The Washington Post editorial board said D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser’s decision to remove the “BLM Plaza” is good because it will placate President Trump’s threats to the city’s autonomy
The Washington Post editorial board defended Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser’s controversial decision to remove the giant “Black Lives Matter” art covering a main city street near the White House.
Though many have complained about Bowser’s move, thinking it’s about bowing to Republicans’ opposition to Black Lives Matter, the board argued it’s smart as it will placate President Trump, whose administration is threatening the city’s independence from the federal government.
“It is not cowardice, as the mayor’s critics allege, but a practical attempt to protect D.C. from Republicans who are threatening the city’s autonomy for political purposes,” the Board wrote on Friday.
FEDERAL JUDGE REVERSES TRUMP FIRING OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES’ APPEAL BOARD CHAIRWOMAN
The giant yellow letters were painted on 16th Street NW in addition to the intersection being renamed to “Black Lives Matter Plaza” in the summer of 2020 during Trump’s first term.
The Post editorial board’s headline read, “D.C. can respect Black Lives Matter without street art.”
Bowser authorized the changes following days of chaotic protests at that location over police brutality following the killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer and Breonna Taylor by Louisville police officers.
The mayor announced earlier this week that the plaza will be redesigned by students and artists, who are being tasked by the city to create new murals for area, sparking protests in and around the square.
Bowser’s call comes as Republicans in Congress have targeted the plaza. Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., recently introduced H.R. 1774, which, if passed, would “withhold certain apportionment funds from the District of Columbia unless the Mayor of the District of Columbia removes the phrase Black Lives Matter from the street symbolically designated as Black Lives Matter Plaza.”
The Post’s board argued that such attacks on the city by the federal government require the mayor to make these more minor concessions.
The editorial stated, “But what Bowser understands — and what many of her critics seem unwilling to accept — is that she possesses little power to prevent Trump and his fellow Republicans from damaging the city. Her chief task now is to minimize that damage.”
The piece also mentioned Clyde’s bill specifically, pointing to it as evidence that GOP lawmakers are so opposed to the plaza that they’re “willing to deprive the city… of the resources it needs to function.”
The board also mentioned how Trump has recently “threatened” taking over the city to clean up crime, graffiti and homeless camps. He told reporters on Air Force One last month, “I think that we should run it strong, run it with law and order, make it absolutely, flawlessly beautiful.”
The editorial added that Bowser giving up BLM Plaza “seems to be paying off.” It continued, “The Post reported this week that the president has backed off his threatened executive order, thanks to ‘constructive conversations’ with the mayor’s staff. This is a victory for the city.”
The Post argued that this fight is about “choosing one’s battles wisely” and concluded with the idea that the city should “focus on the issues that affect people’s day-to-day lives: reducing crime, building affordable housing and creating a vibrant economy” rather than fixate on street art.
