The Surge That Was Exaggerated

In its ongoing series on "George Floyd and America," The New York Times recently published "Support for Black Lives Matter Surged Last Year. Did It Last?"  The piece was written by Hakeem Jefferson, an "assistant professor political science at Stanford University," and by Jennifer Chudy. an "assistant professor of social sciences and political science at Wellesley College." (Political science is not a social science at Wellesley?)

Among their findings, based on data from Civiqs, was that support for Black Lives Matter:

a) surged within the USA following the killing of George Floyd, though most among Latinos, followed by "others," then "blacks," and least of all among whites (though still a substantial rise);

b) a year after the crime, has dropped slightly among blacks and considerably among the other three ethnic groups;

c) is lower now among whites (and Republicans) than it was prior to the killing on May 25, 2020.

Yes, that's right. Both whites and Republicans, whose numbers overlap, support Black Lives Matter much less than they did prior to 2020, and generally oppose it.

That's astounding, or at least it would be- were it to notice- in the mainstream media, most of which was giddy upon finding widespread support for Black Lives Matter following the murder of George Floyd. A new era of respect for black Americans and, possibly, of contempt for local police forces was eagerly anticipated.

Survey results, as well as conclusions drawn from them, are always suspect. That's particularly the case here. Jefferson/Chudy analyze support for the upper-case Black Lives Matter, yet eight times refer to the movement. The survey itself exclusively utilized the upper-case

That's a critical distinction because messaging matters. In the video below, Charles Blow can be seen (at 2:38) asking 

There have been some politicians, including James Carville and even former president Barack Obama, who have suggested that the invocation of the phrase "defund the police" has been actually harmful to Democrats because it was harmful in the way people- the general public interpreted it. I assume tgat they mean in the way that white people interpreted it. Do you believe that has some impact on the way white people and Republicans supported or did not support Black Lives Matter?

 

Chudy was equivocal, odd because it is inarguable that GOP exploitation of the phrase "defund the police" has hurt Democrats, even though few Democratic politicians and/or officials have invoked the actual phrase, other than to warn against using it. Nonetheless, Republicans have been able to pin the phrase on Democrats. While murders have gone up in the USA, most crime- including serious crime- has not. Yet, the  mainstream media has dutifully propagated the notion that crime generally is rising, helping the GOP scare voters at a time when Democrats control the presidency, the House of Representatives, and (technically) the Senate 

Most jurisdictions have not made significant police reforms since Floyd's murder. However, the American people, stoked by a media which was cheered by the possibility of significant reform, likely believe otherwise. People hear that police have been demoralized since the Floyd protests, and seeds for a backlash are planted.

Moreover, messaging is not only important, but possible determinative. It was difficult to resist the slogan "black lives matter" because few people would deny that black lives matter. Many other people would refuse to admit to a pollster opposition to "black lives matter" (or Black Lives Matter). The person on the other end of the phone line rarely if ever sounds like the prototypical conservative- white; not young; not college-educated.  Giving the answer the pollster expects or would prefer is the path of least resistance.

It's a dirty little secret that neither academicians, journalists, nor pundits (certainly not politicians!) will admit: people lie. They lie to families, friends, co-workers, and especially strangers. Someone calling in June, 2020 to ask their opinion about a racial matter is a stranger. One year out, it's becoming ever clearer that America as a whole has not been as enamored of the movement as we were led to believe.

Share |

What, No "Bolshevism"?

In 2018 Taylor Swift urged voters to reject the bid for the U.S. Senate of Republican Marsha Blackburn in favor of Democrat Phil Bredesen. Blackburn won easily but not before Swift had blasted her in an Instagram post, remarking

I cannot vote for someone who will not be willing to fight for dignity for ALL Americans, no matter their skin color, gender or who they love. Running for Senate in the state of Tennessee is a woman named Marsha Blackburn. As much as I have in the past and would like to continue voting for women in office, I cannot support Marsha Blackburn. Her voting record in Congress appalls and terrifies me. She voted against equal pay for women. She voted against the Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which attempts to protect women from domestic violence, stalking, and date rape. She believes businesses have a right to refuse service to gay couples. She also believes they should not have the right to marry. These are not MY Tennessee values. I will be voting for Phil Bredesen for Senate and Jim Cooper for House of Representatives.

