Someone Has To Do It: US Elections 2020

[Bruno]

Oh, Bruno is only massively condescending to *us*.

If this is to suggest the condescension only goes one way here, I'd like what you're smoking. Like I said, I'm not in the business of either shaming or persuading political opponents online, I think that's a waste of time. I interact with people here for mental stimulation.

[Bruno]

Mitch McConnell has just fast-tracked the deadlocking of an FCC Committee purely because Trump fired the last guy for not agreeing that Twitter and Facebook are too left wing. His replacement knows absolutely nothing about the role, but has enthusiastically supported #45's policy of clamping down on free speech. Meanwhile, various coronavirus and stimulus bills are stuck because the Senate is too busy or something.

But yeah, we should definitely try to engage and discuss and talk them out of doing that sort of thing.

Which is a caricature of what I was saying. I'd never recommend trying to persuade Mitch McConnell of anything. I made myself clear enough and am not going to repeat it.

[Patrick Thistle]

There's always a danger made by sensible-thinking people that the reason other people don't care is because they don't understand. But, actually, sometimes it is just that they don't care. They understand fully that, for example, black people get murdered by cops. But they don't care.

[anton pulisov]

Some people on the right don't care.

People on the right aren't all racists, just as people on the left aren't all polyamorous weed-smoking hippies.

Feck it, there are even left-wing racists. I've met one or two.

Every voter is an individual with a bunch of mixed views on many things. Extrapolating Mitch McConnell's views to 75 million people isn't helpful. It only plays into their culture war.

[Bruno]

There's always a danger made by sensible-thinking people that the reason other people don't care is because they don't understand. But, actually, sometimes it is just that they don't care. They understand fully that, for example, black people get murdered by cops. But they don't care.

This is often true. But stopping police brutality doesn't require getting such people to care or understand more, it requires reforming police culture and engineering greater accountability, which there must be ways to do without shaming as many ordinary people as possible for not caring enough and hence being complicit in racism. You only have to get uncaring types to acknowledge that it's wrong to murder and can we please stop the murdering. Very few of them are going to say "No I'd like the murdering to continue." What they'd be likelier to react against would be the suggestion that because they don't outwardly care, they're willfully complicit in the murdering and therefore racists, an approach that might make things harder for the reformists. They can be willfully complicit and racist if you like, but there would be no point in accusing them of that.

[Patrick Thistle]

I wasn't saying it was just people on the right, Anton.

The mistaken assumption that people don't care because they don't understand can happen anywhere. (Happens a lot in public health, for example.) It presumes a level of empathy or a moral response to increased knowledge.

[Eggchaser]

Anyway, back in the election, Trump is now 1-50 in Court and they still keep bringing their bullshit.

Democracy is underpinned by the flimsiest of foundations and if you don't agree to play the game, you can ride roughshod over "normality".

[San Bernardhinault]

They can be willfully complicit and racist if you like, but there would be no point in accusing them of that.

What should you do with their racism, then, if you're not meant to address it or point it out lest you offend the apparently very thin skinned non-racists who support them? Should you just let it go?

[Bruno]

What should you do with their racism, then, if you're not meant to address it or point it out lest you offend the apparently very thin skinned non-racists who support them? Should you just let it go?

It has nothing to do with fear of offending, it was just an observation about efficacy in a particular case. I'm happy to let anyone know where I stand on their racism if confronted by it, so I'm certainly not advocating total passivity as opposed to getting embroiled in an argument. I don't seek out such encounters.

There are of course certain situations where pointing out and responding to racism is absolutely obligatory, such as if you encounter it in the workplace (especially if you're an employer) or you're Millwall (not) dealing with racist fans or you witness racism in action somewhere and are able to defend a victim. But interpersonally and with regard to political controversies, it tends to accomplish fuck-all except in rare cases when someone is caught on camera and publicly or virally shamed, which I applaud, though even then there will be plenty of apologists who will greet them with open arms and convince them they've been victimized and have legitimate grievances. As has been observed countless times here, most racists don't think they're racists and will find any reason to dodge the accusation. I also think a lot of racism is inadvertent.

The particular context you're quoting from was to do with people who are evidently indifferent to racism. I reckon there's little you can do about that, if seeing the George Floyd video wasn't enough to make someone care. I agree with Patrick that understanding doesn't necessarily conquer indifference. Such people weren't raised right, so you're looking at a very steep hill.

