Of all of the divisive issues recently discussed in America, perhaps none has been as bitterly contentious as the debate over prominent football players kneeling during the national anthem, protesting racial inequality in the justice system.
Recently, President Trump offered a potential breakthrough, saying “I am going to ask all of those people to recommend to me … people that they think were unfairly treated by the justice system,” so they can be potentially pardoned or have their sentences commuted.
Far from a cure-all, this proposal could nonetheless be groundbreaking. It gives a real-world path forward to a seemingly intractable controversy.
Until now, the debate has decayed into claims and counter-claims about a lack of dedication to bedrock American principles. It is not inaccurate to say the issue involves dueling concepts of what it means to be a patriotic American. And that’s when people aren’t just assuming the complete cynicism of their rivals.
To the anti-kneelers, the protests are a half-step below flag burning. It is an intentional display of disrespect not only to our nations veterans but also to America’s foundational principles. The thoughtful ones will admit America’s failings, but nonetheless see little but the denigration of fundamental ideas that allow for the right to protest in the first place. Moreover, they suspect the stated cause — inequality in the Justice system — is overblown or phony. Predominantly, people holding this view are military vets and people who live in small town and rural areas.
To the pro-kneelers, it’s a valid protest of violent, systemic abuse, which is in support of the values enshrined in the Constitution — namely, equality before the law and the rights of the accused. They may admit that violent protests are unjustified, but are incensed that these peaceful protests are being derided with a ferocity perhaps equal to the riots in Ferguson or Baltimore. “If kneeling is not acceptable,” they ask, “What sort of protest would be?” Their opponents, they suspect, are either irredeemably racist or totally indifferent to their problems. This group is predominately minorities and urbanites.
These dueling points of view are not likely to reconcile anytime soon. Making progress more difficult is that prominent leaders on both sides are viewed with deep suspicion.
The first kneeler, Colin Kaepernick, famously said that he knelt because “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses (minorities),” and has also worn T-shirts celebrating communist thug “Che” Guevara. To his critics, Kaepernick is a grandstanding wealthy son of privilege who has flourished in America while denigrating it. Kaepernick’s former teammate Eric Reid, another early protester, provided a more thoughtful and respectful rationale, but Kaepernick’s brashness reverberates through the debate.
Meanwhile, President Trump, by any objective measure, has inflamed this controversy repeatedly, calling the kneelers “son of a bitch(es),” and punishing even non-kneelers in the NFL for having associated with or supported them. Given that he received five deferments during Vietnam, his opponents see his championing a cause closely associated with veterans to be the height of cynicism, and his proposal a gimmick.
Yet, political maturity comes when you pay less attention to the real or imagined motives of your opposition and instead focus on an achievable path forward. Trump’s pardon announcement allows for that.
There is increasing consensus that there are problems with our justice system that disproportionately affect minorities. The debate is over the specifics. It should not be hard to find a handful of names that most people would agree deserve pardons or commutations.
Thus, the proposal allows for a win-win. The kneelers should accept Trump’s challenge and provide a list of names. Even before that, Trump should invite them by name to do so, and afterward he should vet the list and issue pardons and commutations as appropriate.
If he follows through, then both together will have literally changed the lives of any people Trump pardons or commutes. The kneelers will have validated a larger point: There are problems in the justice system that at least deserve consideration. The Trump administration, and those generally alienated from the protests, can demonstrate in good faith that they are not indifferent to any real injustices, without conceding that the trouble is as widespread as their opponents contend, or that it taints America’s precepts.
To be sure, this does nothing to fix systemic abuses within the justice system. Kneelers might even contend that it will give undue credit to a cynical politician.
Anti-kneelers may argue that conceding anything validates disrespect toward veterans and foundational American principles and won’t appease the protesters in any event.
Both may be true. But larger truths remain: We are a nation bitterly divided over matters that ought to unite us — namely, love of country and equality before the law. We are increasingly viewing each other as something closer to enemies than political rivals. These are serious problems.
A small step forward has the potential to interrupt this death spiral. I hope that both the kneelers and Trump follow through.
Clifford Smith is a former congressional staffer and an attorney.