Taylor hit (almost) all of the (relatively safe) cultural g-spots- supporting equal pay for women, same sex marriage, and racial civil rights while opposing domestic violence, date rape, and discrimination against gay individuals.  She left out reproductive freedom and discrimination rationalized by alleged religious faith, but, hey, she has a career to protect.

So now the Tennessee Senator has taken to denouncing Swift:

Marsha Blackburn appears to be confusing socialism with Sharia. Is there an IQ test you have to fail to be a Republican politician? https://t.co/pMLxE7U5a0

— Duty To Warn 🔉 (@duty2warn) July 9, 2021

Taylor Swift may oppose rule by the wealthiest .1%, but it's not a priority, unless those rulers are from an unapproved racial or sexual group. Although Senator Blackburn is describing Sharia, she probably is aware that Swift's beef with her is not over monopoly, anti-trust, government deregulation, or taxation or anything obstructing the lower or working classes. 

Nonetheless, Blackburn ends her attack on Swift with "They don't allow protection of private intellectual property rights."

Private. Property. She is singing from the old GOP playbook in which one economic class is entitled by divine right to rule over the others.

It may be no coincidence that President Trump's once sobriety-deprived quack of a doctor is going the same route:

Rep. Ronny Jackson describes Democrats as "socialist communist Marxist" pic.twitter.com/C5owdD9wHv

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 9, 2021

Republicans promote anti-minority policies, the most notable and significant being voter suppression. However, they often are afraid of confronting the culture wars directly.  The "socialist" thing is safer because it shields Republicans from being labeled "misogynistic" or, worse yet, "racist." so over the next 16 months, there will be more of this.

Democrats are not defenseless. Try"if helping mothers with child care...," "if regulating Big Tech...." or "if public education of our children...."  Otherwise, there is the old standby: "Republicans used to call Social Security and Medicare 'socialist.'"  Sometimes, truth is the best defense and offense.

Share |

New, Not Improved

Got a problem? Expand the bureaucracy and do something new and different. There is no joy in determining the value of an existing program . Wednesday night, Rachel Maddow welcomed (at 2:40 of this video)

Phillip Goff, a Yale scholar and an advocate on guns and policing issues, and Katie Porter, who this week in the New York Times about trying to promote nationally an innovative idea to reduce police shootings when people call 911 because somebody is in a mental health crisis or because they need a safety check-in, somebody behaving irrationally, somebody, for example, posing a threat to hurt themselves.

Worse yet, those individuals often are posing a threat to hurt others and may be armed. But please go on:

If somebody calls 911 for that kind of a crisis, the first responders dispatched in response would be trained mental health workers. That's who would get there first, not necessarily armed police officers as the first response, but people instead specifically trained in mental health and substance abuse issues, to defuse the situation, de-escalate, try to get some help there.

They would be trained in mental health and substance issues, but not, it appears, at all in enforcement. They also would not be feared or respected in the same manner as would police officers, which could be a huge problem.

Nonetheless, it's only fair to go to the original source, the op-ed by Porter, perhaps the foremost expert in business law in the House of Representatives, and Goff, whom Maddow cannily failed to note is a professor of African-American studies and psychology. (I'm shocked, shocked! that a psychology professor would think that social workers can displace policeofficers.)  Goff and Porter explain thatin February, Porter introduced the Mental Health Justice Act, which

would create a national grant program to pay for first responder units made up of mental health providers on the local level. When people call 911 because of a mental health crisis, these units would act as an emergency response team. Their goal would be to defuse the immediate crisis and serve as a gateway to resources such as counseling, substance abuse treatment and housing assistance. Decisions about when and how armed police officers would become involved would be left to each locality. 

They claim

In a national poll from Data for Progress and The Appeal, 70 percent of likely voters support federal grants for programs that send “responders with the proper training and expertise instead of armed police officers” to calls for mental health crises, substance abuse issues, homelessness or safety check-ins. The issue enjoys majority support from Democrats, independents and Republicans — a rarity in our current political landscape.

