The Great American Pivot ?
Like many Americans this past couple weeks, I watched in horror as protests and looting spread across America after the brutal police killing of a black man that was captured on video—shocking images that have come alongside a once-in-a-century pandemic and a Depression-like economic slide.
But is the past two weeks of violence and civil unrest really about the killing of a black man by a white police officer in Minneapolis? Not that there aren't plenty of peaceful folks rightfully protesting the death of George Floyd. The officer responsible for killing him faces at least second degree murder charges and will likely spend many years in jail if convicted. In our system, this is how justice is supposed to work. But it is also clear now that there are thousands of organized militant activists coming from other states to hijack this issue to incite riots within otherwise peaceful protests. They seek to tear down existing political and social structures and replace it with something else they don’t specify.
But let’s first take some time to evaluate one of the protesters stated grievances of systemic racism within police departments. Basic problem-solving starts with reviewing available data and it appears there is a lot on this topic and it appears that the data doesn’t support the claim that there is systemic racism in police departments. For example, a 2017 study by Harvard economist Roland Fryer found no evidence of bias in police shootings and that racial disparities in police shootings is primarily the result of racial disparities in criminal behavior. After studying many federal and state investigations of police departments across the country, Professor Fryer found that when police were investigated after incidents of deadly force that had gone viral, police activity declined, and violent crime spiked. It happened in Ferguson, Mo., after Michael Brown was shot by an officer. It happened in Chicago after a cop gunned down Laquan McDonald. And it occurred in Baltimore after Freddie Gray died in police custody. And it is happening now with George Floyd. Police effectively pull back. They don’t stop doing their jobs, but they become less proactive and reduce their contact with civilians.
This doesn’t mean that police departments shouldn’t be investigated, but they have to be done with police, not to police. Policies should target individual officers for wrongdoing rather than putting entire departments under a cloud. This has quickly been done by the Minneapolis authorities with stiff charges against all the involved police officers. Federal officials also could be more patient in letting local investigations run their course before Washington gets involved.
Police departments appropriately focus their resources in areas where crime actually occurs. According to the FBI, African-Americans account for more than 52% of murders, 54% of robberies, 41% of illegal weapons possession, 33% of aggravated assaults and 29% of rapes. All of these are significantly more than their 13.4% of the population. Sadly, most of these crimes happen in African-American neighborhoods and even more sadly, against fellow African Americans. The job of police is to protect the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens. Despite this data, there are many African-Americans who have no doubt witnessed or experienced some form of racism with their interactions with police. If it can be proven that anyone in the law enforcement community is guilty of racism, they should be punished accordingly. But this country has made great strides in civil rights including many law enforcement reforms designed to provide accountability for police. Claiming systemic racism exists in every police department in America is a serious charge, and one that warrants a lot of hard evidence to justify violent civil unrest. Calls to “defund the police”, as the Mayors of NYC and Los Angeles are considering, is definitely not the answer. It’s a recipe for chaos and would do immense harm to all of us, and especially the very communities they are trying to protect. We cannot let that happen.
How important is law enforcement? Our Constitution states it elegantly in the Preamble:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
For those of you thinking that “insuring domestic tranquility” is subservient to the other four named federal functions, I ask you; Do you think that any of the other Preamble functions can be accomplished when there is violent unrest in the streets? What would you be focused on if a torch carrying mob came to your house to threaten your family and property?
Now before you pigeon-hole me as just another “un-woke” dude blinded by his white privilege, here me out. There are and always will be inequities in our society that need to be addressed. The “in Order to form a more perfect Union” clause in the Preamble acknowledges this. We are always striving to correct injustice for a “more perfect union.” About 60% of all government spending (and growing) goes to some form of re-distribution for a social safety net that addresses inequities. Whatever inequities exist, it’s not because we don’t spend enough addressing them.
