Long-time readers are well acquainted with my attitude toward law enforcement in the United States, which could be described tactfully as "skeptical." My argument is not, and never has been, "Cops are bad people." In fact I recognize that they are no different from any other profession, with some mix of slackers, idealists, pragmatic clock-punchers, and people with dangerous personality disorders. The reason so many people dislike cops is not that they are evil people, but because of the role of the police in our social, political, and economic system.
We are encouraged to think of the police Serving & Protecting, or perhaps listlessly filling out a report when our crap gets stolen. That's well and good. The problem is that they are not really "there" to help you. They exist to maintain a social and political power structure, and most of the time you are dealing with them they are actively trying to screw you. On the latter point, this is precisely why astute people know never to say anything to a police officer except "Hello", "Am I under arrest or free to go?", or "I have nothing to say and I want a lawyer." But let's put that aside for the moment and consider the first point more closely.
Nothing makes me feel sketchier as a blogger than to lapse into Marxist rhetoric as social commentary, but I defy anyone to watch the way police respond to public protests and offer a superior alternative explanation. OK, fair enough, there is one caveat: right-wing public rage spasms are permitted. Teabaggers, immigration zealots, and sundry other collections of angry old white people can take to the streets donning semiautomatic rifles and threatening to revolt against the government without fear of molestation by the police. Their misguided activism advances the agenda of the top 1%, so the media and political class define it as socially acceptable. Police treat them accordingly, in addition to being sympathetic to "protesters" who are demographically similar to the average cop. But good lord, get a bunch of people in one place protesting against the powers-that-be and the police are suddenly replaced by the Storm Troopers of America.
You can make or entertain all the excuses you see fit – Lefty protesters are more violent! Teabaggers are well behaved model citizens! You can't block traffic! If you don't have a permit, of course the police will mace you! – but those excuses persuade you alone. We know exactly why they react the way they do. They do it because the people in charge – economically, socially, and politically – use them to send messages when the proles step out of line. Sticking it to The Man by voting for Barack Obama (Ha!) but that's about it. Know your place. There are things one doesn't talk about here, people one does not criticize, and aspects of our system that are not open for debate. If you're feeling rebellious the proper way to express it is to buy some particularly subversive clothing, or maybe to express your individuality by driving an x-treme car of some sort.
This has been true of the United States since our elites rebelled against the British for the right to establish their own social hierarchy with themselves perched atop it. Pick any strike, movement, or protest against the entrenched power structure and you'll see the police (or National Guard) are not intermediaries or keepers-of-peace, but aggressive defenders of the status quo. It's their job. Literally.
This is why "Occupy Wall Street" protesters, as non-threatening and disjointed a bunch of disaffected people as you're likely to find, are subjected to the same "pincering" tactics the NYPD (Our heroes! 9-11! Flags!) made so popular during the 2004 Republican Convention. You know, permit the protesters to enter an area, close off the entrance/exit, and then arrest all of them. That's what happened during all those Tea Party circle jerks, the ones we were told had hundreds of thousands in attendance, right? No, the guy waving the "WE CAME UNARMED…THIS TIME!" sign has nothing to fear from the police. It's the person with the "Why does 1% have all the wealth?" sign that ends up cuffed, in a van, and squinting through pepper spray.
In this instance, it isn't an oversimplification to point out that this says all you need to know about our country.
Cop friend says:
By chance, and circumstance I happen to know a lot of cops. Quite a few (11) Chicago cops, and half a dozen or so suburban Chicago cops. If New York cops are anything like Chicago, I'm not surprised by their actions. Chicago cops are racist, lazy aholes that feel no compunction about violating people. It is an urban cop cultural thing. They took a guy I knew that was compassionate, open-minded, and intelligent, and within a couple of years, turned him into a mouth-breathing, troglodyte, that reveled in abusing his power and became an unmitigated racist.
Perhaps it is a function of dealing with the dregs of society that totally jades these guys, and renders them unable to see anyone as anything but a scumbag. I mean even the black guy is a horrible racist. Being privy to their conversations, and hearing their war stories in a small group setting, like having some beers at a bar, is pretty disturbing.
The suburban cops are a mixed bag. The ones that are jerks, were pretty much always thus. The others are everything from right wingers to center left, but are what you would like in a cop, show them respect, and they'll do the same, they are everything from helpful to shitty to ya, depending on what's going on in their life. But what they all have in common is much to blind loyalty to other cops, and way too much groupthink. They all have the potential to follow along with whatever is happening with their tribe, regardless if it is unethical or illegal. If one of their own was beating the crap out of someone about the best you'd get from the rest is that they wouldn't jump in.
There is a militaristic bent to pretty much all of them, and an alarming viewpoint that they are always the good guys, and the only thing that is keeping our society from total chaos. And, yes I think this is why they act like they do when it comes to always siding not with what's right or wrong, but with the power elite. They see themselves as part of that construct, so siding against the "radicals" is imperative to sustain order, even if they are in fact going against what benefits them the most.
cromartie says:
Yes, well, wait for the power elite to take away their collective bargaining rights, betraying that perception that they are a part of the power elite, and watch the sparks fly from their heads with a look in their eyes that says "Does Not Compute". Hilarious stuff.
Alvin B. says:
Ever since a very close friend ended up with a criminal record for "filing a false police report" when she attempted to file rape charges against a local good ol' boy, was badgered into dropping the charges and then arrested at her workplace and threatened with jail for having the audacity to attempt to report a crime, I have had absolutely ZERO respect for the police. It's not the only incident I've seen personally, but it's the most outrageous.
The fact that police officers are just following orders is no excuse – they willingly participate in a system which protects the privileged few and victimizes anyone who doesn't fit the mold. It's no wonder most of them end up divorced. Their wives get to see what monsters they are first hand.
Rosalux says:
A few things:
1. You need not apologize for employing a Marxist analysis. Why should that be sketchy?
2. Amazing post as always, but aren't you burying the lede? There is so much progressive handwringing about lack of public life/civic discourse/direct democracy and now that we have good young progressives in the streets protesting against the plutocracy, we have nothing to say about it? There are progressive institutions in this country besides unions – it seems to me that they're sitting on the sidelines with a mix of confusion about their role here and envy that the protesters are calling attention to key issues with little to no organizing expertise.
Middle Seaman says:
The police is tasked with maintaining law and order. The ruling elite defines law and order. We should be aware that while law is well defined in each community, order is a totally vague concept that may imply spraying a 95 year old lady because she stood in the "wrong" place. In other words the dear old lady caused disorder.
Police officers are paid like you and me; some elite writes the check. You and I do what our elite employer wants us to do; NYPD does what Bloomberg wants them to do.
In non political issues, the police performs an important and in many cases dangerous work. Violence by the police is probably proportional to the violence they encounter; we are quite a violent country. (Every schmuck can carry 15 guns, which equates with good order in our society.)
Violence begets violence. Therefore, the police appears more violent than our definition of order allows. It also attracts violent types that are less prevalent in history department. Yet, I would stay away as far as possible from the old "pigs" and other references to individual officers.
buckyblue says:
Pigs earned their name honestly during the '60s, why should it be any different now?
