“Today is a day of enormous consequence for our nation,” Rush said. “By passing my Emmett Till Anti-lynching Act, the House has sent a resounding message that our nation is finally reckoning with one of the darkest and most horrific periods of our history, and that we are morally and legally committed to changing course.”

Reps. Andrew Clyde (R-GA), Thomas Massie (R-KY), and Chip Roy (R-TX) are the lawmakers who voted against the bill. Clyde told CNN he voted against the measure because a “duplicative federal law” is unnecessary because lynching is already illegal. “Lynching is an evil act of violence that is already against the law at the federal level; it is first-degree murder,” he said.

Clyde argued that “carving out a separate distinction for lynching may be symbolic, but it falsely suggests that individuals who commit, or attempt to commit, a lynching do not already face criminal charges and consequences.”

On Monday, Rep. Massie posted a tweet contending that “[a]dding enhanced penalties for ‘hate’ tends to endanger other liberties such as freedom of speech.”

Massie seems to be suggesting that applying a “hate” label to a crime like lynching could also open the door for doing the same with certain forms of speech. Given that progressives have suggested passing legislation outlawing “hate speech,” the lawmaker’s concerns are not unfounded.

Rep. Roy released a statement explaining that the proposals “simply raises the punishment for things that are already federal crimes, including those that are unrelated to lynching — such as gender identity — in an effort to advance a woke agenda under the guise of correcting racial injustice.”

The Hill reported:

More than 4,700 lynchings occurred in the U.S. between 1882 to 1968, according to an estimate from the NAACP. Black people made up most of the victims of lynching, since typically white perpetrators would use the attacks to terrorize them.

The bill is named after Emmett Till, a black man who was beaten and shot to death by white men after he allegedly flirted with a white woman. “An all-white jury found the two men not guilty of Till’s murder. But the men later admitted in a magazine interview a year later that they had in fact killed Till,” according to The Hill.

This form of anti-lynching legislation is what could be called “cotton candy” legislation. It tastes great but has absolutely no nutritional value. To put it another way, this proposal, if passed, would only make people feel good without actually providing any real benefits for the black community.

This legislation will not save a single black life. It will not do anything to close wealth and educational disparities between blacks and whites.

In short, it won’t do a damn thing.

Passing anti-lynching legislation will do about as much to safeguard black lives as erecting Black Lives Matter murals did to stop police brutality. It is nothing more than empty symbolism designed to give the illusion that Democratic leaders are actually doing something to help black Americans when, in reality, they are not doing anything substantive.

This type of bill is typical of a progressive tendency to pretend they champion black and brown Americans when, in reality, they only use us to achieve their political objectives. This particular piece of legislation is quite clever in that Republican lawmakers will vote in favor of it because they know Democrats and the activist media will accuse them of supporting lynching if they do not.

But, as I’ve said many times, why would the Democrats push for legislation that might actually benefit the black community? They are fully aware of the reality that they will receive the majority of black votes even though they do very little to address the problems black Americans face. Until they start getting some competition from the Republican Party, they will continue giving symbolic overtures devoid of actual substance. After all, what incentive do they have to do anything different?