"What should you do with their racism?" What did they do in the Civil Rights era? Virtually everyone on both sides knew racism existed and was both personal and structural. The reformists convinced the majority that structural racism was untenable; they apparently did not convince the minority that personal racism was also untenable. And of course they failed to end structural racism (not their fault obv). The latter is still the most viable avenue of reform and can often be addressed without dragging people's personal views into it. You're right that many racists are thin-skinned about it, which is why shaming strikes me as usually counterproductive, except when it can be accomplished institutionally, which seems all too rare given the institutional enclaves to which racists can still retreat.

[Tactical Genius]

Errm, why isn't talking about solutions here, wouldn't that be a better way to pass your time?

All this waffling and intellectual masturbating as all good but its been 6 months since the George Floyd event and I have seen little by the way of concrete proposals on OTF.

[San Bernardhinault]

I'm not sure OTF is particularly the venue for solutions, but surely some of the solutions on police killings are fairly well known:

Disarm the majority of the police
Disarm the public
Remove all kinds of responsibility from the police and put those responsibilities into agencies which actually care about the problem they're dealing with rather than assuming it's criminality
Remove power from police unions
Make sure that investigations into police killings are all run by fully independent bodies that have prosecutorial power where the prosecutor's job is not dependent on police support
Sort out police recruiting so they aren't just collecting the dregs who failed to make it into the military but want to play soldiers (how? I don't know - spending money on police pay rather than tanks, better, more comprehensive training, better conditions?).

[ChrisJ]

Re; discussion and debate, I've changed my view on a number of things after following or joining discussions on OTF.

I would say though that I do encounter people with whose reasoning and conclusions I agree, but who who feel unnecessarily aggressive at times in their tone and approach to others who may be sympathetic but might not have the developed the same degree of understanding of something. Or maybe feel the same desired outcome might need a different route. I'm sure I'm guilty of this myself, but it can feel at times like allies are more disposable than they really are. Maybe that's what 'robust debate' entails or maybe it's one of the side effects of message board writing. It does feel like it's more a feature of the left at times, though; oneupmanship posing as rigour.

Back OT, I though there was a consensus here on disarming and defunding the police, no matter how poorly the slogan expresses the policy? I mean, even if you're not so radical as to want state without a police force, I can't imagine how anyone who genuinely supported the welfare of individual police officers would want them to spend their time dealing with matters that should, for example, be the province of trained MH professionals - or should never have arisen in the first place had decent education, training and housing policies been emplaced. Mainly stuff SB just said.

[Tactical Genius]

Thanks for the response. I think OTF is the perfect place, maybe we can hash out something here and then you can all go and prophesise on your social media and to your friends and families. They may be more receptive if you thought out some policies rather than slogans that can mean different things to different people (which is why some may have issues with the term defund the police).

I'm not sure OTF is particularly the venue for solutions, but surely some of the solutions on police killings are fairly well known:

Thanks for the response. I think OTF is the perfect place, maybe we can hash out something here and then you can all go and prophesise on your social media and to your friends and families. They may be more receptive if you thought out some policies rather than slogans that can mean different things to different people (which is why some may have issues with the term defund the police).

I'm going to play devil's advocate to flesh out your policies here, please do not be offended.

Disarm the majority of the police

Disarm them of what, Guns, Tasers, Pepper Spray.
Surely police need some sort of deterrant/protection due to the dangerous encounters they face?
How would this have prevented the death of George Floyd, not weapons were used, no shots were fired?

Disarm the public

What does this have to do with the police.
How would this have prevented the death of George Floyd?

Remove all kinds of responsibility from the police and put those responsibilities into agencies which actually care about the problem they're dealing with rather than assuming it's criminality

Which responsibilities, can you be a little more specific.
And what are these agencies that care, and Care about whom specifically.

Remove power from police unions

What is the power the police unions have and how would you propose to remove this?

Make sure that investigations into police killings are all run by fully independent bodies that have prosecutorial power where the prosecutor's job is not dependent on police support

I believe we have this in the UK. People seem somewhat dissatisfied with its efficacy (De Menezes, Duggan). How would your department be different and more effective?

