Would George Floyd Protests Have Been Different Under President Obama?
Perception of the regime shapes the public response to injustice
This is a counterfactual exploration of how the George Floyd protests have fared under President Obama. The “what if” poser of the counterfactual thinking adds another layer of perspective with which to investigate the current protests in the U.S.
Police atrocities against unarmed and innocent blacks also happened under the watch of President Obama. There were massive protests but did not have the scale and magnitude of the ongoing movement in the U.S.
What is different this time?
Democracy and the rule of law depend on an unwritten social compact between the people and the rulers. It is the people’s perception of the regime’s fairness that decides how people protest perceived acts of injustice.
Historically, revolutions happened when people’s impatience and anger with unjust and tyrannical regimes reached a boiling point when discontent would explode into massive protests, and cause the regime’s fall. People would decide that they would not take it anymore and revolt against the regime.
The French Revolution happened because oppression under King Louis XVI became intolerable. When there was famine and mass starvation, his wife Mary Antoinette asked the people to eat cake instead of bread. Had the King been more considerate towards his people, the revolution would not have happened.
It is another matter that violent revolutions never brought permanent peace or beneficial change in society.
There would have been protests had George Floyd’s murder occurred during President Obama’s term. But the protests would have subsided after some time, not only because President Obama was an African-American but also because people trusted the regime to take corrective action.
The perception that Obama was moderate and fair was enough to convince the people that he would usher in reforms to change the police behaviour toward the black community. His regime was not an accomplice in white supremacy. When people have hope about the future, they wait and extend the benefit of the doubt to the rulers even when injustice happened.
People’s perception of the Trump regime is exactly opposite to their view about the Obama administration. Trump has made clear where his sympathies are in racial matters. His administration officials are hawkish about race and racial equality.
Anger against Trump’s racist bias was slowly building up as he neared the end of his term. George Floyd’s brutal murder by a white policeman was the last straw on the camel’s back. People’s fury exploded, unleashing the accumulated anger that had built up over the last four years.
There was no reason why people should trust an unrepentant regime that was unapologetically unfair. The protests gained momentum, riding on the snowballing fury.
It remains to be seen whether the protests would force a major change in American society because there are weak links in the organization, planning, and leadership.
One thing seems clear. Tolerance for police brutality has crossed its threshold of tolerance.
President Trump has catalyzed a massive civil society movement to reexamine the racial question. Even if public memory is short, we can no longer sweep racial inequality and police high-handedness against racial minorities under the carpet.
President Trump has ‘achieved’ what none of his predecessors including Obama couldn’t — he has exploded the myth of the ‘American Dream’ and has forced Americans to introspect about what is wrong with their society.
Self-introspection, slow, painful, and traumatic as it may be, is the first step in the long and tortuous journey to achieve major social transformations.
The only saving grace that insensitive regimes possess is their bluster has the potential to unleash and reignite society’s dormant reformist impulses.
Thanks for reading.