It turns out that The Appeal is an organization with a website including such articles is "Policing is not 'Public Safety'" (except, evidently, in New Jersey, where a mob decided it is); "Mass Clemency is a Necessary Response to Mass Incarceration" (throwing open the prison doors always a solution to violent crime); and "NYC Voters: Prioritize Policing Alternatives to Tackle Violence" (as they took the most significant step in electing as mayor a supporter of stop-and-frisk).

There was a semblance of objectivity to the survey question:

Do you support or oppose federal grants to support programs that send responders with the proper training and expertise instead of armed police officers to calls for mental health issues, substance use disorder crises, check-ins for health and safety, or someone experiencing a lack of housing?

Respondents were asked to compare sending "armed police officers" with individuals "with the proper training and expertise."  The Appeal was sufficiently savvy not to specify "social workers." It also was wise to ask the question immediately following a question referring to Derek Chauvin who, as anyone to the right of The Appeal would acknowledge, is not a typical police officer. The Appeal got the results it was looking for.

And so Goff and Porter were able to slide it into an op-ed endorsing a new program instead of building one one already in effect. In November, Peninsula Press reported of the second largest city in Missouri

Sgt. Jake Becchina, a public information officer and member of the KCPD for 17 years, said the department faces decisions about where to pare down resources as they work with the new budget. “One of the obvious ones . . . right off the top would be the Social Services Program,” he said.

“A large budget cut portion would take a lot of resources away from some of those elective things that we consider to be so vital, but that are still less vital than responding when you call 911,” he added.

Kansas City was the first major metropolitan city to staff social workers as part of police deployment, according to (public information officer, St. Jake) Becchina. They announced the program in 2018, with aims to embed a social worker in each of their six patrol divisions. 2019 was the first full year all six workers were officially active.

While the social workers were initially contractors funded by a donation from a local Kansas City family, 2020 was the first year the Kansas City Police Department took over full funding of the program and the workers became full-time employees.

“There are a lot of people dealing with issues in Kansas City that are frankly not the job of police to address: family problems, poverty, addiction and more . . . Social workers can address such issues in a way that brings lasting, positive change,” Kansas City Police Chief Richard Smith said in a 2018 blog post announcing the program.

Police officers will refer social workers to a scene to support families in need of assistance. From the program’s inception in 2018 to June 14, 2020, the social workers have been referred 3,074 times, according to Becchina.

Lindsay Moran, a licensed master social worker (LMSW) stationed in Kansas City’s metro patrol division, says the city’s program is unique.

“We respond to 911 calls with them . . . They are our partners . . . we’re a package deal. And so that’s something that we’re really proud of,” she said. Tori Cawman, another Licensed Master Social Worker stationed in the central patrol division, added that other social workers in police departments are typically brought in from an outside agency as opposed to embedded in the force.

 One social worker is embedded at each division: One in Clay County, one in Platte County, and four in Jackson County. Moran added that the needs of each station are specific to each part of the city they cover.

This appears to be a very good idea and program, yet one which has garnered little attention.  Perhaps the US Congress is relatively disinterested precisely because it is in effect. Why bother with a tried-and-(possibly) true approach when we can be, in Maddow's words, "innovative."

Investigating this approach would be productive. However, the program itself in Kansas City is in jeopardy. That public information officer, Sgt. Becchina, also

said the department faces decisions about where to pare down resources as they work with the new budget. “One of the obvious ones . . . right off the top would be the Social Services Program,” he said.

“A large budget cut portion would take a lot of resources away from some of those elective things that we consider to be so vital, but that are still less vital than responding when you call 911,” he added.

As of six weeks ago, funding for the Kansas City Police Department’s Social Services Program and its divisions in flux.  That is unfortunate because placing a social worker (or two), ready and able to assist the department for which it works and to which it is accountable is superior to the Goff-Porter idea. The federal government could generously subsidize such a program in many major cities.

That should be pursued, and would be, were it not insufficiently imaginative or cutting-edge for a social scientist, a US congresswoman, or the US Congress generally. It's always more fun and more self-affirming to be "innovative."