Jude says:
To fill an odd role (for me), I'd like to defend some police. Specifically, the cops this past winter and spring in Madison, Wisconsin. Even though the people in the street were blocking traffic (as if that's now comparable to genocide or something), AND they were in support of what has become a lefty cause, the cops were cool. It's actually the Madison PD's official stance for dealing with crowds since shit went sideways during Vietnam War protests back in the day.
It might have helped that their asses were in the fire, too. Cop friend is right about this–the number one duty of a police is not to serve and protect anyone's interest but other police; not the elite, not the rest of us. They look out for each other first.
Also, it says something awful about this country that "I want collective bargaining and a decent wage" is now (as it was 100 years ago) a wild-eyed radical's demand.
Sarah says:
What's really ironic on top of all of that is that cops tend to come from the lower and lower-middle portions of the economic and social spectrum. Used to be that all you needed to apply to the police academy was to be 21 years of age and have a high school diploma, although nowadays they're wanting cops to have bachelor's degrees, even for uniformed patrol cops. Also, cops are most assuredly unionized, and they utilize their union reps.
butler says:
Since the founding of FitzWalkerstan, many cops have begun to understand that the right hates public workers. As kind of an old fart who has participated in a goodly number of protests I actually believe I can notice a distinct difference in attitude among younger cops on the street during protests here in NYC. While they are still pretty much doing what they are told. If you look at video of the infamous pepper spray incident, a few things –
– the perpetrator of the assault was a white-shirted superior officer
– the uniforms all look horrified, like "WTF?"
– one of the uniforms actually says something like "I can't believe he just fuckin' maced them".
The mainstream media style description of occupywallstreet as "as non-threatening and disjointed a bunch of disaffected people as you're likely to find" lacks quite a number of superlative adjectives that would contribute to an accurate description. Especially as it is the only mention I've noticed here of these people who have had the balls and creativity to actually start something moving in the right direction. I've been there and what is going on there is astounding and – incredibly – heartening. That type of reportage also falls right into the category of "listlessly filling out a report when our crap gets stolen".
Mr. Prosser says:
I can hire half the working class to kill off the other half. – Jay Gould
c u n d gulag says:
I was an organizer of Anit-war protest's in Fayetteville, NC – home of Fort Bragg, the worlds largest Army base, and I developed some grudging respect for the police in that town.
I'm oroginally from NY, and had seen my share of protesters hauled off, none too gently may I add, during Pro-Affirmative Action, and Anti-nuke rallies in the past, in NYC, DC, PA, and Long Island.
It's true, we had to negotiate very carefully every, and I mean EVERY aspect, of the march and rally with them, but they were usually very reasonable, and had our best interests at heart. I was kind of shocked, to be honest about it. I expected them to be much worse, more demanding, and dictatorial. After all, Fayetteville's pretty much a one-industry town, and that's the Army and war.
I remember, right before the first time I got up to speak at the gathering point at my first rally there, one of the other leaders reminded me that there were police snipers on the rooftop nearby, and all along the route. When he saw the expression on my face, he quickly reminded me, "They're their to protect US, not shoot at us!" And when I saw the red-neck freakazoid counter-protesters, I was glad that the cops had snipers on the rooftops all around town. And btw, I'm under NO delusions that if WE were the ones acting up, they'd have shot our asses in a nano-second, too.
I just felt that someone had to give one good story about the cops at protests.
Having said all of that, yes, police are the order and disciplie forces that make sure that the odds stay in the favor of the top 1%.
Lecturer says:
Okay, it's time to be grumpy and a bit Foucauldian…
If you are the type of middle- to upper-middle class white person who can get in a fight with cops and spend 24 hours in jail with no long-term consequences save for the fact that you (and your shitty, shitty punk band) now have cred with your fellow "anarchists," then I'm sorry, but I've got some news for you.
You're not overthrowing the system, you a part of the system. Your exhilarating little fight with the pigs was just as choreographed a ritual as the swearing in of the president.
Tteddo says:
Have you read People's History of the United States? This was the theme over and over and over. Really put things in perspective.
bb in GA says:
@Ed:
I only know of one instance where a semi-auto rifle was displayed at a T-party rally. In Arizona and quite legal – open carry of long guns LEGAL, get over it or move to AZ and start a law change effort.
Oh, yeah, that was the one that MS-NBC assiduously edited so the skin color of the AR-15 carrier was not detectable. A Black American carrying at at a T-party rally in support of the cause – well that just doesn't fit the template now does it?
You pick random people out of the OWS rally for an interview and they appear to be stoned slackers that don't know why the hell they have gathered.
//bb
Ike says:
Yeah, a bunch of privileged “counter-culture” hipster white kids skipping class at NYU or wherever and hanging out in the middle of Manhattan doesn't do much for me. Must be so nice having that much free time without going hungry. Yeah, keep on tweeting about your “rebellion” against corporatism and globalization on your iphone kiddo. That'll show the man!
I recently had an encounter with Animal Control, after an (unfounded) complaint about my dog. The conversation started with the officer presuming my guilt and listing the various fines and penalties including them impounding (and probably euthanizing) my best friend. I was eventually let off with a warning, after ten minutes of being very polite and apologetic. It doesn't matter that the complaint was baseless and that the allegations of abuse could be scientifically refuted, I was immediately a horrible awful person, and my name, address, and driver's license number are now part of some record. I am fearful of any future encounter with Animal Control as well. And they're not even real cops!
unclemike says:
@bb
Neither the legality nor the skin color negates Ed's point.
Figaro says:
The police? They are America's army of occupation.
bb in GA says:
@um
The cops are just as demographically similar to the mostly White OWS protesters as they are T-partiers.
It isn't the OWS anti-establishment message that gets their asses in a sling, it's their behavior. T-partiers didn't occupy anything, didn't inconvenience anyone (relatively speaking), cooperated w/ the police and got the expected permits, etc.
Contrast that w/ people occupying for weeks at a time. No comparison about what's gonna get you trouble.
T-party: announcing grievances and organizing for political effect
OWS: we kinda think we want a revolution…man. We'll see about the politics from here to 2012
//bb
Paul B says:
There's a case going through the courts in Fullerton, CA against two (or more) Pigs that beat a homeless schizophrenic man – Kelly Thomas – to death. I suspect he didn’t show them enough respect so of course they had to beat him to death. A comment by one of the cops – who even looks like he may have some porcine heritage in his genes – was caught on tape saying: “See my fists? They are getting ready to Fuck you up”
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/09/kelly-thomas-police-audio-recording-key-to-case.html
And just yesterday the same Fullerton police dept was reprimanded by a federal judge for putting an officer back on the street after numerous complaints filed against him for groping women.
ladiesbane says:
That most cops are from blue collar homes means they are also often the most conservative, particularly on social issues, and like many Righties, confuse dissent with disloyalty.
