A long, powerful history: How we militarized the police

Please Note:  Today's blog originally  appeared in Minnpost on August 26, 2014.

Policing in America has been shaped from its early days by a military structure, a war mentality and a cloud of racism that continues to repeat itself over time.

The shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, raises many troubling questions, among them: How did we come to militarize the police? The answer reveals a powerful history that ties race, class, policing and the military together.

The shared history goes back to the Reconstruction era. After the Civil War, federal troops were used to enforce civil rights and the Reconstruction in the South. But as a result of the disputed presidential election of 1876 between Republican Rutherford Hayes and Democrat Samuel Tilden, Democrats conceded the electoral votes to Rutherford if federal troops were withdrawn from South.

Passage of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act ended Reconstruction and barred federal military personnel from enforcing the laws. The Act does not apply to the National Guard, and over time they have been deployed repeatedly to keep the peace. A couple of examples: The 1894 Pullman strike saw 12,000 federal troops deployed to break up a workers' strike. In 1957 Eisenhower nationalized the Arkansas National Guard to enforce integration in Little Rock.

Prior to the Civil War, only a few American cities had police. Post Civil War, policing grew along several fronts. There were the Pinkertons, who were created as private police to bust unions. In the South, police departments emerged to maintain order against the freed slaves. In the North, they grew to check immigrants and unions.

Early 20th-century reforms

Reformers such as August Vollmer in the beginning of the 20th century sought to professionalize the police by reforming its structure and organization along a military model of authority and hierarchy, creating uniforms and command structures that exist to this day.

Yet the modern militarization of police in America owes it origins to several events. First, reaction to the urban riots of the 1960s led to President Lyndon B. Johnson signing into law the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The Act created the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, which made available grants to local governments to develop and purchase military-type resources to suppress the riots. The money facilitated the development of SWAT and other heavily armored police forces which had developed in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and other cities to counteract so-called black insurgency.

Second, President Richard M. Nixon’s declaration of the war on drugs and its reemphasis by President Ronald Reagan further enhanced the militarization of the police. It did so in its rhetoric — the war metaphor — sanctioning that a military-style response was needed to address drugs. But also underlying the war against drugs was a racial overtone — the urban riots of the 1960s and drug usage were often associated with blacks. This was seen later as punishment differentials between drugs such as crack and cocaine more heavily punished racial minorities than whites. American prisons and jails incarcerate far more people of color than whites for drugs.

Civil forfeitures

Third, the war on drugs encouraged the police use of civil forfeitures. This was the confiscating of property of convicted and sometimes suspected drug dealers. The theory was it would take the profit out of crime and prevent drug dealers from using their money to enrich their businesses. Civil forfeiture was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1996; it gave local police departments the money to be able to purchase even more military equipment from the Pentagon.

Finally, the events of 9-11 and reaction to it led to the collapse of the distinction between criminal policing, intelligence gathering and protection of national security. Laws such as the Patriot Act effectively turned the police into agents in the war against terror, again providing both a war metaphor to support aggressive policing and, with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, new resources and funds to fight that fight with military-style weapons.

Thus, policing in America has been shaped from its early days by a military structure, a war mentality and a cloud of racism that continues to repeat itself over time with racial profiling, the death penalty and shootings like that of Michael Brown in Ferguson. The only surprise is the degree of press and visibility it has received. Hundreds if not more Michael Browns have existed, and the question now is what America will learn from this latest tragedy.

What does it mean to be a progressive Democrat today?