But our founders designed checks and balances in our governing structure specifically to counteract any dangerous concentrations of power. Our Declaration boldly declares that citizens always have the right revolt if they don’t feel that government is representing their interests:
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
But how many citizens must there be who feel government oppression in order to justify civil war? Maybe it’s like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously said in his concurring opinion in the landmark 1964 case about regulating pornography. “I know it when I see it.” As clever and funny as that was, it is a slippery standard that depends on the eye of the beholder.
The Declaration of Independence also admonishes against frivolous use of this extremely powerful right to revolt: “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.” In other words, you can’t call for a revolution every time you feel disgruntled about the government. That’s a recipe for constant chaos. Our constitutional republic has endured precisely because it is designed to allow healthy political competition with citizens able to peacefully change their leaders if they don’t like the ones they have.
But let me revisit my question. What percentage of citizens must feel oppressed so that it rises to the level of violent insurrection? I think we can all agree that slavery rose to that level. At our nation’s founding about 20% of the colonists were LOYALISTS or Torries — those who remained loyal to The Crown. Another 20% were the dedicated Patriots, for whom there was no alternative but independence. The 60% majority were the undecided “fence-sitters” so that the war became in many ways a battle for popular support. The British also understood the need to attract American popular support. Some colonists who were not persuaded by the political struggle, were happy to continue selling their goods to the British. But as history shows, the Patriots won the war of propaganda and persuaded many fence-sitters to join the cause.
But do the loud demands for a vaguely-defined social justice by organizations like ANTIFA rise to this level of justifiable insurrection? ANTIFA, which is short for Anti-Fascist, is a broad term to describe an association of radical left militant groups that typically confront neo-Nazism and white supremacists at demonstrations. They have expanded their definition of fascism to include many conservatives and Trump supporters. They are also well funded by donors that include George Soros and other high profile American non-profit foundations. They are supported by prominent media outlets like the Washington Post, which recently dismissed ANTIFA critics as “delegitimizing militant protest (i.e. violent protest) and deflecting attention away from the white supremacy and police brutality that the protests oppose.” A 2019 Rasmussen national survey found that 22% of likely U.S. voters share a favorable opinion of ANTIFA, 43% have an unfavorable view, and 35% are “fence sitters”. If this is correct, maybe there is critical mass building for revolution. There is certainly no shortage of right-wing groups that agree with the idea that revolution is needed, albeit for different reasons. They would likely square off against the ANTIFA types in Thunderdome, where two men enter and one man leaves. Regardless, if groups of American citizens decide to violently revolt to overturn the government, they must be prepared to fight against those that disagree with them. You cannot use violence as a means for social change and not expect violence in return. The founding patriots understood this and so must those who fancy themselves modern day patriots. Let’s hope we use the brilliant constitutional tools our founders provided to resolve our differences, rather than the alternative.
Now I’d like to pivot to exploring what drives much of the political conflict in this country: Income inequality. Many on the left decry what they believe is vast income inequality in this country. They cite many studies like the 2015 book, The Economics of Inequality, by French economist Thomas Piketty. He describes how persistent income inequality creates long-term damage to societies and ultimately becomes unsustainable. While I agree with his premise, the research he presents contains some glaring defects that other economists have pointed out. Most importantly, Piketty doesn’t include about $1 trillion in annual transfer payments to lower‐income households and doesn’t account for the effects of taxes. According to an August 2018 paper by the US Treasury and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, when these uncounted forms of real income are included, about 80% of Piketty’s income disparity disappears. In fact, when those transfers and tax effects are included, income inequality in the United States is lower than in many Western democracies and has grown at rates similar to income inequality in other nations. These results show that the true poverty rate is about 2%, far less than the 10-15% that has been reported over the last fifty years. This exaggerated reporting is what happens when scientists and other experts conduct research with an agenda in mind. This common phenomenon is called “confirmation bias”, and it compromises research that society depends on to make informed decisions. The roots of income inequality are much more complicated than the lazy, disingenuous but politically effective accusations of systemic discrimination.
