The ethics of protests at people’s homes

•  Note:  This blog originally appeared in the Pioneer Press on August 30, 2020.

Under what conditions, if at all, is residential picketing a form of legitimate protest or expression of ideas?

Recently in response to the death of George Floyd the streets in front of the personal residences of two police officers and their families have been the sites of public protest. So too has the Minnesota governor’s mansion, also located on a residential street.

First, no reasonable person should disagree with the proposition that racism is wrong. Nor should a reasonable person endorse unwarranted use of force by police, especially when done in a racially discriminatory way. What happened to George Floyd was a tragedy and whether the police officers are guilty of a crime is a matter for the courts to decide.

Regardless of legal verdict in the pending trials, individuals have a First Amendment right peaceably to assemble, protest, and present their views on public streets, however much we agree with them or find their views repugnant. There is also a right, whether prudent or not, to use language, symbols, and speech which many might consider to be uncivil, to express their ideas. None of us should be expected to use perfect grammar or prose, and sometimes the choice of words or symbols, however impolite some may view them, may be effective ways to convey a message or get attention.

There are limits to the expression of ideas in residential areas.

The issue is not civility but counterbalancing rights of individuals to be protected from harassment and unwanted speech from which they cannot escape.

In the 1988 case of Frisby v. Schultz (no relation to this author), anti-abortion protestors peacefully picketed on the streets in front of the home of a doctor who performed abortions. The home was in a residential district. Justice O’Connor, writing for the Supreme Court, recognized that streets even in residential neighborhoods were public, yet upheld an ordinance banning this picketing. It did so for a couple of reasons.

One, the Court recognized a right to privacy in our homes. There is a legitimate interest in protecting people from unwanted intrusions into their homes.

Two, unlike protests in front of businesses or other public accommodations, individuals in their private residences are captured audiences who have no ability to escape from speech they do not wish to hear. One may have a right to free speech, but not a right to force unwilling audiences to listen.

Protests, especially loud, long, repeated, or with large crowds, can be threatening, and if residents or neighbors have no means to escape, these protests have turned from legitimate expression of views into forms of intimidation. Even the liberal Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens, who dissented in  Frisby, contended that there are valid time, manner and place restrictions on speech, and a careful balance of expressive rights must be struck with efforts to protect privacy, captured audiences, and prevent intimidation. Contending rights must be balanced, and in some cases limited  restrictions on residential protests should be upheld.

There is a critical difference in the protests in front of the private residences of police officers versus the governor’s mansion in Minnesota. The latter is a public building with a public official. He is fair game for protest, however uncivil but peaceful it may be, and a different balance may need to be struck here that weighs more in favor of the protestors.

There is an additional problem with protests at private homes, at least as they have emerged recently. The demonstration at the home of Minneapolis officer Bob Kroll also targeted his wife. Bob Kroll’s wife is not Bob Kroll. There is an incredible amount of sexism in attributing the views of a husband to his wife, whether the attribution is positive or negative. We are all individuals and should be judged on basis of who we are as individuals, not by association.

But even if that protest had focused only on the officer, it subjected all parties in the household, including children and also perhaps immediate neighbors, to unwarranted intrusions on their privacy under circumstances where they had limited opportunity to escape speech they did not wish to hear. If the whole purpose of the protests at a private residence was in fact to trap people in their homes, then this was not speech but intimidation.

Some will argue that the protest intrusions here were justified in the name of abating racism. Others will contend that criticizing these protestors is racist. Both assertions are wrong and misdirected.

Abating racism and righting the wrongs it has caused do not justify committing other wrongs or trampling on the rights of others, no matter how noble the cause. If today it’s racism, tomorrow another perceived greater good may justify similar tactics, perhaps even for a cause you do not endorse and against people whom you do.

Finally, criticism of these tactics is not racist. It is an argument to respect rights and to suggest that there may be more effective and focused ways to make a point — and not use tactics that draw attention away from the message.

Biden versus Trump: A Tale of Two Americas

  The US Republican and Democratic Party national conventions are over.  Donald Trump and Joe

Biden are the official presidential nominees for the two parties.  In their acceptance speeches they 

define this election as a good versus evil, us versus them vision.   The stage is set for one of the most dramatic, polarized, and divided elections in recent American history. If the election were held today polls suggest Joe Biden would win. But there are still two months until the November 3, election. The end result is not certain.  It will be only a handful of voters in a few states that will decide the election.  All this shows how divided America is.

