The country, and individual citizens, face a choice about what should be done now in Ferguson. I see two directions.
One is to fan the ideological slapstick that claims to support "healing" while actually supporting riots. We'd do that by seeking what will be called a "national conversation" about police bigotry and violence. Of course it won't directly be called "police bigotry and violence;" it will be put in code, but we'll all understand it. The people dominating this one-way "conversation" will have only one outlook, to wit, grievance and entitlement. It's already started, today, at the White House.
I suggest a different direction, and I want to make a specific proposal for action:
People of all races should organize, go to Ferguson, and help the victims of that city's lawlessness rebuild. Stores, some owned and run by blacks and others by whites, were torched and looted. There have been many scenes of this; one of them is here, picturing, ironically, the looting and arson of the convenience store from which Michael Brown stole cigarettes moments before his fatal encounter with Officer Darren Wilson.
We don't have to lie down for a phony, guilt-stoking "national conversation" about how rotten the country is. Instead, we can do something, as we have so often in the past, to show its hallmark generosity.
Kent wrote a prescient post about the real divide in America:
We need to wake up, folks. The great divide in America today is not between white and black or rich and poor or labor and management or any of the old divisions. The great divide is between the responsible people on one side and the irresponsible people and their apologists on the other.
Nowhere is this divide on more graphic display than in the reaction to Ferguson. The central problem we have is not the law of self-defense, no matter how (suddenly) unpopular that may be just now with those who speak up for criminal defendants. Instead, the problem is that Darren Wilson was ever in the position where self-defense became an issue. And he was in that position, not because we have bred too much respect for authority, but because we have bred too little.
If Michael Brown had more of it, he would be alive today. The last thing the country needs to do is pretend that his tough-guy behavior had nothing to do with his fate, and that it was all a trigger-happy white cop.
The people who heard the evidence first-hand, the grand jurors, determined otherwise. They didn't need a race huckstering "national conversation" and neither do we.
What we needed over these last months was an inquiry based on the evidence. What we need now is to help the victims. For the rebuilding of Ferguson, it's time for the responsible people, black and white, to put on our overalls -- to pitch in to overcome the work of "the irresponsible people and their apologists."
So, Bill, why do you believe Michael Brown had "too little" "respect for authority"? Was his lack of respect justified? Do those in the position of authority have respect for the Micahel Browns of this world? If not, why not? If not, is that lack of respect justified?
Isn't a lack of mutual respect the crux of the problem? Or does one side bear more responsibility for the divide?
Just asking.
paul --
First, I'd be interested in your response to my idea that a "Coalition of the Giving" go to Ferguson to help rebuild the businesses -- both black-owned and white-owned -- that were destroyed by the rioters.
As to your questions:
1. I don't know specifically why Brown had too little respect for authority. I strongly suspect it had to do with his rearing. Believe me, my parents taught me that you don't backtalk a cop, ever. It's seldom justified and always stupid.
The problem could also be an element of hip-hop, gangsta-rap culture that affirmatively encourages disrespect, if not contempt, for cops (and other forms of authority).
What do you think?
2. Acting disrespectful to the cops simply because they're cops is very seldom justified, and this is particularly true of teenagers. In my opinion, one's initial attitude toward people you run across in public should be politeness and good will. This is true in one's attitude toward cops, and the guy who stops you to ask for directions.
3. Cops should not normally disrespect citizens they encounter, of course not. But that is not a uniform rule. Brown had just strong-armed a store clerk and had stolen a few items. Wilson knew about the store theft report. A cop is going to approach a suspect in a robbery that happened ten minutes ago with a different attitude than he would have otherwise. Wouldn't you, in those circumstances?
4. A cop's attitude toward those he encounters depends, as I was saying, on the circumstances in which the encounter occurs, and on how it develops from that point on.
If I as a cop want to talk to a citizen I reasonably think might have been involved in a robbery a few minutes ago, and in a matter of moments the guy is reaching in my car to try to wrestle away my gun, my attitude toward him is going to turn negative, you bet. How could it be anything else?
5. Mutual respect ab initio is the desirable starting point in police/citizen encounters, absolutely. But things are dynamic, never more so than in police work. When the citizen becomes belligerent and aggressive, and then goes for your service revolver, "mutual respect" has just become impossible. What you're more likely to be in, as Darren Wilson found out, is a fight for your life or something very similar.
6. I have often said in the context of sentencing reform that the real answer is neither more prison nor less, but a cultural renewal in which the attitudes that breed crime are suppressed. When that happens, the prison population will go down on its own, for all the right reasons.
I think the same thing about the so-called blacks-vs.-cops divide. The long run solution is not for one side to get an even more belligerent attitude of grievance and entitlement, and the other to get even more tanks. The long run solution is for citizens as a whole to respect legitimate authority and -- for the longest run -- be more grateful for the many wonderful things in this country instead of more angry about the relatively few bad ones.
I am all for a "Coalition of the Giving" made up exclusively of protesters who purport to care about the community.
1. I tend to agree.
2. I agree. But parents of all races and socio-econmic categories are guility of raising their kids without respect for others. It is all about what the kid wants that makes him feel good and raises his self-esteem.
3. I have no problem with how W approached B given his knowledge about the robbery. That was good police work. But, in retrospect, since B was with an accomplice, it may have made sense for W to request back-up (assuming the department had those resources and their was time to do so) before contacting B and his accomplice.
4. I agree. But I have also personally witnesses police-citizen encounters, in particular white police-black citizen encounters in black neighborhoods, that, at the outset, on the part of the officers, were disrespectful, heavy-handed, and based upon a "profile" that the officer had of the person he was contacting. Whether or not, based upon past experience, that profiling was justified as a reasonable safety measure is another thing.
5. See 4.
6. I tend to agree. But I would add that jobs -- jobs that pay a liviable wage -- go a long way in reducing crime and, in turn, reducing the prison population. When you are born into circumstances, by no fault of your own (but because of the irresponsible conduct of your "birth parents"), that are hopeless (or at least are far less hopeful than those encountered by kids being born into better circumstances) you tend to have anger and resentment towards society and, especially, the authority figures in society (i.e., cops). You also look for ways to survive (i.e., dope-dealing, stealing, etc.) that you may not have resorted to if you had a real viable chance of improving your lot in life by leading a law-abiding life.
I am not justifying criminal conduct simply because you are poor and have no opportunity to improve your standard of living. But I think everyone would agree that the "fact" of poverty and unemployment is connected to criminal conduct in many instances. It may not be the exclusive root of the problem. Child rearing and the deterioration of American morals and values in general may be more to blame. But the economic factor is highly relevant and must be addressed as part of an overall game plan. Will it work? Who knows? Some will say that America has thrown trillions of dollars at the "economic issue" and the results (in terms of a reduction in crime) have been dismal.
No easy solutions. That is for sure. And I don't believe that the POTUS's one-sided, biased, White House summit (with the likes of Sharpton) is doing anything to improve the (polarized) situation that is America in 2015.
Great response, with which I agree almost entirely.
I'm glad you invest your time looking at C&C. The blog is better for your participation.
We ought to support them by helping move to someplace else where their businesses won't be destroyed.