Sort out police recruiting so they aren't just collecting the dregs who failed to make it into the military but want to play soldiers (how? I don't know - spending money on police pay rather than tanks, better, more comprehensive training, better conditions?).

Do you think the problem with police is down to poor training or lack of pay?
These police offices seem not to have an issue safely arresting white people?

[Tactical Genius]

Re; discussion and debate, I've changed my view on a number of things after following or joining discussions on OTF.

Back OT, I though there was a consensus here on disarming and defunding the police, no matter how poorly the slogan expresses the policy? I mean, even if you're not so radical as to want state without a police force, I can't imagine how anyone who genuinely supported the welfare of individual police officers would want them to spend their time dealing with matters that should, for example, be the province of trained MH professionals - or should never have arisen in the first place had decent education, training and housing policies been emplaced. Mainly stuff SB just said.

I will ask you what I have asked the previous poster, how would any of that prevented the death of George Floyd?

[DCI Harry Batt]

Thing is, SB, I don't imagine anyone would would oppose any of those things. Quibble round the edges maybe. But certainly no-one here would say your status quo is preferable to having those reforms.

Putting aside the likelihood or otherwise of achieving any of that at scale through the political system in the US. And ignoring the history of "police reforms".

At best, over many years, that gets you to something like what we have here: a violently racist police force as part of a violently racist carceral system.

I'm sure you can understand why some people say that "defund the police" already is the compromise.

[ChrisJ]

I will ask you what I have asked the previous poster, how would any of that prevented the death of George Floyd?

Short term? It wouldn't maybe. But we're in one of those wouldn't start from here situations, aren't we? If that had been enacted 20 years ago, it might. If it had been enacted 20 years ago as part of a restructuring of the economic and political system of the US, there would have been a better chance. But we both know that George Floyd died because US capitalism is so thoroughly permeated with white supremacist ideology and so completely reliant on state violence, and that black people will continue to die until it (US capitalism) does.

In the meantime, maybe some lives can be saved by practical interim measures, and maybe people might see that there are alternative ways of managing society other than dominance, coercion and exploitation. Maybe. But you may be asking the wrong person. I'm a parent, a primary school teacher, a geographer, a swimmer, a football fan and a whole load of things before I get to any problem-solving expertise in this field.

[San Bernardhinault]

Disarm them of what, Guns, Tasers, Pepper Spray.
Surely police need some sort of deterrant/protection due to the dangerous encounters they face?
How would this have prevented the death of George Floyd, not weapons were used, no shots were fired?

I'd start by disarming most of them of guns. Much like most of the UK police are unarmed. There's still a load of racism in the UK police but the number of dead black people killed by police

It may not have prevented the death of George Floyd specifically, but I don't think policies should be designed to deal with specific events post facto. It's better to change the overall culture.

What does this have to do with the police.
How would this have prevented the death of George Floyd?

If the police don't expect the public to be armed, there is a hope that you can train them to react with less, and less lethal force. You so often hear "We had to shoot him because it looked like he was reaching for a gun".

Perhaps de-escalating the expectation of violence will result in a less violent culture across the police and you'll be less likely to have a repeat of the George Floyd death. The George Floyd death doesn't seem to be one that you could prevent with individual policies. You have to change the culture.

Which responsibilities, can you be a little more specific.
And what are these agencies that care, and Care about whom specifically.

Mental health care should be dealt with by mental health professionals.
The homeless should be dealt with by housing services.
Frankly, traffic enforcement should be dealt with by glorified traffic wardens rather than by Highway Patrol.
Domestic disputes should be dealt with by social services.

These are people who (presumably) don't see each incident as a nail because they have trained to be a hammer. They will hopefully consider them not as crimes and therefore deal with the participants humanely rather than assuming that they need to be arrested and expect them to behave like criminals.

What is the power the police unions have and how would you propose to remove this?

All sorts in the US. They provide loads of funds to local politicians, particularly prosecutors, state attorneys and so on, and have leverage that way to control prosecutorial process. They also have the power to stop providing the easy wins to prosecutors who need a track record to get re-elected. They can sabotage political careers.

I do not know how you go about reducing that power and influence, but it is a problem that's at the heart of a lot of the US's policing problems.