Share |

Overreaction

Beginning at 7:33 of the video below, Critical Race Theory foe Christopher Rufo states accurately but irrelevantly

You can retreat to the defensible territory of saying it's just looking at the history of racism and society. But when you actively look at the specifics, they're telling kids that they are fundamentally racist because of the  color of their skin. They're telling people they should feel shame, guilt, and anguish because of their inborn characteristics and traits.

Nor is it controlling because it is "Creating Racial Tension," as this young woman points out:

In this op-ed in The New York Times, the eclectic group of authors Kmele Foster, David French, Jason Stanley and Thomas Chatterton Williams explains

Some of us are deeply influenced by the academic discipline of critical race theory and its critique of racist structures and admire the 1619 Project. Some of us are skeptical of structural racist explanations and racial identity itself, and disagree with the mission and methodology of the 1619 Project. We span the ideological spectrum: a progressive, a moderate, a libertarian and a conservative.

The writers take aim at legislation recently approved in Tennessee, Oklahoma, Iowa, Idaho, and Texas severely restricting what can be taught in public schools and/or colleges even

Though some of us share the antipathy of the legislation’s authors toward some of these targets, and object to overreaches that leave many parents understandably anxious about the stewardship of their children’s education, we all reject the means by which these measures encode that antipathy into legislation.

They do so because

the very act of learning history in a free and multiethnic society is inescapably fraught. Any accurate teaching of any country’s history could make some of its citizens feel uncomfortable (or even guilty) about the past. To deny this necessary consequence of education is, to quote W.E.B. Du Bois, to transform “history into propaganda.”

What’s more, these laws even make it difficult to teach U.S. history in a way that would reveal well-documented ways in which past policy decisions, like redlining, have contributed to present-day racial wealth gaps. An education of this sort would be negligent, creating ignorant citizens who are unable to understand, for instance, the case for reparations — or the case against them.

Because these laws often aim to protecting the feelings of hypothetical children, they are dangerously imprecise. They are "broad, vague laws violate due process and fundamental fairness because they don’t give the teachers fair warning of what’s prohibited

I suspect the laws are largely a proxy, yet not for racism, nor even for ginning up the culture war. Rather

They are speech codes. They seek to change public education by banning the expression of ideas. Even if this censorship is legal in the narrow context of public primary and secondary education, it is antithetical to educating students in the culture of American free expression.

There will always be disagreement about any nation’s history. The United States is no exception. If history is to judge the United States as exceptional, it is because we welcome such contestation in our public spaces as part of our unfolding national ethos. It is a violation of this commonly shared vision of America as a nation of free, vigorous and open debate to resort to the apparatus of the government to shut it down.

It's an effort to shut off debate. In schools as in the public square and on social media, vigorous debate is a societal good and its suppression, not coincidentally, would undermine public schools. Ironically, both critical race theory and the effort to ban teaching it are guided by a destructive desire to disregard these important precepts of a democratic society.

 

 

Update: This latest move, which was announced by the NEA as I was writing this post, can only embolden the state initiatives criticized by the op-ed writers. Still, theirs was a wise and important argument.

 

 

Share |

The Reason For This Season

In the autumn of 1970, a casual discussion took place among male college freshmen in a common area of a dormitory of a college in New Jersey.

One of the students, a Polish-American Catholic from somewhere or another, warned the group "Jesus is the reason for the season."  There was no reaction, or at least none memorable, though even then it was a minority position.

A half century later, the freshman's protestation of the commercialization of Christma sis a relic of a bygone era in most of the of the densely populated regions of the country.  Degree of comfort with reality differs from one individual to another. However, the vast majority of Christians who identify as Catholic, Protestant, and/or Christian as well as those minimally Christian, recognize that secular pursuits- family, buying gifts, Santa Claus, or whatever- have become the reasons for the season.

Although most other holidays no longer are celebrated or memorialized as originally intended, perhaps no other has been as thoroughly trivialized or bastardized as has Christmas.

Alas, there may be an exception.

