Why rage lingers after Ferguson jury decision

Protests over a grand jury clearing a white policeman in the shooting of an unarmed black man in Ferguson, Mo., may reflect a nationwide mood that the 'system is stacked against me.' President Obama can address this popular alienation, as he has in the past.

Reuters
Volunteers clear soot from the site where a police vehicle was set ablaze in Ferguson, Mo., following a grand jury decision to clear a white police officer in the fatal August shooting of an unarmed black teenager.

After a grand jury decided Nov. 24 not to indict a white policeman for killing a black 18-year-old in Ferguson, Mo., President Obama asked a divided America to respect the “rule of law.” The legal system must work its course, he urged, even if people disagree on evidence in the case. What accounts then for the continuing protests and sharp debates – and not only among African-Americans?

One answer may lie in a general rage against “the system” in the United States. More than half of people agreed with this statement in a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in November: “The economic and political systems in the country are stacked against people like me.” That feeling runs across all races and political affiliations.

This sense of being victim to a rigged process has been building since 2002, according to the poll. It has now reached a peak last seen only 22 years ago. When alienation is that high, politicians on the left and right often exploit it, as do some media. Racially charged incidents like the killing of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson only help expose the alienation.

One observation of the rioters in Ferguson is that they believe law enforcement has it in for them (even if blacks in the city are in the majority). Poor minorities are too busy trying to survive to change the system. Nationwide, only 58 percent of blacks have confidence that police officers in their community do a good job enforcing the law, compared with 80 percent among whites.

In his most important speech on race, Mr. Obama said in 2008 that Americans with particular grievances must learn to take responsibility for their lives and not succumb to despair. “They must always believe that they can write their own destiny,” he said, and work with a belief that society can change: “What we know – what we have seen – is that America can change.”

So when people debate whether Mr. Wilson or Mr. Brown was at fault, and whether the law failed or worked, the better path is to suggest ways to prevent such incidents. Should more police carry stun guns? How can blacks better help reform police? What will improve the “system” of justice? Fixing cities like Ferguson starts not with estrangement but by embracing the stranger.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.