Every few years, some particular instance of a pervasive phenomenon — police violence in the form of unjustified or at least highly questionable killings — “goes viral” with the result that America’s cities explode in protest.

Every time that happens, some American politicians complain about a non-existent “war on police,” while others promise “reforms” such as closer supervision (like the increase in body camera use following the 2014 killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri), civilian review boards to investigate complaints, better training, and of course more money.

After each round of “reforms,” the problem continues.

“We can’t settle for anything other than transformative structural change,” says US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). She’s right, but the bill she’s  promoting — the Justice in Policing Act of 2020 — isn’t any such thing.

The bill isn’t likely to become law. It may pass the Democratic House, but the Republican Senate and White House are already busking for support from police unions and their faux “law and order” base in November’s elections.

And even if it did pass, it’s a glass not even half full. Pelosi herself contradictorily describes it as both “full, comprehensive action” and “a first step” with “more to come.”

The bill would “reform,” rather than eliminate, “qualified immunity.” It would reduce some of the barriers that plaintiffs have to get over in holding police accountable for rights-violating misconduct, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough. Cops need to be held to EXACTLY the same standards as civilians when it comes to use of force.

The bill would also outlaw “no-knock raids,” but only for drug cases. “No-knock raids” are nothing less than violent home invasion burglaries. They’re precisely the kind of “unreasonable searches” forbidden by the Fourth Amendment and need to be outlawed entirely.

The Justice in Policing Act isn’t “transformative structural change.” It’s a band-aid on a gaping, traumatic wound that is, indeed, structural.

The root of the problem isn’t police violence.  It’s police themselves, and the system they serve. The purpose of police as we know them is to hold the productive class down so that the political class can rule and rob us, full stop. Everything else — “serve and protect,” etc. — is incidental or illusory.

Progressives calling for “defunding” of the police are on the right track, or would be if they were serious. Most of them seem to use “defund” to mean “shift funding between state activities,” not to mean “eliminate a state activity.” They don’t want the pepper balls and rubber bullets, but they refuse to abandon the system the pepper balls and rubber bullets prop up.

“Transformative structural change” would require more than re-training and de-militarizing the police. It would require dis-empowering them and going back to voluntary community “peace officer” models of law enforcement.

Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi, et al. know their control over the rest of us relies on the existing police state model. The only way for it to go is for them to go as well.

We need a real revolution, not fake “reform.”

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Every four years without fail (and usually a little earlier in each quadrennial cycle),  both “major” American political parties wind up and toss the same slow, fat pitch across the public’s plate:

This is the most important presidential election of our lifetimes.

Maybe even the most important presidential election EVER.

You gotta vote.

And this time, just like every other time, you can’t risk voting for anyone but Candidate X.

A vote for third party or independent Candidate Y, the candidate you like best, isn’t really a vote for Candidate Y. It’s actually a vote for Candidate Z, the “major party” candidate you like least.

Why? Because it is, that’s why. Didn’t you get the memo? Most important presidential election of our lifetimes, maybe EVER, yada yada yada! Stop asking so many questions and vote as you’re told! Hey batter batter batter swing!

Routinely, more than nine of ten voters do swing. And miss (the point).

Henry Ford offered his Model T in any color you wanted as long as the color you wanted was black. This year, America’s “major” political parties are offering you any kind of president you want as long as what you’re looking for in a president is a creepy, handsy, corrupt, senile, septuagenarian, authoritarian hack.

If your preferences vary from those characteristics, the Republicans and Democrats resort to fearmongering: If you don’t support THEIR creepy, handsy, corrupt, authoritarian, senile, septuagenarian hack,  they whine, the OTHER creepy, handsy, corrupt, authoritarian, senile, septuagenarian hack might win.

I don’t find that particular fear-based approach compelling as candidate sales material. I’d rather “waste my vote” on a candidate whose ideas I actually support than hand that vote over to the candidate I loathe less just to thwart the candidate I loathe more (if I can even figure out which one is which).

If you vote for who and what you actually want, sure, your candidate may not win. In fact, he or she probably won’t.

But if you don’t vote for what you actually want, you almost certainly won’t get it either.

The difference is that voting against what you actually want is treason to your values.

Here’s my variant of the “major party” pitch:

A vote for Trump is a vote for Biden.

A vote for Biden is a vote for Trump.

A vote for the Libertarian or other third party or independent candidate of your choice  is a vote for things you want instead of for things you don’t want.

It’s also a demand signal for better “major party” candidates in the future, a message to the Republicans and Democrats. Tell them that they if they want your vote, they’re going to have to start EARNING it.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Has New York Times columnist Paul Krugman become an advocate of laissez-faire? Probably not. But if he carried his observations “On the Economics of Not Dying” (May 28) to their logical conclusion, he just might.

Krugman notes that economic growth is “just a means to an end, namely, improving the quality of life” — and that not being dead, rather than just not being poor, “also makes a major contribution to the quality of life.” Yet this seemingly common-sense observation cuts against much of his own economic theorizing.

In 2001, Krugman wrote that “the [9/11] terror attack — like the original day of infamy, which brought an end to the Great Depression — could even do some economic good … the economic slowdown has been a plunge in business investment. Now, all of a sudden, we need some new office buildings. As I’ve already indicated, the destruction isn’t big compared with the economy, but rebuilding will generate at least some increase in business spending.”

A decade later, Krugman looked to the skies to deliver the economic growth that 9/11 had failed to yield: “If we discovered that space aliens were planning to attack, and we needed a massive build-up to counter the space alien threat, and inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months.”

This economic boost would hold even “if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake, there weren’t any aliens,” echoing classic science fiction stories in which similar ruses provided fabricated grounds for space programs and earthly cooperation before their long-term benefits materialized.  William Tenn, whose mid-1940s “Alexander the Bait” had one of the earliest such plots, noted in retrospect that while he had been correct to predict that the large-scale effort required to achieve spaceflight would require a concerted effort fueled less by lofty scientific idealism than remorseless self-interest, the motivation would not be “hoping to make a lot of money” but “hoping to make an awful lot of war.”

In a 1933 letter, John Maynard Keynes advised Franklin D. Roosevelt to use deficit spending in peacetime, and feel “free to engage in the interests of peace and prosperity the technique which hitherto has only been allowed to serve the purposes of war and destruction.”  As Robert Higgs explains, assuming that the ensuing military spending brought prosperity relies on the conflation of economic activity with human well-being decried by Krugman.

Yoda is as fictional as Krugman’s hypothetical invaders, but his aphorism that “wars not make one great” should caution historians whose lists of top political leaders are dominated by wartime presidents — and to those who would seek war, or its equivalent, to make the economy great.

New Yorker Joel Schlosberg is a contributing editor at The William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• • “War is Not Good for the Economy or Living Things,” by Joel Schlosberg, River Cities’ Reader [Davenport, Iowa], 06/03/20
  • “War Is Not Healthy for the Economy and Other Living Things,”
    by Joel Schlosberg, Antiwar.com, 06/04/20
  • “War is Not Good for the Economy or Living Things,” by Joel Schlosberg, Ventura County, California Citizens Journal, 06/12/20