Joe Biden and Donald Trump closed their respective party conventions with the acceptance speeches.  These speeches defined their campaign themes and visions for America.  For both candidates, the central theme was defining the choice in polarizing terms, painting the other side as evil.  For Biden, his most memorable description of Trump and the election was to declare:

America is at an inflection point. A time of real peril, but of extraordinary possibilities. We can choose the path of becoming angrier, less hopeful, and more divided. A path of shadow and suspicion. Or we can choose a different path, and together, take this chance to heal, to be reborn, to unite. A path of hope and light. This is a life-changing election that will determine America's future for a very long time. Character is on the ballot. Compassion is on the ballot. Decency, science, democracy. They are all on the ballot. Who we are as a nation. What we stand for. And, most importantly, who we want to be. That's all on the ballot. And the choice could not be clearer.

Similarly, Trump stated of Biden and the election that:

At no time before have voters faced a clearer choice between the parties, two visions, two philosophies or two agendas.  This election will decide whether we save the American dream or whether we allow a socialist agenda to demolish our cherished destiny...And this election will decide whether we will defend the American way of life or whether we will allow a radical movement to completely dismantle and destroy it.

The two speeches were more similar in ways than few recognized.  Both invoked God, light, and goodness for their side, casting the other as evil, dark, and destructive.  Both sides invoked fear of the other.  Both defined the choice as all or nothing, a battle for the soul of America.  They gave a speech that was short in emphasizing policy proposals and specifics, a speech that aimed more to divide than unite –despite claims to the contrary–and a speech that was aimed mostly at their political bases, with hope that the few remaining swing voters would not vote for the opponent.  The speeches demonstrated the American divide and the difficulty of reconciliation after the voting is done. 

Yes, there were critical differences in the two speeches.  Trump lied more than Biden, or at least destroyed the facts more than the latter. Biden sought to speak to a far more diverse base of voters that included young people, people of color, urban, college-educated, and especially suburban women.  These voters are more divided than Trump’s, the latter of whom are mostly white, male, older, rural, and lacking a college education.  Biden’s supporters are less motivated to vote for him than Trump’s supporters are for their candidate.  Biden’s supporters see in George Floyd and the pandemic the need to address racial justice and health care, for Trump’s base it is the need for law and order and to close the borders to protect the country against immigrants and foreign influence.

In short, Biden and Trump gave the speeches both wanted and needed to deliver.  Both needed to motivate their bases and mostly did that.  Biden needs the swing voters and reached out to them, Trump less needs them to vote for them than not vote for Biden.  Both in their tales of two Americas set the stage for what promises to be a very close election in the electoral college. The election will be won or lost by the movement of a few voters in just seven states–Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin–where a few voters will decide whom they are afraid of most and which vision of America they accept.

The 2020 Presidential Race: It Ain’t Over Till it’s Over

 We might as well stop the presidential election now and declare Joe Biden the winner.  At least that is the consensus of the presidential prediction machines that political pundits and the media are

pouring out.    Much like in 2016 where nearly all the predictions had Hillary Clinton a certain winner over Donald Trump, the same mistakes are possibly being made again this year. But to invoke two Yogi Berra lines, “it ain’t over till it’s over,” and it appears to be “Deja vu all over again.”

            The Princeton Election Consortium gives Biden a 93% chance of winning. The Economist says it is a 87% probability, and Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight, the darling of presidential prediction pundits, as of August 17, 2020 gives Biden a 72% chance of victory.    Others such as 270toWin given Biden ample electoral votes to  become the next president.  Let’s declare the election over, save ourselves a lot of time and money, and make Joe Biden number 46.

            But’s let look at this again.  In 2016 the Princeton Election Consortium’s final prediction was a 93% probability of a Clinton victory. The 270toWin site reported that Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball, AP (Associated Press), the Cook Political Report, NBC, NPR, and others all gave final predictions of a Clinton victory. And FiveThirtyEight on November 8, 2016 (election day), gave Clinton a 71.4% probability of winning.  Obviously reports of Trump’s demise in 2016 were greatly exaggerated. The question is why so many predictors  made so many mistakes and potentially why they have not learned from their 2016 mistakes when forecasting for 2020.  As I pointed out in this publication in 2016, there are basic mistakes of analysis that pundits make and now prediction models are amplifying.