We should keep in mind that whatever associations you have with the police, your breed of copper depends on where you live — the size of the city, the state, the region. Cops in my podunk home town are mostly those chubby kids who weren't good enough at math to go to college, who grew up into friendly gossips that stop to help people with car trouble, and have never faced the moral dilemma of protecting people whose beliefs they find disagreeable.
The cops in Scottsdale AZ were professional, courteous, and adept in hiding their rage at being treated like misbehaving servants by a town of spoiled, wealthy idiots. But the cops in downtown Phoenix were a mixed bag. Generally, if they were jerks hungry to abuse power, they wanted to work under Sheriff Joe. But cops in PHX have to deal with gangs, drugs, domestic violence, bikers, tourists, white supremists, poverty/race/crime/INS issues, and a population that shoots back, or shoots first. It attracts the best and worst.
Back in Portland, a lot of cops live in the areas they protect, know all their neighbors, and understand that a prostitute is just as sacred in her person as the Virgin Mary (to borrow a phrase from Heinlein.) There are lots of decent folk in the PDX police, or were when I lived there.
Cops are people you went to high school with, but with more power, be they bubbas, bullies, or brown-noses. And take my word: never date one. Even the nicest guy will invade your privacy while dating. God help you if you break up with him.
And bb, I suspect we don't read the same rags, but that black man in AZ, rallying for the TP, was absolutely everywhere I looked. He wasn't exactly getting loads of outreach from the TP community, did you notice? Though I did hear a number of TPers insist that this lone POC proved they weren't racist. Hilarious. I think a lot of people, left and right alike, forget that the earliest and staunchest gun control efforts were made to keep guns out of the hands of black people.
Given that the TPers (99-44/100% white peepul, gawdblessum,) are worried that their black President will take away their guns, do you think it's just indignant anger spurring their fear? Fear that someone Other, someone Not Their Kind, has power over them, which violates their sense of independence? Anyone who tells me the Tea Party is simply keen to protect individual liberties and low taxes needs to explain why they weren't staging their armed protests when Bush gave us the Patriot Act, or when Reagan gave us TEFRA.
bb in GA says:
@ladiesbane
Because they were asleep.
White people are just as stupid as any other color.
And of course, not all were. The Paulites and the Alex Jones crowd have been raising hell for years about Bush and blah blah blah
//bb
Rosalux says:
@Ike
Why does it matter if the protesters are "hipster" or "white" or "privileged" (which is a gross oversimplication, anyway)? What are you doing right now to raise awareness about social inequality? Writing some wicked comments on a blog? The fact is that they're in the streets doing it, and that's worth something.
And all this sniping about how the protesters are using iPhones and ATMs and so they're really part of the system. To channel Adorno for a second, we're all part of the system, there is no escape. Should they not use iPhones? Send messages by smoke signal? The system must be unraveled from within.
Ravi M. Singh says:
I usually see things from the Canadian perspective when I read your blog and I think we had similar experiences with the G20, where protesters were rounded up en masse. Either way, I think the media narrative often reflects exactly what you are critiquing, which is to paint the protestors as disturbing the peace or "no good hippies" while the cops are often seen as doing no wrong. Thankfully, there has been a more critical examination of the actions of law enforcement officials coming from some journalists, but much of it is the same as ever.
That's the media bias as I see it. Not left or right, but status quo.
Southern Beale says:
No, the guy waving the "WE CAME UNARMED…THIS TIME!" sign has nothing to fear from the police. It's the person with the "Why does 1% have all the wealth?" sign that ends up cuffed, in a van, and squinting through pepper spray.
In this instance, it isn't an oversimplification to point out that this says all you need to know about our country.
Yes. Amen to that. I remarked on that during the February protests in Wisconsin, actually. Tea Partiers walking around with threatening signs or even, some of them, wearing guns strapped to their hips were untouched by law enforcement. And they got tons and tons of fawning media coverage. Why? Because they threaten no one in power! They were not "protesting" anything, they were there to support the status quo.
But take a couple unarmed college students demanding equality and accountability from the power elite? BAM! Down comes the hammer. They are a threat.
And this is why the mere presence of liberal protestors demanding a seat at the table scares the crap out of the elites, whereas hundreds of arms-brandishing Tea Partiers does not. All we liberals have to do is gather together, join hands and sing kumbaya and the pants-wetting begins.
I find that … interesting from a sociological perspective and profoundly hilarious.
anotherbozo says:
I was going to add nothing to Ed's typically intelligent post nor to the commentariat here, but I read a related blog on HuffPo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-dear/troy-davis-execution-protest_b_993167.html
and noticed that Mr. Dear had been cuffed in a particularly common way for a protester— with the plastic strip pulled tight enough to cut off circulation. This happens very commonly. It's emblematic of police work these days—they think they're free to punish those they detain, even if it means permanent nerve damage. I remember reading one account of a protester somewhere else who complained that his cuffs cut off circulation; the cop helpfully made them even tighter.
Where is the national conversation about this topic? Detaining and humiliating innocent school kids in Noo Yawk, my home, has finally been addressed and curtailed (I'm told), but protester treatment is a national one. Love to confront some police brass, somewhere, anywhere, on this subject.
mother earth says:
I support the protests on Wall Street, even if all it is wealthy, spoiled upper income students using their Iphones and atms. And what exactly does that have to do with anything? Every time I hear the media complaining about the Wall Street protests not having a clear message, I think, jeez, where's all the Koch money and Koch PACs to organize and get them on point? Which is what the Tea Baggers ended up being, a front for the Koch messaging. Sadly, though, I don't think they even realize it yet.
bb in GA says:
I am in general sympathy w/ Ed on this one based on over 50 years experience w/ police and the TPTB. General good advice: give only name, rank, and serial number w/o the presence of an attorney. I get it, I have lived it.
I just think this particular example is a bad one. You have people who are being disruptive more than anything else. If that is their message, so be it. It will always be responded to w/ official harsh treatment because they are disrupting the normal flow of society.
If it is that important, then go for it – "You say you want a revolution…etc"
No matter their rhetoric, the T-partiers did not disrupt our society, they did not destroy anything, and they did not occupy anything. They brought attention to themselves and their message, they organized politically, and they affected our political system.
Y'all have disdain for them as Koch puppets or whatever. Fine.
Go get Big Momma Leftmost to fund OWS and get the revolution a goin' if that's what is important.
//bb
Lecturer says:
Mother Earth, Rosalux, the point about privileged white kids protesting Corporate Greed is that they have a whole lot in common, with, say, the Women's Studies professor who claims to not only be undermining the System, but even… Language Itself. The thing that these folks have in common is that they're not undermining the system–they're operating in a controlled space where they can basically carry out the theater of being subversive.
The occupiers of Wall Street would do much, much more to change the system if they'd do the deeply unsexy work of getting involved in local politics, manning phone banks, canvassing, giving money to candidates of their choice, voting in primaries, etc. etc. But none of that involves the adrenaline rush of fighting with cops.
Back in the 1950s and 60s, groups like SNCC, the NAACP, CORE, etc. succeeded because they built organization and played a long game. When there were marches, the marches were built on top of an infrastructure that folks had been building for decades.