What does it mean to be a Democrat let alone a progressive one  these days?  The question was prompted by my recent op-ed in Minnpost where in response to an argument against the State of Minnesota granting the NFL tax exemptions to host the Super Bowl, one reader wrote that he supported public funding for the stadium along with the tax breaks, and that he was a Democrat and a “fairly far to the left one too.”
    Since when does a progressive Democrat support tax subsidies and breaks for billionaires and hugely profitable private companies that generate few jobs for working people and provide entertainment (in person) that only a few can afford?  I thought that was what the Republican Party did?  With Democrats like this, who needs Republicans.
    But the debate over tax breaks for the Vikings stadium and the NFL does prompt a broader debate about what it means to be a Democrat or a progressive these days?   It is certainly not  good old-fashioned economic liberalism.  This is not Bill Clinton liberalism that supported NAFTA and welfare reform and which Mitt Romney once warmly embraced as the kind of Democratic Party politics he liked. 
    Instead, the progressive politics that appears dead is that of Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, and even Teddy Roosevelt. It is about a 21st century version of the Great Society and the New Deal.  It is about redistributive politics that seek to raise those at the economic bottom, narrow the gap between the rich and poor, and wrestle control of political power in the United States from corporations and plutocrats.  It is about the spirit of John Rawls, Michael Harrington, and Dorothy Day and a commitment to believing that the government has an important role in make sure we are a nation that is  not one-third ill-fed, ill-clothed, and ill-housed, that kids should not go off to school hungry, and that corporations should not have the same rights as people.  It is the idea that we help out the least advantaged and most vulnerable first and that the rich have an obligation to help the poor.
    What has taken over for Democrat Party politics is warmed over Republicanism–the centrist sort of corporate politics that some GOP once represented but now have  abandoned as it races further and further to the right, embracing xenophobia, homophobia, and a market fundamentalism that Social Darwinists would embrace. Oh, and vaccines cause mental retardation and global warming does not exist, at least this is what many current Republicans believe.  Even the Republican Party of Abe Lincoln supported civil rights, but not this party–instead it is committed to fine vision that a nineteenth century politician would weep over.  But now consider the Democrats.
    Start at the top.  Obama ran promising change.  The reason why so many are disappointed in him is not that he was too far left but that instead he failed to deliver on his lofty promises.  At inauguration Obama had a window to change America but he flinched.  Carpe diem was not his motto.  But in reality, Obama was never a progressive.  He ran for president opposing a single payer health insurance plan and instead embraced the Republican plan that Mitt Romney adopted in Massachusetts.  Obama was not originally in favor of repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and he did not embrace same-sex marriage until public opinion and political necessity dictated he do so.  
    Obama has deported more  individuals than any other president, he supports coal and nuclear power, and his big victory in repealing the Bush era tax cuts came with a reinstating of the payroll tax, imposing on Americans a more regressive and costly tax system than before.  Obama also defends the use of drones to kill Americans abroad, and he refuses to make any serious changes in an NSA surveillance program that  runs roughshod on the civil liberties of Americans. And in 2008 he took more money in from Wall Street than any presidential candidate in history.
    Across the board many Democrats seem confused to their identity.  They support public subsidies for downtown ball park stadiums and convention centers ahead of neighborhoods.  They defend NSA spying on Americans except when they are spied on.  They take little action to address the impact of money in politics and instead beg for money from big donors and PACs.  They offer few real substantive ideas regarding how to tackle issues such as the achievement gap and the economic discrimination against women (who still make only 77% of what men make).
    Worst of all Democrats lack the guts to fight.  Why?  Democrats (and one should not confuse the current party with progressivism) believe that they are the caretakers for government.  They believe that they need to be responsible and not run the risk of shutting the government down for fear of how it would ruin the economy or hurt people.  But conservatives know this and take advantage of the Democrats willingness to blink.  But guess what?  By blinking the Democrats are screwing over poor people and the economy slowly by giving ground one inch at a time and they seem unable to recapture it. Until Democrats are willing to fight and show conservatives they are willing to shut the government down and hold conservatives responsible they will never win.
    What passes for progressive  Democratic Party politics seems so bland.  Same-sex marriage?  Supporting it a decade ago was progressive but now that is mainstream.  Opposing NSA spying on Americans?  Even Rand Paul does that.  No one should be against strengthening anti-bully legislation.  This is not progressive politics but just common sense.  Yes, raising the minimum wage to an adequate level is good progressive politics, but few talk of living wages these days.
    Progressive politics is dead so long as it is married to the current Democrat Party.  Progressives need their own TEA Party revolution on the left–one that engineers a new rhetoric and take over of the party.  One that is not willing to play it safe and worry that if a few Democrats lose  that means the Republicans win.    It means a willingness to fight for what you believe in.  It also means believing in something worth fighting for.

Attacking unions: It's not about the money, it's about power

Today's blog appeared in Minnpost as an op-ed.

By David Schultz | Wednesday, Feb. 23, 2011

Efforts to bust collective bargaining rights in Madison are not about the money. Money and budget deficits are the pretext for a larger battle to attack government and break public-sector unions for political reasons.

In many ways, this is the logical continuation of the union-busting battle that began under the Reagan era. What is really going on here is an effort by corporations and the GOP to dismantle one of the few remaining institutions in America that defy their power. It is the battle to restructure labor markets to serve a broader corporate neo-liberal agenda.

Through the early part of the 20th-century unions lacked the legal authority to engage in collective bargaining and strike. Strikes to improve wages and labor conditions were considered restraint of trade or illegal combinations that were fought both by the law and by brute force. The Pinkertons were originally a police force used to break up strikes, and the origins of municipal police departments can be traced to efforts to control unions. Debates surrounding the Sherman Anti-Trust Act often included discussion over whether unions were trusts that should be prevented.

But through the early 20th century workers continued to strike and organize. They organized to earn better wages for their families. They organized to improve deadly labor conditions in mines, mills, and factories. Finally, the Wagner Act — aka the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) — in 1935 recognized the right to collectively bargain and organize in the private sector. Subsequently, similar rights were extended to workers in the public sector.