            Begin first with polling,  National polls do not matter because we do not elect the president by national popular vote.  Instead,  it is the electoral college that matters. US presidential elections are really 51 (50 states plus District of Columbia ) elections governed by different rules when it comes to voter eligibility and rules.  All that really matters is the race to get to 270 electoral votes.  Large popular vote leads in national polls may make one feel good but they do not necessarily translate into  electoral college victories. 

While most of the prediction models understand the electoral college issue, they nonetheless still  fail to appreciate that polling needs to be done at the state if not even at the county level to understand the micro trends impacting presidential elections.  As I have repeatedly pointed out, and do so again this year, it is a few swing voters in a few swing counties in a few swing states that will decide the presidential election.  More specifically, ten percent of the voters in 11 counties found in seven states will decide who gets to 270 electoral votes—10/11/7/270 is what the election is about.  Simply put, most if not all of the presidential prediction models work from polling at the wrong level of analysis.

A variation of this problematic analysis in 2020 is an argument being floated that  at some point the national public opinion  polls are showing such a large led for Biden over Trump (compared to Clinton versus Trump in 2016) that it necessarily means or translates into an electoral college victory for the former.  Nice theory but  not necessarily the case.  This argument is a form of the ecological fallacy where one tries to infer  the behavior of individuals based on group behavior.  Assuming that a really large national lead for Biden  will translate a victory for him statistically is wrong.

Second, as any good pollster will tell you, polls are snapshots in time and not tools of prediction or iron laws of certainity.   Polls tell us what will happen if an election were held today, not what is going to happen in 30, 60, or more days.  Lots of things can happen and change the political landscape.  In our heavily polarized era, it is probably not too many voters changing their views—there are really very few swing voters in the old-fashioned sense of changing partisan affiliations back and forth—but instead whether specific voters show up to vote or not.    Turnout mobilization is more of an issue than most models can predict.  They fail to capture how enthusiastic or motivated voters are, or assess properly what the remaining undecided voters in a few swing states will do when they decide to vote.  It was those who  did not vote or the undecideds who broke overwhelmingly in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin that decided the election by less than 85,000 votes.  Going into 2020, the models are making these mistakes again.

Three, all of these prediction models similarly err in thinking that campaigns and candidate strategies do not matter.  Consider Clinton in  2016. Bernie Sander beats her in caucuses and primaries in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan.  It then gets to the general election and what does she do?  Largely ignore campaigning in these three states and she winds up losing the latter two and almost Minnesota too.  In the closing days of the general election she runs off to Texas to campaign.  During the general election, as I calculated, Trump and Pence made far more campaign stops and appearances than Clinton-Kane, and in the critical Midwest, including Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, Trump showed up and campaigned.  If campaigns matter, Trump proved that in 2016.   Presidential prediction models and pundits simply failed to predict bad campaign choices.

The same could happen in 2020.  So far Biden has run a lackluster campaign, assuming much like 2016 that being against Trump is enough.  Already Trump has appeared in Minnesota  on the first day of the Democratic National Convention while Biden announced a virtual campaign for  that state.

I remember back to May 2016.  I was invited to a national conference on combating corruption, hosted by Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C.  In attendance were the luminaries of DC insider politics, and me, the odd person out.  At one point the talk turned to  the inevitability of Clinton’s victory  and how her transition team was already formed and legislation being prepared.  I pointed out that from the vantage point of the Midwest her victory was not inevitable or even probable.  The scoffs were intense and  I was lectured on the certainty of the prediction models which foretold her victory.

The flaw in these models is to think predictions are iron laws of destiny.  They are not. Some pundits in the past chattered out “demographics are destiny” in arguing that it was inevitable that Democrats would enjoy majorities for decades as the US population diversified.  The quality of campaigns, choices by candidates, and other political variables can intervene to impact elections.  Going into the 2020 presidential general election which has only started,  a lot can happen.    It ain’t over till it’s over as Yogi Berra once said, and right now all the predictions are setting up for  them to miss the mark and be Déjà vu all over again.

Why Ilhan Omar Won (and the mistakes her detractors made)

Two simple answers:  1)  She received more votes than her opponents; and 2)   She was the incumbent.  The first answer is obvious, so is the second, but neither are the end of the story and there are lessons to why she won and what it may mean going forward.

Congressional incumbents have significant advantages, that is why their normal re-election rate is 95-98%.  Those advantages are name recognition, money, use of office for constituent service, generally a pre-existing campaign structure in place, and prior experience in winning.  Omar had all this.  Yet as I noted in my piece in The Hill, the best time to put an incumbent is when they first run for re-election.  When that happens and the challenger narrows or eliminates the incumbent cash advantage, the latter’s chance for re-election approaches 50-55%.  That is where Omar was—she was still the favorite and Antone Melton-Meaux had to run a great campaign and have a perfect storm to win.  He did not.  He and his supporters made several mistakes, and Omar did not.