And on the side of the Bad People, the reason that the Tea Party has been so successful is not because of some idiots in tricorn hats gathering in public. They're successful because the American right has been building an infrastructure that reaches all the way down to the level of the local school board.
Bob says:
An admittedly trivial complaint compared to some of the horror stories here, but just yesterday on a 4 lane, divided state highway in Virginia I was given a speeding ticket for doing 70 in a 55 zone. Why do I consider that wrong? Because I was the only car on the road as far as I could see in either direction and the cop hid in a copse of trees at the bottom of a very steep hill. The fact that I was doing 70 at the bottom of the hill tells you I was doing about 50 as I crested it. As the only car on the road I didn't bother to burn my brakes out by riding the pedal all the way down the hill.
If cops want to lurk in the shadows at the bottom of very steep hills where even the slowest drivers are most likely speeding, fine, they are technically within the law in doing so. But they'll have to excuse those of us writing $200.00 checks we can't afford because they successfully played a game of "gothcha" in violation of all their claims about public safety and safe driving. I was practicing safe driving techniques; that was the whole point of what I was doing – not applying the brakes needlessly.
The little bastards who squeal on kids who goof off behind the teacher's back are technically correct as well. I like them about as much as I like our lurking policemen.
Rosalux says:
@Lecturer
1. I have very little patience for this claim that OWS is nothing but "the theater of being subversive." You may have to take off your post-modern blinders for a minute to realize it, but these protesters are having a concrete, tangible effect on our political discourse. Calling it theater minimizes that, and really only leads to quietism.
Moreover, there is no space "outside" the system to criticize it. We must still take money from our ATMs even as we protest the corporatist state.
2. I agree that the "deeply unsexy" work of local politics, canvassing, etc. is important. But so is this – they both serve important roles. Spontaneous, messy demonstrations like this are undisciplined but LOUD. They get people's attention, jolt the system. Institutional organizing is smarter, more sophisticated, but often lacks intensity, passion. So we need both.
If institutional progressive groups are worth their salt, they'll realize that this is the recruitment and fundraising opportunity of the decade and they'll pitch in instead of sniping sarcastically on the sidelines about how unsophisticated and disorganized the protesters are.
Major Kong says:
My dealings with cops in Columbus Ohio has been mostly positive. Mind you, I'm a middle-aged, upper-middle-class Caucasian.
There were a couple guys in my National Guard unit who were on the force and they were both pretty decent.
djplanb says:
bb and lecturer should be ignored, for they have nothing of value to add to this conversation. we can't help that they just don't get it.
johnsmith1882 says:
Like the first commenter, I also happen to know several Chicago cops, most of which I've known since we were growing up. Almost to a man, they could be described as good guys, fun to hang out with, but not the brightest, and with a streak of 'young punk' or troublemaker in our younger days. These were guys for whom college was not really an option, so instead of joining the military, they went the cop route. They are psychologically malleable, and it is in the training where they are molded, but the 'young punk' aspect is retained. Looking for trouble; just say something that can be misconstrued and it is on. For example, a bunch of us went out to a club, and one guy who is a cop and I were the last of the group to walk in. As we walked in, I put my hand on his back like 'you go first' and I felt this hard lump, and asked what the hell is that? He said that it was his pistol. I asked what the hell do you need that for, and he replied, 'just in case there is trouble.' Just give him the excuse.
Now in this particular guy's defense, he's seen some pretty grim shit on the streets of Chicago. I just so happened to be walking home from my el stop one time, and saw a crowd and three squads right in my path home. As I neared, I could see what appeared to be a homeless man (lots of homeless in this particular area at the time, Uptown for those scoring at home, which kept rents cheap) slumped against a wall, which was not uncommon. As I got even closer, I could tell that this wasn't just a drunk passed out, what with all the police and bystanders, and then I saw my friend [redacted] the one from the club, among the police. The look on [redacted]'s face is something I won't forget; it was a mix of horror and disgust, with just a hint of shocked, frozen like he was wearing a caricature mask of his own face. Needless to say, I didn't say 'hey [redacted], what's happening, man!', I just turned the corner and took the long way. Later, when I told him this story, he didn't remember anything about it.
So, these anecdotes are a long way of saying describing urban police is not cut and dry. When you want or need order maintained, you are happy to see them; when you are overturning the order yourself, they are a bunch of pigs. From my experience, one thing that I can point out for sure is that 'just gimme an excuse' attitude. When the anti-Iraq war protests were going on in '03, we were peaceful and stayed within the designated areas. Even when we shut down Lake Shore Drive, it was within a designated route. But man, the police were everywhere, and you could see they wanted a piece. Just give them an excuse to use the baton, any excuse. You want your skull cracked, just say something.
The other thing I can say with near certainty is that most cops aren't the brightest. If they were, they would have gone to college and become something else. Which is why there may be silver lining in all the business in WI and elsewhere. It is direct evidence that the order that they are maintaining preserves a ruling class that will cut their throats, too. I haven't worked out the finishing touches on my time machine to go back to '03 and show those cops, 'hey we were right all along.' So, the next best thing is the police getting screwed by the ruling class themselves. Maybe it will make them see which side they should be on. In the short run, the pepper spraying and arrests on the Brooklyn bridge in NY are the best 'publicity' for the protests possible, gaining sympathy and exposure. But in the long run, what would be best is for the police to be on our side. We're all in this together, people.
bb in GA says:
@djplanb
The smart, Left, commie, pinkos who reside here can ignore me on their own w/o your solicitous, smarmy recommendations thank you very much :-)
//bb
Lecturer says:
Rosalux, I think we might actually be in agreement if you're saying that protests need to actually be built on a political infrastructure. But I've got precious little time for folks who can gather for a week or so and make lots of noise to be heard but have never gone to a meeting of their county Democratic party.
Who's the party going to pay attention to? The people who write the checks, who volunteer, and who vote in primaries, or some guy with a puppet who probably won't even bother to vote when election day comes around (because, you know, Corporations control everything anyway)?
Who's an investment banker going to be worried about? They person who writes a check each month to Common Cause or the guy who makes it somewhat more annoying for him to get to work?
Ellie says:
"[The police] exist to maintain a social and political power structure…"
Of course they do. And SO DO MOST OTHER workers in a capitalist economy. If you have any kind of responsibility at work, your job is almost surely to enforce and support the status quo – it's just not as OBVIOUS on the day-to-day level as it is when the police are called in for "special situations".
"Know your place. There are things one doesn't talk about here, people one does not criticize, and aspects of our system that are not open for debate. "
That pretty much describes the nature of most jobs (and other roles) in our society, doesn't it?
How many jobs really allow serious criticism of the status quo? I'd say very few. Most people can get fired for being too critical of the "things one does not criticize" or raising too many questions about the "aspets of the system not open for debate". Do you really think a bank clerk working against capitalism, a school teacher refusing to indoctrinate students in the Accepted Beleif system, a journalist writing the "wrong" kind of story, or a human resources manager hiring the hyper-critical candidate, would last very long in any sort of mainstream organization? The status quo is enforced by social disapproval and institutional "sanctions" of all sorts, on a daily basis. People are "policed" all the time, and not by the actual police.
