Conservatives’ tribalist, anti-Christian response to Trayvon Martin’s death

Right-wing pundits are having a field day now that George Zimmerman has been acquitted of killing Trayvon Martin.  Many are disgustingly celebrating the verdict, some submitting long-winded defenses of stand your ground laws or the presumption of innocence in the American justice system (looking forward to seeing those rigorous defenses of criminal defendants going forward), and still others are railing against the “racialization” of a (clearly racially charged) case by political officials.  What I find interesting is how many of these right-wing responses display a tribal over individual, and anti-Christian, understanding of the world that belies the self-image of modern conservatives.

Judging someone by the color of their skin and not the content of their character

Racist stop-and-frisk laws have somehow been thrown back into the national conversation after the Zimmerman verdict.  Richard Cohen had an appalling piece this week where he admits that New York’s program “amounts to racial profiling writ large,” but argues that “if young black males are your shooters, then it ought to be young black males whom the police stop and frisk.”  The National Review’s Rich Lowry also points to the racist program in a Trayvon Martin column this week, arguing that thanks to the stop and frisk “New York City once had 2,200 murders a year and now has 400,” with “many of the thousands of lives saved… those of black men.”  Lowry’s colleague Heather MacDonald says racial profiling of individuals based on group traits is “not only inevitable, it is also rational, based on the evidence.”

The implication of this tribalist thinking is pretty clear – judge a man by the color of this skin and not by his character.  Even though many conservatives are adamant that Zimmerman’s initial stalking of Martin had little to do with race, if it did, it was completely justified because there had been a handful of break-ins by black males at the complex.  Nevermind that Travyon was living at the apartment community with his dad, nevermind that he was just walking home from the store.  Since he was the same race as a few people who had broken into nearby apartments, any armed individual in the complex was justified in following and confronting him.  This logic is the exact opposite of the self-diagnosed “colorblindness” conservatives are said to be afflicted with, revealing the deep tribalist/anti-individual currents in the modern Right.

What you believe and your alleged behavior determine your life’s worth

The other revealing aspect of the Trayvon Martin case is how conservatives use a person’s alleged personal values to lessen the value of their life.  Breitbart editor-at-large and general right-wing nut Ben Shapiro writes in his 2013 screed Bullies that Trayvon Martin “wore a grille in his mouth. He was tattooed. He dressed like a punk.  His Twitter feed was filled with misogynistic, drug-loving garbage.”  Shapiro continues by quoting a number of unflattering tweets before claiming “none of this is to say that Martin should have been shot and killed.”  Other conservative pundits have pointed to Martin’s usage of marijuana and cellphone picture of a gun (oh the fucking irony) to disparage his character.

The gap between conservative rhetoric here and the Right’s alleged Christian roots couldn’t be clearer.  Under Christianity, all men are equal before god – “there is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.”  To imply that Martin’s character flaws – or the alleged cultural flaws many conservatives point to in the black community – devalue the boy’s life is about as anti-Christian as you can get.

This strain of thinking goes beyond the Trayvon Martin case

These tendencies can also be seen in calls for surveillance of U.S. Muslims and the bombing and killing of foreign Muslims.  Anti-Muslim crusader and U.S. Representative Peter King argues “we can’t be bound by political correctness [i.e. respect for individual liberty]. I think we need more police and more surveillance in the [Muslim] communities where the threat is coming from.”  Alleged “libertarian” Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit exemplifies similar thinking applied to foreign Muslim targets, pointing to the “barbaric behavior” emanating from the Middle East to justify attacks on Iraqis and Iranians.

Whether it’s Trayvon Martin, immigrants in Arizona or drone-victims in Yemen, these racial profiling and differential value of life arguments undercut conservative claims that they represent individualism, liberty and Christian values fighting against some godless collectivist Left.  The fact is that many on the Right disregard individual rights and key tenants of Christianity in favor of a crass tribal mentality when it comes to the issue of race.

RIP Trayvon Martin

The media has been intensely focused on the murder trial of George Zimmerman, with numerous commentators pointing out the myriad ways in which race played a large role in the case.  I want to explore some of these, but I also want to look at certain class and power angles that many in the media have overlooked as they focus on race.  Society has to confront all of the injustices laid bare by Zimmerman’s killing of Trayvon Martin in order to take positive steps toward stopping this kind of extreme vigilante violence.