            First, what Omar did well was yet again recreate her social media campaign strategy that got her elected to the Minnesota House in 2016 and the US House in 2018.  She used that social media strategy effectively to reach Millennials in two previous campaigns and appears to have done that again.  Most of the mainstream media and analysts failed to observe this campaign technique—it is the 2020 version of private lawn signs or phone calls to supporters. She held her base, got out her supporters, and therefore received more votes than her opponent.  Moreover, Minneapolis and the Fifth District are but one example of a generational and demographic shift in the US where control of the Democratic Party is shifting to Millennials and Gen Z and away from Baby Boomers.  Omar benefitted from this.

            Melton-Meaux made several mistakes.  One, as was party of their strategy according to many I talked to—was to maintain a stealth campaign and not announce until the last minute in order to have the element of surprise.  But this surprise campaign came at a big cost—not providing sufficient information to voters about who he was or that he was even running.  Stealth campaigns produce stealth candidates who generally lose.

            Second, Melton-Meaux apparently had no or little social media campaign.  At a time of decreased mainstream television viewership, especially among Millennials and Gen Z, the failure to reach out via social media was a problem.  But connected to this issue is what appears to be a third failure—a limited ground game.  With all the money going into this race both to his campaign committee and via PACs, they seemed to think that television advertising or air wars was enough to win.  Ground wars, get out the vote, phone banking, contacting voters, is critical and this was missing from the campaign.

            Melton-Meaux not being the endorsed candidate meant he did not have the DFL party to support him.  The big winner in Minnesota on Tuesday was the DFL whose muscle provided the ground game for all endorsed candidates, including Omar, and that made a difference.  Again, as a stealth candidate lacking a campaign infrastructure, he was at a marked disadvantage to Omar.

            Finally, but perhaps not the last reason, Melton-Meaux worked for a law firm with a union-busting reputation.  This made him an excellent target for labor.  Had Melton-Meaux’s  supporters introduced and vetted him publicly much of this might have come out or his backers might have realized this as a liability and gone for someone else.

            Overall,  many factors contributed to Omar’s win.  But perhaps one could argue that  if Melton-Meaux’s supporters could not defeat Omar their hope  was to scare her.  Initial post-election comments do not reveal that and Omar comes out of the primary perhaps stronger than  before.  What lessons she and her detractors take from this primary are  yet to be seen.  Conversely, for those who publicly endorsed  Melton-Meaux,, they are weaker as a result.

            Going forward, though, it is not too early to think about 2022 if Omar decides to run again.  It will be after redistricting .  Right now, the Fifth Congressional district seems a good    fit for her with 60% of the population within the city of Minneapolis.  Consider some statistics.

            For the 2010 census, the average congressional district was 711,000 individuals.  According to the Census Bureau, as of August 12, 2020 the US population is 330,112, 127.  This would make the average district population 758, 878.  The estimated 2020 Minneapolis population is 435, 885, making it about 57.5% of the district.  Not much of a change compared to 2010.  Yet it is too soon to tell what the Fifth Congressional district will look like.  We do not know for certain if Minnesota, for example, loses a congressional seat.  All this is to say that  while for now Omar probably is safe and strong in a currently configured Fifth District, demographic shifts in a new districting, as well as the result of the 2020 Minnesota state legislative races complicate what Omar’s and all the other districts look like in the state.

Kamala Harris and the 2020 Presidential Election

 

Question:  

The US Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden has selected California Senator Kamala Harris as his vice-presidential candidate.  Were you surprised?

Schultz: Actually no, this was not a surprise.  If in January 2020 you had asked me what the Democratic Party ticket was going to be I would have told you it was going to be Biden and Harris.  Despite some early poor debate performances and his bad showing in the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, Biden always represented the compromise candidate whom most Democrats could support.  This is a race where Democrats are motivated to vote against Donald Trump and they needed a consensus candidate who could bring together support from various constituencies that hold together the party.

Senator Harris is a similar vice-presidential pick. She is not the liberal such as Stacey Abrams or Elizabeth Warren that the progressive swing of the party wanted.  But she is a candidate that most can live with, or, when faced with the prospect of Trump winning again in 2020, they will support.  At least that is the hope for the Democrats.

