Did I Really Just Praise Al Sharpton?

Pushback from a reader

In my most recent conversation with John McWhorter, I praised Al Sharpton and Benjamin Crump for bringing attention to the Hunter Brittain case. I’ve had harsh things to say about both of them in the past and may well again the future. But right now they are using their considerable influence to point out that the issue of deadly police force is not simply a matter of it being “open season on black people.”

True, the probability of a black person being killed by police is higher than that of a white person. But in absolute numbers, far more white people than black people die every year during encounters with the police. The stats are clear. We can argue about why the disparities are what they are, we can argue about what should be done about them, but it’s important to acknowledge that deadly police violence is not a “black problem.” That seems to be what Sharpton and Crump are doing here, so I’m giving credit where credit is due.

Still, I understand why TGS regulars might find my praise of these two a little hard to swallow. One such skeptical reader wrote in to me recently. I suspect a number of you agree with him. So with his permission, I’m posting our lightly edited exchange below.

---

Dear Glenn,

FYI, “Hunter Brittain’s death in a police traffic stop is injustice. Period,” by Al Sharpton, MSNBC.com.

Here’s an excerpt:

I delivered the eulogy for Hunter at a packed auditorium at Beebe High School in Beebe, Arkansas. The predominantly white audience received me and attorney Benjamin Crump and others with open arms as we demanded justice in unison. As I said that day, we may come from different backgrounds and might not agree on politics, but this is bigger than that; all of us want to see our children come home at night safe and protected. We must break down the social and political blockades that keep us divided and march together and raise our voices together.

Hunter was a 17-year-old kid who had the right to live, had the right to go on to graduate high school and had the right to be protected by law enforcement — not shot dead by them. His story resembles the tragic deaths of many at the hands of police like Breonna Taylor, Tamir Rice, George Floyd and so many others through the years. Comforting grieving families and speaking at funerals for victims of police brutality never gets any easier. This was the first time I was invited to speak at a service where the victim was white, but as soon as I received the call about Hunter’s death, I immediately said yes.

Young Hunter did nothing wrong, just like George Floyd and others did nothing wrong — but if we segregate how we react to the state’s violence, then we are in the wrong.

As I stated at his service, Hunter had a bottle of antifreeze, and perhaps that is the message: We must unfreeze hearts because for too long we have been frozen in our own race, our own class, our own comfort levels. He is no longer with us in the physical sense, but his spirit is calling us to get out of our frozen place and unite, stand together, march together and fight together for true justice for all.

Feel free to disagree, but I don't think this is a good development. Everybody, and I do mean everybody, knows where Al Sharpton stands when it comes to controversial policing cases. He's not an honest broker. Maybe I missed it, but I have never, ever heard him acknowledge that police were justified in a shooting, even after the dust settled and all the evidence was presented. Has he ever apologized for his role in the Michael Brown saga, including the trashing and burning of Ferguson?  

Didn't you say Sharpton was '“venal” on a previous episode of TGS with John McWhorter? Wasn't it just two years ago that you wrote a highly critical piece on Sharpton for the New York Times? 

The problem for Democrats is that Al Sharpton actually is, as Mr. Trump put it on Twitter, “a con man.” And not just a con man: Mr. Sharpton is an ambulance-chasing, anti-Semitic, anti-white race hustler. His history of offensive statements is longer than the current American president’s. And Mr. Sharpton’s worst sin — his blatant incitement to violence during the Crown Heights riots of 1991 — leaves no doubt that he is not a leader, as New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio described him, who has spent his years “pushing for justice in the teachings of Dr. King.”

You closed the piece with the following:

[…] Progressives have been bluffing on the race issue for years now: downplaying black-on-black urban violence, ignoring the polarizing effects of racial identity politics, maintaining a code of silence on the collapse of the black family and more. Mr. Trump knows it.

If Democrats cannot distinguish between Mr. Sharpton’s hucksterism and genuine moral leadership on race and justice in America, I assure you that many moderate voters in battleground states will have no trouble doing so. Shouting “racist” at Mr. Trump, even if there is truth to the accusation, will gain Democrats nothing. The president cannot be further damaged by that epithet. Meantime, he wins votes every time a prominent Democratic politician overreacts to his provocations by defending the indefensible.

Has anything changed since then? If not, expecting Sharpton to be helpful when it comes to policing reforms, criminal justice reforms, or healing the racial divide makes about as much sense as using dog poop to staunch the bleeding of an open wound.  The situation would have to be truly desperate before a sane person would consider it.  

You could soak Sharpton and Crump in Lysol for days on end and the stench would never come off of them. They're racial hucksters and everybody knows it. They're employing their time-tested playbook when it comes to Hunter Brittain. Maybe the officer acted inappropriately, but I'm going to reserve judgment until the investigation is over. I'm definitely not going to throw him under the bus based upon the opinions of Al Sharpton and Benjamin Crump.

Best regards,

Clifton Roscoe

---

I appreciate you, Clifton.

You're right that giving Sharpton credit in this Brittain case (as I have done) does two bad things: it adds fuel to the anti-police mania by presuming there to be something afoul with policing every time he or Crump trumpet a case; and it contributes to legitimating him and his ilk in the face of their dishonorable histories.