The cops, like everyone else, are just doing their job – maintianing the status quo. The one difference between cops and everyone else, of course, is that the cops' job happens to be to deal with people upon whom lesser sanctions by the status quo have failed. So yes, they are the "active" enforcers of the status quo – but the world is full of "passive" enforcers of the status quo, as well as those who actively enforce the status quo with the stroke of a pen or a "managerial decision", every day. And no, I don't just mean the elite – I mean ordinary workers too, or at least, ordinary workers with any sort of responsibility for who gets hired, fired, rewarded, punished, promoted, demoted, given space, ignored, invted back, not invited in the first place…
I think the nature of cop work just makes manifest the more-subtle nature of most people's work. Almost everyone's job is to support the status quo.
Major Kong says:
@bb
Probable location of person who openly carried semi-automatic weapon at anti-war/anti-Bush rally circa 2003
Camp X-Ray, Guantanamo Bay Cuba, Location Classified
Mark says:
Long-time readers are well acquainted with my attitude toward regulatory agencies in the United States, which could be described tactfully as "skeptical." My argument is not, and never has been, "bureaucrats are bad people." In fact I recognize that they are no different from any other profession, with some mix of slackers, idealists, pragmatic clock-punchers, and people with dangerous personality disorders. The reason so many people dislike regulators is not that they are evil people, but because of the role of regulatory agencies in our social, political, and economic system.
We are encouraged to think of executive agencies Serving & Protecting, or perhaps listlessly filling out a report when someone commits fraud. That's well and good. The problem is that they are not really "there" to help you. They exist to maintain a social and political power structure, and most of the time you are dealing with them they are actively trying to screw you. On the latter point, this is precisely why astute people know never to say anything to a government agent except "Hello", "Have I filled out all the necessary forms?", or "I have nothing to say and I want a lawyer." But let's put that aside for the moment and consider the first point more closely.
Nothing makes me feel sketchier as a commenter than to lapse into libertarian rhetoric as social commentary, but I defy anyone to watch the way agencies respond to competitive economic activity and offer a superior alternative explanation. OK, fair enough, there is one caveat: blatant political rent-seeking is permitted. Treehuggers, public heath zealots, and sundry other collections of power hungry white people can give money to politicians, donning self-righteous attitudes and demanding more government regulation without fear of molestation by the media. Their misguided activism advances the agenda of the top 1%, so the media and political class define it as socially acceptable. Agencies treat them accordingly, in addition to being sympathetic to "activists" who are ideologically similar to the average bureaucrat. But good lord, get a bunch of people economically competing against the powers-that-be and the regulators are suddenly replaced by the Storm Troopers of America.
You can make or entertain all the excuses you see fit – Lefty activists are less selfish! Government regulators are better informed than the average citizen! You can't have unregulated trade! If the market fails in any way, of course the government should fix it! – but those excuses [shouldn't] persuade you alone. We know exactly why they react the way they do. They do it because the people in charge – economically, socially, and politically – use them to protect their turf when the proles step out of line. Sticking it to The Man by voting for Barack Obama (Ha!) but that's about it. Know your place. There are economic structures one doesn't try to change, markets one does not enter, and aspects of our system that are not open for competition. If you're feeling rebellious the proper way to express it is to vote for the "subversive" party, or maybe to express your individuality by joining an x-treme activist group of some sort.
This has been true of the United States since our elites rebelled against the British for the right to establish their own social hierarchy with themselves perched atop it. Pick any innovation, technological challenge, or competition against the entrenched power structure and you'll see the regulatory agencies (or courts) are not intermediaries or keepers-of-peace, but aggressive defenders of the status quo. It's their job. Literally.
Elle says:
Find me a 'treehugger' or 'public health zealot' who is advancing the agenda of the top 1%, and I'll mail you a shiny new Euro.
Mark says:
No one said it had to be intentional. Consider:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/25/business/la-fi-raw-food-raid-20100725
Major Kong says:
@Mark
Other than the daily 70-car mass-fatality pileups I'm sure the unregulated "Free Road" would be a very efficient transportation system.
Southern Beale says:
The cops, like everyone else, are just doing their job – maintianing the status quo.
Let me introduce you to Oath Keeper's, a radical group of police officers and ex-military whose goal is to "resist, by any means necessary, those actions taken by the U.S. Government that overstep Constitutional boundaries." Their motto is "Not On Our Watch!"
I'm sure these yahoos have no problem with the Patriot Act and keeping Muslims from operating a house of worship but anything that bears Obama's fingerprints is treasonous.
Look, I know you can't lump all police officers into one group but all of the ones around here are far right wingnuts. The ones I know keep Rush on all day and the chief took a vacation day to attend Glenn Beck's rally. We suspect he was one of the local organizers.
So…
Ellie says:
"…but all of the [cops] around here are far right wingnuts."
What about non-cops around there, doing other jobs? Are the non-cops all leftists? Or are a whole lot of non-cops "far right wingnuts" (or "far right corporatists", perhaps?) enforcing the status quo in their own, less dramatic ways?
My point isn't that cops are great – my point is that the cop's job of enforcing the status qu isn't so very different from a LOT of people's jobs, insofar that LOTS of jobs have that goal, if you think about it. The cops are the most OBVIOUS.
My says:
Mark's comment is why Fox "News"'s limp-dicked attempt at their own Daily Show was as successful as, well, the reality underlying most Libertarian fantasies. In other words, the age of consent in the US used to be 10 years old. 10. Gosh, things used to be so much better back in the day. And the only funny (albeit funny-sad) thing that stems from Mark's post: He is the logical modern standard-bearer for the dude who, when the age of consent was raised to 16, said, "What?! See? See what them damn Socialist SOBs are doin' t'our FREEdom? Got-damn pollytickin', regulatin' Godless scum…."
Finally, Mark, speaking as a bureaucrat: Fuck you. The environment in which I work is polluted with the tentacles of profiteering, shady, inside-dealing, nepotist trash who are undermining the effective functioning of our government ON PURPOSE. It makes it sooo much EASIer for them to point the finger and say, "See how poorly govt. does things? We need to privatize that." Meanwhile, their states and their companies continue to thrive on Federal funds and contracts. It's disgusting, and if I didn't have a family for whom to provide and what most would call a stubborn disposition toward idealism a la "if only assholes do X, then all X's will be assholes" I might long since have moved on; unfortunately the people who drove our economy into the proverbial mountain and are continuing their assault on the rest of us leave a man with few options sometimes…
Elle says:
I do have a grudging admiration for The Telegraph's single-minded pursuit of an editorial policy naysaying climate change. I daresay that it might calm down a bit as David Cameron allows the Tory greenwash to rub off.
In any case, that article is as ridiculous as it is tendentious. It's point seems to be that Al Gore is going to make money like whoa because of a) a loan (presumably which came with some equity) that a venture capital vehicle he advises has made, coupled with b) the allocation of federal grants programmes that he has 'supported,' in some nebulous way, to bodies that have contracted with the aforementioned invested-in company.