What does Harris bring to the ticket?

Schultz: Senator Harris is a good and obvious choice for many reasons.  On a personal level, Joe Biden said that his deceased son and Harris had worked together and therefore there was a personal connection.  That is important, at least to Biden who craves the interpersonal aspect of politics and trying to get along with others.

But more pragmatically, Harris may represent the future of the Democratic Party.  One, she is only in 50s, compared to Biden who would be 78 years old when he takes office if he wins this November.  Harris’s relative youth sets her up to perhaps run for president in 2024 or beyond.  Two, she is only the third female to be a vice-presidential candidate for a major party in America, and she is also the first mixed race (African-American and Indian).  Women and people of color are core constituencies with the Democratic Party and therefore she is a good choice for Biden to reach out to these groups.  Also, the future of the US is one that will be more multi-racial and therefore she is the face of the next America.

Are there good political reasons for selecting Kamala Harris?

Schultz: Yes.  One, is already has a proven track record as a successful politician, having served as a country prosecutor, California Attorney General, and now a US Senator.  She has demonstrated her ability to campaign and receive votes.  Two, she comes from a safe state. By that, California is a solidly Democratic Party state.  Should she become vice-president and have to resign her senate seat, there should be no difficulty in the Democrats holding it.  With other possible vice–presidential candidates such as Elizabeth Warren, it would have been less certain for the Democrats to hold the seat.  With the partisan or political control of the US an issue in 2020, this is an issue.

Three, Harris is a good debater, a known quantity to mainstream Democrats, and should prove to be a good campaigner for Biden.   Finally, as already noted, being female and a person of color she will help excite many voters to supporting Biden.

Develop this last point.  How will she excite voters or be an asset?

Schultz:  The Democratic Party in the US is really composed of three or four groups.  There are the urban liberals, young voters less than 30, educated women, and suburban voters.   Democrats need to mobilize all four of these groups to win.  Obama did that well in 2008 and 2012, Hillary Clinton failed to do that in 2016.  She lost not because there was a surge of Republican voters for Trump, but more because females, people of color, and young people did not vote.  

More specifically, for years I have argued that the single most important voters in the US are educated suburban women–or what used to be called soccer moms.  A quarter of a century ago they voted for Republicans but moved away from that party for a variety of reasons including reproductive rights, guns, education, and health care.  These voters are more likely to vote for Democrats but not always.  In 2016 many of these suburban women stayed home and Trump won.  In 2018 these women voted and put Democrats back in control of the US House.

Harris is an appealing candidate to educated suburban female voters.  She is professional, educated, successful, and while she is progressive, comes across as more centrist and moderate.  Many women see themselves in Harris.

But do Vice-presidential candidates actually matter?

Schultz: There is conventional wisdom that vice-presidential candidates matter and can move states.  Journalists and politicians swear by this belief.  However, my research and those by other political scientists larger dispute this.  Statistically it is hard to find support for this.  At best, maybe a vice-presidential candidate might affect 1-2% of the vote.

Think about it–most people cannot name who the vice-president is.  People vote for president, not the vice-president.  Although there is some evidence that Sarah Palin in 2008 hurt John McCain with the general election or voter even though she was helpful to him in getting the Republican Party support for his candidacy.

Harris could be the exception to the rule.  She might excite enough voters to make a difference.  But perhaps a better a way to ask is whether Harris will make a difference in the race to win the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.  Remember, as we saw in 2016, winning the popular vote is not enough, one must win the electoral vote and get 270 of these votes to become the president.

The presidential race is really as I have argued about holding your base and then winning the crucial swing states that will decide the election.  Thus the question is will Harris make a difference in the swing states?

Question: What are the states to look at?

Schultz: The presidential race is down to about seven states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.  These states have a total of 111 electoral votes and they will decide who becomes president.  The question is whether Harris makes a difference in these states.

Harris might possibly make states such as North Carolina and Georgia more competitive, but really the seven states noted above really are the core to the 2020 election.

What Minneapolis City Council Got Wrong in Trying to Defund the Police (or Personal Politics in the Age of Ignorance)

On June 7, 2020 nine Minneapolis City Council members at a rally announced their intent to defund the City’s police department. On July 28, 2020 President Donald Trump again promoted hydroxychloroquine as COVID-19 treatment against FDA recommendations.  Both of these actions are simply the latest examples of how politicians make political promises or policy statements for personal gain and in disregard for facts.  Both are examples of failures of leadership, political pandering, and  point to the problems of personal politics in the age of ignorance.