In defense of my actions, I'd say that Sharpton's legitimacy is a well-established fait accompli. It is not to my liking but is a fact of the world. So reiterating my NYT indictment would accomplish exactly nothing. Joe Biden consults him and legitimizes him. MSNBC features him and legitimizes him. For me, this is not about him. This is about de-racializing the discourse on crime, policing, inequality, citizenship, and so on. It's about promoting "All Lives Matter” thinking, about promoting "class not race” thinking. What Sharpton and Crump did in the Brittain case is a good thing from that point of view. More of the same would leave Black Lives Matter with no place to go.

Nobody is throwing that police officer under the bus. He has rights and should have a fair hearing. Sharpton's demagoguery and Crump's duplicity are what they are. I've spoken vigorously against them, and I’ve spoke in support of police. Often. I can give those guys some credit for doing what I think must be done (de-racialize the grievance politics mania) if we're to survive this shit storm without otherwise endorsing them. That's all I've done.

Best,

Glenn

---

Dear Glenn,

Apologies in advance for a long reply, but I feel the need to flesh out my arguments. 

You may recall that I didn't think your New York Times criticism of Sharpton was a good idea for some of the reasons you mentioned. Democrats have embraced him, so picking fights with Sharpton is analogous to getting into a mud fight with a pig. You'll both get dirty, but the pig will enjoy it. In Sharpton's case, it adds to his street cred.  

Steering clear of mud fights with pigs is one thing, but pretending that stinky pigs don't smell is another. Nobody on the left would have accepted Rush Limbaugh as an “honest broker” when it comes to bridging America's divisions. Center-left folks shouldn't expect their counterparts on the right to take Sharpton seriously either. 

Nothing will rehabilitate Sharpton in the eyes of folks on the right. Having Sharpton in the mix when it comes to contentious issues is counterproductive and only worsens political gridlock.

Last, but not least, put yourself in the shoes of a cop. 

What would you think if Al Sharpton and Benjamin Crump were “mainstreamed” and allowed to help drive the policy changes that might reshape your already difficult job? Why would you embrace reforms or give a flip about the communities of color you serve if demagogues like Sharpton and Crump are calling the shots when it comes to policing? 

Here's how cops might respond to a world where Sharpton and Crump run the show:

“You want to micromanage us and scrutinize everything we do? You want us to absorb abuse from belligerent suspects, many of whom are repeat offenders, and treat them with kid gloves? Your default position is that we're wrong anytime somebody makes an accusation? We're all racists? No qualified immunity? Sure thing. Don't complain when we decide not to put ourselves and our pensions at risk. Don't expect us to go the extra mile when it comes to closing cases or preventing crime. Don't act surprised when we quit or retire early. Don't throw up your hands in exasperation when you can't find quality recruits to replace the officers heading for the exits either. Lower standards for recruits if you think that will help, but you might not like the results. Last but not least, don't be surprised if the folks who look like you keep victimizing folks who look like you. Don't jump in our faces and tell us that black lives matter. Go say that to the black folks who are killing black folks. We're all that's between you and them. You need us way more than we need you!”

Those same cops might be more amenable to reforms if somebody like [NYC Democratic mayoral nominee] Eric Adams is at the table instead of demagogues like Sharpton and Crump. 

Isn't it obvious that demagogues like Sharpton have contributed to “The Big Sort”—the migration of folks into communities of like-minded people? Isn't it obvious what happens to cities when whites of means move out and take their jobs and tax dollars with them? Isn't it obvious that, after the pandemic, the world of work is changing and that more folks will be working remotely than ever before? Why wouldn't they move to places where their neighbors share their values and they don't have to worry about being accused of countless forms of bias anytime there's a difference of opinion?

Give Sharpton his due. He speaks for many black Americans. Team Biden is wise to listen to Sharpton (up to a point), but they should keep him at arm's length and not give him a prominent place at the table if they want to bridge America's divisions and find solutions to our nation's problems. 

The failures of the Obama presidency are a perfect example of what happens when you don't think through the interpersonal dynamics of a negotiation. They publicly embraced Sharpton early on but never got much done afterwards. 

Obama's embrace of Sharpton and his other race-related missteps undoubtedly contributed to Obama becoming an even more polarizing president than Bush 43.  Obama didn't get much done after the first two years of his presidency, and his party suffered historic losses at all levels (e.g., federal, state, local) during his time in office.  The ultimate rebuke of Obama was the Trump presidency. 

Biden would be wise to avoid making the same mistakes because his margin of victory was thin and Trump's influence is still “huge.” Biden's legislative majorities are even thinner than Obama's were at the beginning of his presidency. The federal judicial system is more conservative now, too. Trump appointed lots of conservative judges, including three members of the Supreme Court. Not all of Trump's Supreme Court appointees will become the next Scalia, but a 6-3 majority will stifle progressives for years to come.  

To make a long story short, Biden can easily find himself hogtied if he doesn't find a way to fortify and broaden the coalition that led to his presidency. There are lots of worrisome signs that Biden is headed for political disaster in 2022. Biden owes Black America his presidency, but he has to “manage” Sharpton if he wants to preserve his presidential powers and get anything done. This is an admittedly difficult thing to do, but the alternative—giving Sharpton free rein is a fool's errand.

That was a long-winded way of saying that while there's considerable overlap in our positions, I don't think Sharpton should have a prominent seat at the table if the goal is to bridge the divides and create solutions to our nation's problems. 

I don't expect most black leaders to understand this position. Many of them are clueless. They won't realize they're cruising down the “Highway to Hell” until it's too late to turn back. Biden and a handful of moderate black leaders will have to save these folks from themselves.

My two cents worth. Feel free to disagree.

Best Regards,

Clifton