The figures make no sense. Even if every dime of the $75m of the VC came out of Al Gore's pocket, and he bore the entire risk/reward of the investment, AND every cent of the grants made to these other companies was being funneled to Silver Spring AND could be allocated to cost centres in a way that immediate returned a profit (staggeringly unlikely) then this still wouldn't equate to Al Gore being a 'carbon billionaire'.
Presumably neither you, nor The Telegraph, is actually suggesting that investment is morally wrong, so this looks like a lazy, tired suggestion of the vaguest, most unsubstantiated impropriety. In reality, regulation of federal grants programmes, and the audit controls of allocation and disbursement, would actually function to ensure that insider-grantmaking didn't happen. This seems to be an argument for scrutiny and oversight, and not against it.
Similarly, the piece on the rawfoods store that had its windows panned in by the boots of federal law enforcement, seems to be an argument in support of Ed's line on police restraint. Nonetheless, and food policy isn't my bag, raw food production can only work on the small-scale basis described in the article, without a shit-ton of regulation. My husband grew up drinking raw milk, which was produced on his grandparents' farm. They could decide not to drink it when it was likely to contain metabolised medicine, that could be neutralised by pasteurisation processes. For those people that can't afford artisanal milk, produced as part of a co-op for 'hippies and people with Italian shoes,' there exist food standards to ensure they don't die of the entirely avoidable consequences of poor farming and slaughtering practices.
Elle says:
An addendum on deregulation of farming, which I forgot about this morning. When animal feed production was deregulated in the UK, agri-business, alert to its margins, started using feed that contained byproducts of lamb, mutton, and pork farming that had not been heated to the high temperatures previously required by regulation of the feed industry. This led directly to BSE, or 'mad cow disease'.
These are the kinds of issues the market finds difficult to resolve on its own. In the long run, it's difficult for individual farmers to anticipate the destabilising impacts on their business of having to slaughter all of their beef stock, and to calculate the risk to their stock of feed produced in a lightly-regulated manufacturing process. In the short run, cattle marts will yield higher margins to those who buy cheaper feed.
Mark says:
@ MY
I don't watch Fox (or TV at all), so I'm in no position to respond there. From what I've gathered about their affinity for the military-industrial complex, I doubt you could honestly categorize them as libertarian. I'm also not sure what the age of consent has to do with anything. Yes, legal minority is a carve out from traditional concepts of personal rights, but it is one that nearly everyone accepts. There is a difference between determining what the exceptions in legal minority entails, and determining when it ceases to apply. Do you have any evidence that shows a certain ideological view is correlated with the desire to lower majority status?
Your second paragraph supports my original point – which is the disconnect between Ed's "Marxist" analysis of local law enforcement's structural incentives on the one hand and progressives' general deferential treatment of high level law enforcement on the other. Yes, governmental agencies are filled with "profiteering, shady, inside-dealing, nepotist trash." If men were angels, this would not be so. But you can't build a system whose stability is predicated on the good moral behavior of the people within it. You must have a system which incentivizes optimal behavior regardless of personal behavior. A system which encourages sub-optimal behavior will produce such, regardless of the personal morality of those within it.
This is Ed's point about the police, and it is a very good one. Even though most police officers are probably good people, and even though they fulfill a very necessary role in our society, the way the departments are structured means that the police will also become jack-booted thugs when certain entrenched interests are challenged. I'm simply pointing out that this type of analysis is applicable in other areas.
Actually, by traditional Marxist analysis, it is more applicable to high level government agencies than local PD's. After all, as people have pointed out, many low-level beat cops are actually sympathetic to the protesters. It is the higher-status, senior level officers who are engaging in the most egregious abuse. A Marxist would say that this is because the senior officers have been bought off by the owners of capital to the point where they begin to identify with them. Now, most federal level agencies are viewed in society as higher in status than most local PD's. It stands to reason, then, that the people who staff these agencies are MORE entrenched with the owners of capital than local cops. So why not apply the same standards of skepticism to them as to the local cops?
@ Elle
I'm not asserting that Al Gore has done anything illegal. He's not stupid. Nor am I arguing the existence of global warming. I will defer to the smart people in white coats on that. Nor am I arguing about the need for standards and oversight in almost any industry. My point is narrower: the solutions to these problems, as manifested by the current governmental regulatory regime, is susceptible to the same type of structural analysis as Ed's post on the police. So with Al Gore: the point isn't impropriety. The point is that the solutions to global warming as proposed (massive investments in "green" technology mixed with a carbon cost allocation regime) were structured to inherently benefit currently existing interests. If it had not been so, then those solutions would never have come to pass. This casts doubt on the actual optimal nature of those solutions, because what is good for currently existing interests is not always good for everyone. (Often, it's the exact opposite). If the existing regulatory regime is unable to divorce truly optimal policies from policies which benefit entrenched interests, this throws doubt into the system which creates those policies.
Same with the food regulation issue. The argument that extrinsic standards are needed to control production does not negate my point that the current structure of how we produce and enforce those standards primarily benefits currently vested interests. The two arguments are not mutually exclusive.
Elle says:
This is certainly true for the US. (Although 'massive' investment in 'green' R+D?) Other states, with different political and regulatory structures, and operating within different supranational frameworks, have developed slightly different policy solutions, and have different regulatory regimes.
It would be a mistake, I think, to look at either regulation, or regulatory bodies, as monolithic and completely entrenched within government. European and international agencies are within my bailiwick, rather than US ones, but I can't believe that it's any different in terms of different agencies having different structures, levels of independence, budget arrangements, influence over policy, public acceptability, and legal levers at their disposal. Sometimes the policy process feels like an enormous game of multi-dimensional chess, played on the other side of the looking glass, but the unwieldy collection of political dirty hedges provided by a patchwork of agencies is what we have.
Yes, it's undoubtedly true that some policy prescriptions, and concomitant regulatory arrangements, are feeble reflections of what is necessary to incentivise desirable behaviour, or sanction undesirable behaviour. Where there are vested commercial or political interests, such as around copyright, or reproductive health and embryology, regulatory bodies have to be strong to withstand the political interference that is prompted by furious lobbying. I come to the opposite conclusion to you, though, in thinking that we should strengthen weak regulators by providing them with the independence, resources, and capacity to perform their functions appropriately.
Alan C says:
"Teabaggers, immigration zealots, and sundry other collections of angry old white people can take to the streets donning semiautomatic rifles and threatening to revolt against the government without fear of molestation by the police."
Can you imagine the crackdown if even ONE of the Occupy WS protesters was armed, or suggested that it might become necessary to take up arms against the powers that be?
Mark says:
"It would be a mistake, I think, to look at either regulation, or regulatory bodies, as monolithic and completely entrenched within government."