Going into the woods for a few days. Everyone be good and Happy 4th ✌🏽

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) July 3, 2021

She might as well, at the applicable time of the year, wish everyone a happy 27th; or 18th; or 6th. Not even a "Happy July 4th" of "Happy 4th of July" is wished. That would be too much effort. It's a "happy 4th" which, theoretically, could be a 4th child, a 4th adopted dog, or a 4th marriage; anything.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, she of the annoying nickname of "AOC," is no purveyor of barbecue equipement, fireworks saleswoman, meat retailer, or marketing executive for a major retail firm. She does not represent a firm or interest with a pecuniary motive to emasculate the holiday.

She is a United States congresswoman. And she cannot, or will not, manage to acnowledge that independence is the reason for the season. On this blog, however: Happy Independence Day to all Americans, and to all residents of this land who aspire to be Americans.

 

 

Share |

The Leadership That's Lacking

In an excellent article in New York magazine, Eric Levitz summarizes

Progressives aren’t going to get the media to ignore crime for the sake of social justice. And we aren’t going to persuade the urban working class to disregard rising homicide. Thus, our best bet for resisting a punitive turn in criminal-justice policy is to convince voters that our approach to public safety is more effective than the pro-carceral status quo.

Levitz might as well have been responding to this tweet from the black journalist responsible for the 1619 project:

Given that actual crime is not at or near a 20-year high, not even close to it, where do you imagine these perceptions have come from? Media cannot help itself. https://t.co/kRUMK3tz6d

— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) July 2, 2021

He might have been responding to it, but wasn't- or at least won't admit it. He notes

there is no progressive argument for why (relatively) rare episodes of mass violence in places frequented by the white middle class deserve media attention and political concern — but a 30 percent increase in homicide concentrated in low-income Black communities does not. And of course, the trauma suffered by middle-class news junkies who opt into witnessing mass shootings on social media is trivial compared to the trauma suffered by poor children whose every walk to school is shadowed by the threat of lethal violence.

Here, the operative phrase is "the white middle class."   He argues

But a recent Yahoo News/YouGov survey found that concern with crime was significantly higher among the demographic groups that suffer the highest rates of firsthand victimization. Asked whether they considered crime a “very big problem” in America today, 59 percent of Black voters said yes, while just 47 percent of white voters said the same. Similarly, while only 41 percent of voters earning over $100,000 a year called crime a “very big” problem, that figure was 50 percent among those earning less than $50,000.

The urban working class’s acute concern with crime is further illuminated by a Gallup poll taken last summer, in the immediate aftermath of the George Floyd protests. In it, only 19 percent of Black respondents said that they wanted a reduced police presence in their neighborhood — this despite the fact that, in a nearly simultaneous survey, more than 80 percent of Black voters said that they lacked confidence in the police.

Weall  realize "concern with crime was significantly higher among the demographic groups that suffer the highest rate of firsthand victimization," an inoffensive, politically correct way of acknowledging that crime is highest in poor black neighborhoods. Consequently, as Levitz points out, very few blacks want fewer police in their neighborhoods. Realistic perception,  appropriate response.

Levitz recognzies that

Over the past decade, the American left has come to define itself in opposition to our nation’s criminal-justice system — to the aberrant length of its prison sentences, the inhumanity of its penitentiaries, and the racism of its policing. Amid the nadir in violent crime (and high tide of post-2008 budget austerity), reform gained traction. Drugs were decriminalized, prison populations cut, progressive prosecutors elected, mandatory-minimum sentencing rolled back, and police killings in major cities marginally reduced.

Yet, for the first nine years of that decade, such opposition to the arguably inhumane operation of the criminal justice system (and of policing) took place in the context of other major issues with which the left also was identified. But the ability to pursue criminal justice reform largely under the radar was shattered with the murder of George Floyd.  Issues of crime and justice, race and policing inevitably took center stage.

The American left (and most of the mainstream media) vigorously intensified its dedication to criminal justice and policing reform during the protests which erupted in outrage at the murder.  Additionally, support for the black lives matter slogan and for the organization, Black Lives Matter, which spawned it rose in backlash to the horrific images from Minneapolis.

Though- as Levitz emphasizes- blacks have been particularly concerned about urban crime and averse to eliminating police, surveys indicated they were particularly aware of police abuse and especially supportive of the protests and of Black Lives Matter. 

More significantly, there was  from civil rights organizations unilateral condemnation of the murder of Floyd and  nearly unanimous, unwavering support for the ensuing protests.