Race played a huge role in the killing, police response, media coverage and jury decision

The largest role played by race in the Trayvon Martin killing, the domino that set all of the tragic events into motion, was Zimmerman’s clear racial profiling of Martin.  There’s no way in hell that a white teen dressed in skater clothes, or a preppy shirt or even in a hoodie, gets followed in the same way.  “These assholes always get away” is a reference to criminals, and Zimmerman assumed the worst about Martin solely because he was an unknown young black male in a hoodie.  And to all the right-wing nuts bringing up differential crime rates by age/gender/race – fuck you, this is America, treat people as individuals or gtf out.

The lack of an arrest or proper investigation was also clearly racially driven.  Zimmerman’s ties to police and role as a neighborhood watchman were important, but if that dead kid isn’t a dead black kid, Zimmerman’s at least booked on something.  The police’s readiness to believe Zimmerman (who clearly stalked the boy and was the only one with a gun!) has a tremendous amount to do with Martin being young and black.

Can I also get a quick fuck you for the national media?  The racial sensationalizing of the incident, the doctoring of his audio recordings, the release of inaccurate videos – all of it served perversely to downplay the clear role that racism played in the case in much the same way as the fake Bush National Guard documents ended up clouding the fact that Bush dodged the draft.  Many non-progressive readers saw the media’s sloppy attempts to boost the racial narrative as evidence that race didn’t play a role in the killing.

The final area where race played a leading role was during the trial.  A lot of intelligent commentators have pointed out that based on the evidence, it’s not surprising that Zimmerman was acquitted.  However, there’s just no way that if a white teen were hunted down and killed in the exact same circumstances, Zimmerman gets the jury’s benefit of the doubt.  All of the talking heads speaking soberly about how the prosecutors failed to prove blah blah blah would never have been so emotionless if the victim wasn’t a demonized black kid.  It’s good that courts provide a fair trial for defendants in certain circumstances, but that fairness is extended differently based on the race of the defendant and victim.  I’d also like to point out that the treatment of Rachel Jeantel was just a complete disgrace – such a racist savaging of this young woman by the media, stereotyping the way she looked and talked.

Class, power and violence played a large role as well

Adult son of judge stalks and kills teen son of truck driver, acquitted on all counts.  Judge’s boy with ties to police shoots unarmed teen, never arrested.  Gun-toting extremist follows, kills vacationing teen.  All of these headlines – highlighting class, police authority and vigilantism – could have featured more prominently in explanations of how events played out.

Zimmerman’s dad is ex-army and a retired judge, and George Zimmerman was clearly seeped in law and order.  He was a wannabe cop with a violent past, channeling his previously erratic violent tendencies (beating his girlfriend, drunkenly scuffling with police etc…) into pro-authority violent tendencies (aggressive bouncer, murderous neighborhood watchman, police aspirant).  Part of the reason the police let Zimmerman go without even arresting him was because his violence was aimed at oppressing “suspicious” people (i.e. young black men) and stopping criminals, rather than the wealthy or powerful.

Class also seeps in when you look at Zimmerman’s self-presentation.  He wears a white polo to police interviews and has an easy time conversing with authority figures.  Zimmerman’s not college-educated, but he clearly comes from a background where he can put on that front.  It doesn’t take a huge leap to imagine a different George Zimmerman, uncomfortable around authority, dressed in a working class style, speaking haltingly, being arrested and charged.

The last angle which has been addressed a bit more but bears repeating, is the insane culture of violence displayed by this incident.  Why the fuck does Zimmerman arm himself when he lives in a suburban Florida apartment complex with little/no violent crime?  Who shoots somebody in the heart during a fistfight?  The wildly violent overreaction of Zimmerman to episodes in his life mirrors a vigilante streak in American domestic (and foreign relations) culture where you’re allowed to use an extreme and disproportionate amount of force to counter an alleged threat (if you’re the right kind of person).

Although race was the preeminent driver of how the Zimmerman killing and acquittal played out, pro-wealthy, pro-authority, pro-vigilante inclinations in parts of American culture also explain how this grown, armed man got away with killing an unarmed teenager.  Until we stop valuing the lives of the rich over the poor, stop giving a free pass to violence by the police and other authority figures, and stop accepting extreme violence as a legitimate reaction to minor threats, this type of tragedy will continue to play out across America.  RIP Trayvon Martin.