corporate practice and municipal budgets is not captured by counting federal statutes.