            Years ago I wrote American Politics in the Age of Ignorance:  Why Lawmakers Choose Belief over Research.  It made two points.  One, policy making should be evidence-based.  Good policy should be constructed on the best available evidence, data, or research available.  Two, so much of policy fails to meet this standard, often because lawmakers willfully ignore the evidence and instead choose to act for personal benefit or at the behest of special interests.  The result is that too much policy fails, public money is wasted, and government is far less effective than it could be.   Refusing to enact evidence-based policy also yields public cynicism toward government and sets reform up to fail.

            Political ignorance is not limited to indifference to scientific or social science evidence.  This is what Donald Trump has done consistently when it comes to  the pandemic.  From the beginning of the pandemic he has been in denial of its seriousness, often disregarding  Anthony Fauci and other experts’ advice when it comes to precautions, such as mask wearing.

            There is also a different type of political ignorance.  This is when  public officials ignore the legal constraints on their behavior  or propose policy abandonment and change without considering the consequences or offering alternatives.  Again, Trump is  an example of both.  Consistently he has made policy statements—such as recently that  he can change or postpone federal elections—when clearly the law and the Constitution say the contrary.  He has also endorsed repealing the Affordable Care Act without providing a viable policy alternative.  The US government is full of attorneys and policy analysts whom the president should have consulted prior to making statements or promises.

            But Minneapolis City Council is also guilty of political ignorance.  Whether defunding the police is a good idea is a matter for public debate.  But how Council has advocated this issue has been a failure.  The first mistake was nine Council members standing in front of a crowd announcing their intent to defund the police.  One problem was that such a policy  position possibly violated the Minnesota Open Meetings Law.  Nine council members appeared to arrive at a final decision on a matter of public policy that was not decided upon in an official meeting.  Some might claim at this rally was only speech making, but the fact that Minneapolis City Council fast tracked their idea to get it on the ballot this November and that they continue to advocate this position suggests that by the time this rally occurred nine of them had already made up their minds on the issue, contrary to state law.

            Additionally, when these nine members spoke they did so without consulting the law.  It seemed as if they were unaware of the City Charter mandating both that they have a police force and a minimum funding level for them.   They also seemed unaware when they proposed an alternative to the police that state law governs peace office licensing and training, that there are state laws regarding collective bargaining and labor unions that might apply, and that there was a recent Minnesota Supreme Court decision that might limit their ability.  Had Council members done their job competently and done their homework—which includes consulting their City Attorney whom they are already paying, they might have realized all this.

            In business and for non-profits in Minnesota and across the country there is something called the business judgement rule.  This rule requires board members to act as fiduciaries for their organizations and that they are required to make their decisions based upon the based available evidence or information.  Ignorance is no excuse;  you cannot fail to do your homework.  This is what at least nine Minneapolis City Council members did, and thankfully  the City’s Charter Commission, as it was supposed to do, served as a check on this political ignorance.

            The other major failure of Minneapolis City Council was its inability or dereliction in offering policy alternatives.  If  police are to be defunded what does that really mean?  There is merit to putting more money into social service and education programs, but what was their proposal?  What was and is their plan to address violent crime in the city?    Some point to  Camden, NJ as a successful example of defunding the police and  crime going down, but was that a result of defunding the police, privatizing it,  or a normal consequence of “what goes up (crime rate) must go down” over time?  We do not know.  A case study of one city proves little if anything and, if it does, what was it that worked in Camden?  Doing some policy research before  major policy overhaul would be good and the failure to do so is another mistake.

            Yes, in some cases crises demand immediate action but that is no excuse for acting without knowing what you are doing.  George Floyd’s death was tragic and something needed to be done.  But his killing did not come out of  nowhere.  Minneapolis’ history of police use of force and racial disparities in education, housing, and criminal justice have been known for years, yet this and previous city councils failed to act.  Dereliction of duty is as much a form of political ignorance as is simply doing something for the sake of looking like one is doing something, especially if there is no evidence it will work.

            There is nothing wrong with advocates who want a revolution and who want to change the world.  They should not necessarily be expected to have the solutions.  But there is a difference between being an advocate and a public official. For the latter, as the Beatles once sang:  “You say you got a real solution.  Well, you know, we'd all love to see the plan.”  Public officials who advocate without a  plan or even worse, without consulting  the evidence of gather the information  necessary to make good choices are simply pandering for personal gain.