Considering we already spend $1 trillion annually on income equality, I would hope we’d all agree that we want policies that work. If the purpose of government policy is to reduce poverty, it should do that. If it doesn’t, the policy should be modified or scrapped. The modern effort to cure poverty was born when President Lyndon Johnson declared in his 1964 State of the Union address, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” Yet according to a 2017 study by the Heritage Foundation, our government has spent $22 trillion of US taxpayer money fighting poverty since 1964. This spending (not including Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in US history since the American Revolution. And there’s been little to show for it. The poverty rate in American was about 15% in 1965 and was still at 15% in 2014, only recently dropping due to improving economic conditions, according to the US Census. That’s a disturbing level of ineffectiveness.
If policy doesn’t change in the face of clear evidence that it doesn’t work, there must be some other reason why the policy is in place. Unlike the private sector, government policy often defies conventional logic. One wonders why our leaders ignore the evidence and if the policy is serving some other goal than what is being publicized. Maybe it’s an effective way for a small number of people to consolidate their power. The “Bread and Circus” to keep the mob in line.
So, when does a nation reach critical mass—a point when citizens believe that things are simply spinning out of control, and that something different is required? It is with events like this, when crises pile up from different directions, that Americans often choose a new path. But it becomes hard to tell what’s temporary versus lasting change because events expand to fill the 24/7 news cycle that dominates for days and weeks and months. My take is that we are seeing a situation that is deep and lasting.
It’s hard predicting the kind of change that comes after severe shocks. One thing is sure. There is a national election coming in five months that may be a pivot point that defines the next few decades or longer. Will Americans conclude that they want a law-and-order business guy to lead them out of the darkness? Or will citizens conclude that Mr. Trump’s response to the pandemic was ineffective, and he was unable to unite an angry and polarized America? Maybe Mr. Trump make the case that he has reasonably managed the COVID pandemic and is the best bet to lead an economic recovery. Last week’s employment report certainly helps that possibility if it continues. Or maybe former Vice President Joe Biden, who has been barely visible through these crises, will find his voice. Maybe it doesn’t matter who runs against Donald Trump, because a small majority of voters have had enough of him? Maybe feelings of economic inequality and racial injustice are coalescing before our eyes to produce a hard turn to the political left.
Or maybe Americans will simply demand better performance from the whole political system. George Floyd died at a time of serious malfunction in American cultural and political life. Public dialogue is so poisonous and so polarized that we are not getting the kind of bipartisanship we’ve historically seen during a crisis. Personally, I think the answer lies in demanding better performance from our entire political and government system. I wrote a book showing a path back to the middle ground where most of America sits. Locally Grown Government is a Big Idea that should appeal to honest brokers on both sides of the aisle. I think my Big Idea is way better than the Green New Deal which, if implemented, would fundamentally alter our nation in a way that would make the Constitution meaningless as it re-arranged our economy to the advantage of the ruling corporate and political elites. And for the GOP? They don’t seem to have a Big Idea other than to oppose Democrats.
We “fence sitters” are the silent majority that must coalesce with our own vision so that we can stop being forced to choose between the inferior ideas of the loudest extremes on the political spectrum. I think the answers lies in re-distributing the balance of power between our local, state and federal levels to provide more sustainable, accountable and effective governance. I think the answers lie inside the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. of a color-blind society and JFK’s challenge to “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Another way to think of this new vision is imagining that middle ground politics was a product, and there was a long line of citizens wanting to buy it. Let’s call it a “purple product.” However, there are no purple products on the shelf, so customers are forced to buy one of the lesser quality red or blue products. As an entrepreneur and businessman, we call lots of demand and no supply, an opportunity! Let’s seize the opportunity!
If you’re interested in more outrageous middle ground ideas, check out my weekly podcast, United We Stand, at www.jimfini.com. You can also subscribe to United We Stand at Apple Podcasts and follow me at Twitter and Facebook.