In the weeks since George Floyd was executed before our eyes, there has been a growing chorus of voices calling for drastic — perhaps unprecedented — changes to our law enforcement system. For example, the call to “defund the police” has gained stunning momentum. Once a fringe idea that no “serious” politician would touch, the “defund” movement is becoming a reality in some municipalities — including Minneapolis. However, there is disagreement among proponents regarding exactly what this slogan means.
The intra-group debate among left-leaning activists regarding “defund the police” can be contentious. Some argue that the phrase is not literal: It’s meant to shock the conscience and to draw attention to abuses – not a call for actually disbanding police departments. They say that one merely needs to conduct research “to understand what defund means.” However, such research actually leads to more confusion. For example, The New York Times reports activists such as Mariame Kaba say the phrase means precisely what it says. Inevitably, this lack of agreement has muddled the message.
The civil rights protests of the 1960s generally were well planned by leaders of various organizations — usually led by Dr. King — who coordinated their strategies. The leaders didn’t always agree, especially during the latter part of the decade. However, they generally had the same (or least not very dissimilar) goals. Conversely, today’s demonstrators against police brutality frequently lack such coordination. And they shun hierarchical leadership. One result of this “distributed leadership” approach is the lack of a unified (and unifying) message.
My point is not to disparage today’s protest movement. Indeed, the lack of a clearly designated leader is advantageous in that momentum is not stalled if said leader is assassinated or otherwise indisposed. However, being leader-less (or “leader-full”, as modern protesters sometimes call themselves) means that divergent strategies, lack of clear goals and unclear messages — such as “defund the police” — are likely.
Space constraints allow me to address only one meaning of the “defund” movement; I’ll examine the literal one. The United States is the most violent “first world” country. We have approximately 330 million residents — and nearly 400 million guns. Our citizens murder each other (frequently with guns) at a ridiculous rate. Suppose that the police were eventually phased out, with the bulk of their funding going to other first responders, social workers and mental health professionals (as has been proposed).
While I strongly believe that police officers are often engaged in situations that should be handled by other professionals, there are many situations in which well-trained and disciplined law enforcement officers are the best option. As bad as the history is regarding law enforcement and African Americans, the alternative is potentially worse. Specifically, there would either be heavily-armed “security teams” hired by wealthy whites to “protect their neighborhood” and/or heavily-armed, roaming bands of George Zimmerman-wannabes who would be quick to attempt “citizens arrests.”
Anyone who doubts this scenario doesn’t know, or simply ignores, American history. The “twist” would be that such groups would be confronted by roving bands of heavily armed Black folks. Imagine such scenes being played out across the country. Moreover, what would we do when there is an “active shooter” at a school? Rely on armed teachers? Armed parents who rush to the scene? And who’s going to chase people who rob homes, stores or banks? Who’s going to deal with drunk drivers? How would we determine “jurisdictions” for the “neighborhood watch”? To whom would they be accountable? Explain to me why “vigilante justice” — and the predictable retaliations — would not reign supreme.
While I know that not every activist wants to completely disband the police, I am greatly concerned that not enough people who do have carefully thought through the implications. As a Black man, I am very wary of law enforcement’s abuses with people who look like I do. (Marvin Gaye sang about “trigger happy policing” 50 years ago.) Knowing the 150-year-or-so history of police departments — especially how they were formed in the wake of slavery — is never far from my mind.
Still, in the end, I’m a pragmatist. Those of us who understand how the political process works in America, as well as the history of civil rights legislation, tend to advise caution in proceeding without detailed planning. Outrage fuels us, but it’s not a strategy. Memes inspire us, but they don’t pass legislation. Bullet points provide clarity, but they’re not a plan. There are no shortcuts to winning this war.
Larry Smith is a community leader. Contact him at larry@leaf-llc.com.