Very true. The relative legal categorization and authority of any given agency certainly affects the incentives which act on it. Whether an agency is relatively independent or under direct political supervision may affect the speed or level of precision of the regulatory capture. However, I don't think this changes the underlying logic of incentive based structural analysis. All agencies seek to remain relevant, protect their turf, keep their budget, and increase their power. All economic firms want to protect themselves from competition and increase profits. There is a persistent inherently beneficial potential relation between these two types of organizations within the scope of governmental power. You can make an argument for a particular agency structure as more or less susceptible to this type of influence. But I have yet to see a convincing argument that shows any given type of agency is completely or even mostly immune.
"Where there are vested commercial or political interests, such as around copyright, or reproductive health and embryology, regulatory bodies have to be strong to withstand the political interference that is prompted by furious lobbying."
When are there not vested interests attached to any given decision? They may be weak enough to not significantly influence decision making, but they are still there. Their relative strength changes significantly and frequently, due to the rapidly changing nature of modern society. I think it would be foolish to declare any subject area "safe" from vested interests and then build a regulatory structure around that assumption. Unfortunately, this happens with disturbing regularity.
"I come to the opposite conclusion to you, though, in thinking that we should strengthen weak regulators by providing them with the independence, resources, and capacity to perform their functions appropriately."
Is political influence the only relevant type? Suppose a completely independent, self-appointing, self-regulating, self-funding enforcement agency. Would the lack of any formal political legal, or financial check on their decisions mean that they would be completely insulated any and all attempts to unduly influence them? I don't pretend to answer for you, but I think an affirmative answer is highly unlikely. Yes, you could say it all depends on who we put into the positions of power in the first place. But as I pointed out, an appeal to the beneficence of persons within the structure is a categorically different argument than the extrinsic analysis performed by Ed above. It is the difference in argumentation for similar structures that I question.
Elle says:
This wouldn't work either, and wouldn't be what I would propose. However a state, or collection of states, designs its regulatory architecture, each individual institution has lines of accountability for its budget, for its own regulation, and for its appointments. These invariably rest with its elected representatives, with various levels of intermediate accountability by way of whatever the executive branch of government looks like.
Yes, of course. However, there are issues in most (all?) states which are less fiercely politicised than others. (Because of different rules about political campaign financing, I think you would be genuinely entertained by what passes for lobbying in much of Europe.) I'm not sure I can think of any examples of where a regulator has been established with the understanding that its scope is uncontroversial, but I can think of examples where an advisory body has produced some very politically unpalatable recommendations to Government, and been hit as if with the fist of an angry god.
To go back to your earlier point, I don't think that regulatory architectures rest on the assumption that their own commissioners / directors / staff are good and moral. They wouldn't be so externally accountable, or have such developed governance structures, if this were the case.
I find myself frustrated by some of the regulators who operate within the sphere I work in, but the scrutiny they are placed under is a thousand times that of the commercial operators in my ambit. They seem very weakly accountable to their shareholders, and only rarely subject to any kind of significant external nudges that might change some of their socially undesirable behaviours.
Mark says:
This wouldn't work either, and wouldn't be what I would propose.
Right. However, it seems to be the logical result of your desire to "strengthen weak regulators by providing them with the independence, resources, and capacity to perform their functions appropriately." Removing the agency out from under the scope of the political system would facilitate its independence. Giving it control over its own funding would ensure it would have adequate resources. Having no legal recourse against their decisions would certainly increase operational capacity. Obviously, there are countervailing factors that weigh against doing this. My point, however, is that placing the agency under some higher authority does not destroy those countervailing factors. They simply shift to the higher authority.
These invariably rest with its elected representatives, with various levels of intermediate accountability by way of whatever the executive branch of government looks like.
Elected representatives who are highly susceptible to the adverse political influences we earlier established as undesirable. Hence (I assume) your desire for a more independent technocratic class. This independence, as I pointed out however, does not immunize regulators from structural incentives towards sub-optimal policy decisions.
but I can think of examples where an advisory body has produced some very politically unpalatable recommendations to Government, and been hit as if with the fist of an angry god.
True, and the democratic assumption implies that the politically unpalatable recommendation was probably sub-optimal. On a percentage basis, however, how many such policy decisions come under significant enough political scrutiny to actually defeat them? Is that number anywhere close to the number of actually probable sub-optimal policies? To put it another way: I've worked in a federal agency (US) when it got caught up in a political $h!t-storm for one of its decisions. The attitude of the agency heads was confusion: they made similar and even more controversial decision daily. The sudden, intense blowback seemed (and probably was) laregly random. This is not to say that democratic political countermeasures don't usually catch staggeringly bad decisions. They just usually have to be end-the-world bad in order to trigger a reliable response. Other than that, I think democratic political review is a thin reed to lean on when it comes to highly technical policy creation.
To go back to your earlier point, I don't think that regulatory architectures rest on the assumption that their own commissioners / directors / staff are good and moral. They wouldn't be so externally accountable, or have such developed governance structures, if this were the case.
Neither do I, though I do think some people slip into that type of thinking. But if this is the case, then we need to apply the appropriate level of scrutiny to those governance structures. Sheer level of development or complexity is not per sea sign of accountability. In fact, it may be the opposite, as it obscures review to all but the most familiar. We need to look at incentives, and realize that going into government does not automatically make one less selfish or more knowledgeable than the rest of the population.
Here's where we get around to my original point. The type of analysis Ed does of the police here is a relatively complex inferential argument. It looks at broad patterns of behavior, institutional incentives, social complexity, and integrates it with a healthy dose of skepticism and suspicion of authority. It is not an obvious or certain argument, and will probably not convince people who have a pro-police bias. It takes a certain level of what I call "skeptical credulity" (basically critical thinking that is skeptical to assertions but credulous to their arguments) to buy. I know many dyed-in-the-wool conservatives who would reject it out of hand, for many reasons similar to the ones you present. Yet it is a good argument, and has some very wide sweeping implications if valid.
My point is that this "skeptical credulity" seems to be conditional on the context for many people. For conservatives, the police and military can do no wrong; for liberals, regulatory agencies. It's the inconstancy that bothers me. We should either accept authority and existing power structures as a given, or review both from the same position where we take nothing for granted.
Fifth Dentist says:
See, the difference is that those hippie types in New York have no message or platform.
Whilst the Teabaggers had a simple, easily understood overarching theme: "Keep your guvmint hands off my Social Security!"
That, and hating on some fags.
Elle says:
I was actually thinking of the other circumstance, such as when the chair of the UK Government's Drug Advisory Council wrote a paper for the Journal of Psychopharmacology, in which he pointed out that mortality associated with the drug ecstasy was broadly the same as that associated with horseriding. The Drug Advisory Council advised the downgrading of ecstasy's drug classification, because it's not very dangerous, and that's one of the criteria for having a classification that prompts a certain level of criminal justice response. Cue furious 'will no one think of the children?' denunciations from all quarters, because ecstasy is the boogieman drug of my generation.
This is the problem with political oversight, because the principles of academic freedom and evidence-based policy are obviously less tabloid-friendly than tales of weeping, bereaved mothers and fathers. If we got to the point where Eli Lilly could sell MDMA, and the Government could tax it, then I'm sure we'd see the balance shift.