I believe we have this in the UK. People seem somewhat dissatisfied with its efficacy (De Menezes, Duggan). How would your department be different and more effective?

The ineffectual UK process (which I am largely ignorant of) would - no matter how useless - almost certainly be better than letting the police and the politicians who're in their pocket run the investigations

Do you think the problem with police is down to poor training or lack of pay?
These police offices seem not to have an issue safely arresting white people?

I think part of it is down to recruiting people who want to play soldiers but are sufficiently low quality that even the army won't have them. I don't know how you change the recruiting, but offered up a couple of possibilities.

[San Bernardhinault]

Thing is, SB, I don't imagine anyone would would oppose any of those things. Quibble round the edges maybe. But certainly no-one here would say your status quo is preferable to having those reforms.

Putting aside the likelihood or otherwise of achieving any of that at scale through the political system in the US. And ignoring the history of "police reforms".

At best, over many years, that gets you to something like what we have here: a violently racist police force as part of a violently racist carceral system.

I'm sure you can understand why some people say that "defund the police" already is the compromise.

I understand what you're saying here, but I think most people want there to be a police force. So the only option therefore is to try and reform as much as possible to make the police forces as uncorrupt as possible.

And yes, of course, it's almost impossible to implement even my suggested reforms at any scale in the US political system. But that doesn't mean an attempt shouldn't be made.

[ursus arctos]

Aggressively prosecuting killer cops would help, as would the reinstatement of wide-ranging civil rights lawsuits against rotten departments, such as the one in Ferguson which was dropped by the Trump administration.

The federal government should not be selling or "donating" surplus military equipment to municipal police forces, nor should they be funding the training of those forces in "counter-terrorism" tactics.

Sherriffs, prosecutors and judges should not be elected, and certainly should not be chosen through the contested partisan elections that are grounded in corrupt bargains (though it is true that one of the very rare positive trends of the last few years has been the election of progressive prosecutors in some cities).

[diggedy derek]

good discussion

to extend UA's thought, perhaps it could it be effective for District Attorneys to not be elected.

[ursus arctos]

I intended to capture District Attorneys within "prosecutors", but used the broader term because they aren't called DAs in every jurisdiction.

Though to be fair, Sheriffs aren't called Sheriffs everywhere, or, more accurately, the role and responsibility of a Sheriff will differ drastically from place to place.

[Hot Pepsi]

I think part of it is down to recruiting people who want to play soldiers but are sufficiently low quality that even the army won't have them. I don't know how you change the recruiting, but offered up a couple of possibilities.

I don’t think that’s a generally fair assessment. As all 70s and 80s cop shows explain, many police were already in the military for a while. And just because they’d rather be a cop than try to be a career soldier doesn’t mean they got kicked out of the military.

But being an effective soldier is, or at least ought to be, very different than being an effective civil servant. But many police departments do not understand that distinction.

There are several thousand police departments plus state departments and the FBI. Some are small, as few as one person, and others have thousands of officers. Obviously, the salary, benefits and prestige of the job varies widely from department to department and the kind of people they attract varies too.

But as we know from The Depahted, lace-curtain mothafuckas who did well in school are not cawps.

[San Bernardhinault]

Aggressively prosecuting killer cops would help, as would the reinstatement of wide-ranging civil rights lawsuits against rotten departments, such as the one in Ferguson which was dropped by the Trump administration.

Thinking of lawsuits - when cops (and police departments) get fined, they should end up paying, not the municipality as currently happens. Currently cops are currently divorced even from the financial - let alone judicial - consequences of their bad actions. You can't even effectively sue them.

[ursus arctos]

There is an issue there, which is that individual cops can make themselves judgement-proof quite easily.

One reason that we have a decent number of civil suits against departments is because they have money and insurance.

The doctrine of Qualified Immunity needs to go as well.

[DCI Harry Batt]

I understand what you're saying here, but I think most people want there to be a police force. So the only option therefore is to try and reform as much as possible to make the police forces as uncorrupt as possible.

And yes, of course, it's almost impossible to implement even my suggested reforms at any scale in the US political system. But that doesn't mean an attempt shouldn't be made.

Why is it that advocating a compromise which won't happen and wouldn't work is a good use of time, but advocating for a solution which most people don't currently favour isn't?