They were all in.  And the white left joined them, partly out of ideological conviction, partly at the realization that African-Americans now comprise the base of the Democratic Party, its most loyal and dedicated voters, and source of much of its energy. 

Nonetheless, for Levitz and most others, it's now "the American left" or "liberals" or "progressives" who are responsible for neglecting the extent of urban crime and its impact upon the black community.  They clearly imply that the burden for responding to ongoing criminal behavior lies with broad leftist community and especially its white component. 

If white liberals were to speak out against street crime (old term, still applicable) as Levitz justifiably believes they should, they run a huge risk.  To date, civil rights organizations and prominent black politicians have done so rarely and reluctantly. They must take the first step.They must lead the way as they did in elevating Joe Biden, who was obviously over-the-hill and seemingly out of touch with the progressive wave in the party, to the Democratic nomination for President.  

 

 The "American left" can decry crime in poor black communities as much as it does mass shootings. The right would exploit the criticism for its own ideological and partisan gain. However, in this highly polarized time, that would be far less damaging than would failure to gain support from the base of the Party..

That likely would not be forthcoming. If such crime were a priority for the African-American left, we already would know about it. Black politicians, journalists, academicians, activists, and others would be leading the charge against everyday violence and in favor of more police and longer prison sentences to combat it.

But they are not. So members of the larger progressive or liberal community can respondrespond in revulsion to the everyday acts of violence in American neighborhoods. However, they do so at their own peril, risking a backlash of complaints suggesting a lack of sensitivity, or even animus, toward the black community.  And they risk whiplash, abruptly turning their head backward to that limb that is being chopped off behind them.

 

Share |

The Backlash Is On

In late December, a reporter at NBC News analyzed the "movement, slogan,and rallying cry" of Black Lives Matter and noted

But what appeared to be a changing tide in public opinion has since faded along with the protests. Support for the BLM movement reached a high in June with 67 percent of U.S. adults expressing at least some support for the movement, according to Pew Research. The figure had shrunk to 55 percent by September, Pew reported. Now, 48 percent of American voters support the movement, according to recent tracking data from Civiqs. (The recent number still shows an increase from pre-protest levels.)

A more recent poll of the support of the movement would be helpful. However, we can speculate a little on how that would turn out. Results of a Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll taken in mid-June:

Amazon has the highest favorability ratings of any institution in the country except for the U.S. Military 🤯 pic.twitter.com/PMXDDeQSgC

— Alec Stapp (@AlecStapp) July 1, 2021

This Director of Technology Policy finds it significant that aside from the US military, Amazon has the highest favorability rating. The Centers for Disease Control, despite a campaign waged against it by the far right, is still viewed favorably. And some tweeters wonder how 2% of the population never have heard of the police, though the number is likely lowerthan that.

But consider also that fourteen months after the murder of George Floyd and its aftermath, 69% of respondents have a favorable or very favorable opinion of police.

That may be a good sign. Perhaps police across the country are making strides toward improving relations with the community they serve, and citizens are taking notice and responding positively. And perhaps in six months, Santa Claus will slide down my chimney and give me a voucher for the 2022 automobile of my dreams.

The dueling slogans of 2020, which have endured with less emphasis in 2021, were "black lives matter" and "blue lives matter," the latter hatched in angry response to the former.

One survey proves little but it is a hint; it is not a shout, but a whisper. However, some state legislators in Ohio seem to have heard, for

A proposed state law that could make it a crime to shoot cell phone video of police got the green light by lawmakers to move forward following a statehouse committee hearing Thursday in Columbus.

Members of the House Criminal Justice Committee voted to approve the measure despite more than 100 civil rights, first amendment groups and individuals testifying against the measure since it was first introduced.

House Bill 22 would expand Ohio obstruction of justice laws by including failure to follow a lawful order from police or diverting a law enforcement officer's attention.

Were it not for the cell phone video of Darnella Frazier, George Floyd might still be a member of the Minneapolis Police Department.Those legislators in Ohio know that they cannot prevent the police from irresponsibly killing a suspect but they think they know how to prevent it from being publicized. And the betting here is that the public is increasingly fine with that.

 

Share |