I do entirely agree with your final point, although I do think that the police/military and regulators are slightly different kettles of fish. There are a whole set of accountability levers, like freedom of information (however that's implemented at the state level), that the police and military have fairly hefty exemptions from. Of all the regulators that I'm familiar with, those that operate within criminal justice systems seem to have the fewest tools at their disposal, because the public will tolerate the abrogation of rights of those it perceives to be criminal, or otherwise having broken the social contract.
In summary, I agree with you.
Arslan says:
Maybe that "Marxist" rhetoric is right, Ed. See the thing that proves that it isn't just another job is that if I get assaulted by a barman, or even worse, threatened with a deadly weapon, I am legally allowed to defend myself. If a cop just decides to assault you while in uniform, not only do you have a right to defend yourself, but you will probably earn a stack of charges to go along with it.
My says:
Re: Mark:
"I don't watch Fox (or TV at all), so I'm in no position to respond there."
Wasn't looking for one; it was a shot at what I concluded was your intent to be humorous and my stating that it wasn't.
"From what I've gathered about their affinity for the military-industrial complex, I doubt you could honestly categorize them as libertarian."
Libertarianism is their "stated" preferred state of affairs. I'm under no illusion that it is fascism, followed by they-don't-care-so-long-as-status-remains-quo.
"I'm also not sure what the age of consent has to do with anything. Yes, legal minority is a carve out from traditional concepts of personal rights, but it is one that nearly everyone accepts. There is a difference between determining what the exceptions in legal minority entails, and determining when it ceases to apply. Do you have any evidence that shows a certain ideological view is correlated with the desire to lower majority status?"
After the first sentence of the above you do a bangup job of intentionally (I hope) missing the analogy entirely. If you can't make the connection, I'm not sure what the issue is, as you write well enough that I didn't think it was leap to assume you could connect the dots. Put it this way: The so-called free market isn't, and the dogma/propaganda spewed from the media and others does not count as informed debate. The most typical reason for being anti-regulation is that one is doing something they shouldn't. Seems easy enough to grasp to me…
"Your second paragraph supports my original point
My says:
Re: Mark continued:
"Your second paragraph supports my original point – which is the disconnect between Ed's "Marxist" analysis of local law enforcement's structural incentives on the one hand and progressives' general deferential treatment of high level law enforcement on the other. Yes, governmental agencies are filled with "profiteering, shady, inside-dealing, nepotist trash." If men were angels, this would not be so. But you can't build a system whose stability is predicated on the good moral behavior of the people within it. You must have a system which incentivizes optimal behavior regardless of personal behavior. A system which encourages sub-optimal behavior will produce such, regardless of the personal morality of those within it."
If my second paragraph supports your original point, then I can't help you. They are not filled with them, they are forced to work with/for them. In other words, Congressmen and their staffs and contractors and officers waiting their turn to be contractors contributing to Congressmen. It's not about the nice, neat, wide net of "men"; it's about the 1% undermining the proper functioning of govt. for their own profit, you obtuse douche. The stability is predicated on the Constitution and the rule of law. The system incentivizes optimal behavior; however, the system has been coopted by sleazy greedheads across the political spectrum enabled by 40-odd years of backlash against the struggle of the majority against the aristocracy. The sub-optimal behavior is resultant of the retardation of our political process by a small army of fascist-at-heart ideologues and warmongers.
"This is Ed's point about the police, and it is a very good one. Even though most police officers are probably good people, and even though they fulfill a very necessary role in our society, the way the departments are structured means that the police will also become jack-booted thugs when certain entrenched interests are challenged. I'm simply pointing out that this type of analysis is applicable in other areas."
You were not simply pointing it out. That's problem with turning a piece of written material into a mad lib: You point can only come out at least as muddled but likely much more so than the piece with which you started. Oh well.
"Actually, by traditional Marxist analysis, it is more applicable to high level government agencies than local PD's. After all, as people have pointed out, many low-level beat cops are actually sympathetic to the protesters. It is the higher-status, senior level officers who are engaging in the most egregious abuse. A Marxist would say that this is because the senior officers have been bought off by the owners of capital to the point where they begin to identify with them. Now, most federal level agencies are viewed in society as higher in status than most local PD's. It stands to reason, then, that the people who staff these agencies are MORE entrenched with the owners of capital than local cops. So why not apply the same standards of skepticism to them as to the local cops?"
Again, Captain Obtuse, wasn't talking about effing political appointees, et al. Bureaucrats, beat cops, the people at your local Social Security Office. Not suckers of Satan's cock, not cousins of donors, not water carriers. Capital has fuckall to do with what the average Federal employee does. Only a nitwit would draw a straight line from the Kock Bros. or Bushco, Intl. to a GS-11 working contracts in a depot in Utah. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR WORKING HAND IN GLOVE WITH THE MILITARY TO STRONGARM THE BUREAUCRAT INTO DOING WHAT THE CONGRESSMAN WANTS DONE FOR NO BETTER REASON THAN HE KNOWS IT BUTTERS THE DONORS BREAD. I hate to shout, but I went to school with too many other buttnuggets who want to turn everything into a pie-in-the-sky chat over tea instead of focusing on the realities of the situation, all the while doing excruciatingly gymnasticosophist pretzel flipz to avoid actually coming to grips with the fact that they are either wrong or divorced from having a valid opinion that stands up to basic concepts of what is ethical/defensible.
My says:
Also, just to reel it back in to the actual post by Ed, Cop friend's analysis of the local/beat cop is spot on. The culture of local mertropolitan police and in many ways local firefighters is remarkably uniform.
It always amazes me how gung-ho, Toby-Keithish they get as relates to the WTC attacks when in fact those events had sooo little to do with them personally or their lives since then. Just once I'd like to be able to respond to their sickeningly narcissist/self-righteous intonations re: 9/11, "Dude! You live in [small-to-medium town], [state at least 500 miles geographically and worlds away culturally]. The WTC attacks have fuckall to do with you and have only ever positively impacted your personal situation." without, at least, almost certainly getting punched/gang-beaten for calling the sacred cow-worshippers the poseurs they are…
Devon Belcher says:
The "marxist rhetoric" is that the police exist to serve the interests of the wealthy and powerful, and this is simple sociology. Sure. But in this case, it's even more insidious: the NYPD appears to be financed directly by Wall Street, and is in essence Wall Street's private security firm:
http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/07/the_nypd_now_sponsored_by_wall_street/
Barry says:
Ike Says:
"Yeah, a bunch of privileged “counter-culture” hipster white kids skipping class at NYU or wherever and hanging out in the middle of Manhattan doesn't do much for me. Must be so nice having that much free time without going hungry. Yeah, keep on tweeting about your “rebellion” against corporatism and globalization on your iphone kiddo. That'll show the man!"
The Teabaggers seemed to have a lot of free time on their hands, and also money (e.g, renting a rather large number of buses). And the person with the sign 'Keep Government Hands off of My Medicare' was probably not holding down a job.
Matt Taibbi's article was hilarious. Read it.