The NLRA was a success. By the early 1950s private-sector unions constituted approximately 38 percent of the private-sector workers. Wages, income and working conditions dramatically increased, economic inequalities decreased, work place safety improved, and features such as the eight-hour/40-hour work week emerged.

'A countervailing power'
Yet the 1950s was the high point of unions. Corporations hated them. Unions represented what John Kenneth Galbraith called a "countervailing power" on corporations. Yes, in many cases unions sided with management on protectionist practices (think of the car industry) and had corruption problems (Hoffa and the Teamsters), but they also did a lot of good, by raising the American standard of living. The real problem for corporations, and for Republicans, was that unions supported Democrats. They provided dollars, organizing, and votes for Democrats.

But the Vietnam War and the dual oil embargos in the 1970s precipitated a major fiscal crisis that produced decreased corporate profits. It was at this point that corporate and Republican interests converged to attack labor unions. Restructuring domestic and global labor markets by busting unions and dismantling government regulations would free corporations to cut wages, restore profits, and shift capital across the world. The beginning and most visible effort to break unions and limit their power was the decision by President Reagan to dismantle PATCO in 1981. He busted the air traffic controllers' union and that sent a clear signal that it was OK to go after unions.

Together the GOP and corporations waged a terrific battle against unions, claiming that America's economic decline was rooted in high union wages, inflexible rules, health care and benefits, along with excessive government regulation and taxation. Big government and unions were the cause of American decline. Of course, not all of this is true.

Comparatively, there are higher rates of unionization in Europe — along with higher wages, and these countries, especially Germany, remain very competitive. Yet blame the unions because they form a great scapegoat for American industrial decline. They hide the fact that many corporations failed to invest in new facilities in America and instead bled old ones. They failed to respond to new technological advances by Japan and instead sought restrictive trade policies to prevent foreign competition. One could go on and on, but the short answer is that unions and workers were not the cause for badly designed American products and they were not the reasons for economic outsourcing to China. Increased corporate power, globalization, and the drive to maximize profits, as Bennett Harrison and Barry Bluestone wrote in "The Great U-Turn," were the cause.

Private-sector unions weakened
The war on private-sector unions and government has been a success. Private-sector unions are now relatively weak. They constitute about 8 percent of the private-sector workforce. Their decline correlates with significant increases in economic inequality, declining wealth for the poor and middle class, and the weakening of the Democratic Party. The one stronghold for unions is the public sector. They constitute a larger percentage of the public sector workforce than do unions in the private sector. They generally support Democrats, and in return for lower wages compared to the private sector they have received greater job security and often better benefits. The job security in part was a consequence to prevent the politicization of the government, to protect from political reprisals, and limit patronage and the spoils system.

Public-sector unions are now under attack as governments now face their own version of a fiscal crisis. The battle in Wisconsin is part of a broader agenda to demonize public employees and government. It is easy to fault teachers and tenure for why Johnny can't read. Instead of adequate funding for schools or better social-welfare programs to prepare poor students to go to schools, blame teachers. Say it is their fault and take away tenure, put them on pay for performance, or close schools down.

None of this solves the problem.

Similarly, blame years of regressive tax policies on public-sector unions and fault workers as the cause of structural deficits. It is just so easy. It is a great wedge issue — play the resentment and divide and conquer cards with taxpayers and private-sector workers. Somehow if only corporations, and now government, could be free to hire and fire at will, slash wages, and gut benefits, then we would not need to raise taxes and our deficits would disappear. It is such a simple solution — instead of raising the standard of living for all workers, cut public-sector unions down. Level the playing field by bringing everyone down. This is what the battle in Wisconsin is about.

The costs of privatization: It may not save the state money

Note: This blog appeared on Minnpost.com on January 6, 2011

Gov. Mark Dayton and the Republican Legislature face a $6.2 billion deficit and a legal mandate to produce a balanced budget. They differ on how to address this task. One thing is certain: Some will argue that a solution is the privatization of state functions or services. For those who think privatization yields immediate savings, that is not necessarily correct. Privatization also forces critical tradeoffs in equity, service delivery to the poor, and perhaps in public safety, quality and accountability.

Privatization has multiple meanings. One definition is the selling off of state-owned enterprises that can make money as private businesses. This is what privatization generally has meant outside the United States, especially in former communist countries, where government enterprises such as utilities are sold to investors. Minnesota does not have these types of enterprises to sell.

Perhaps Minnesota could sell its prisons to be run privately, or maybe some transportation functions. Selling off prisons means a loss of control over them and the possibility of worker strikes. Privatizing snow plowing might save some money, but coordinating a massive fleet of private vendors to plow the roads is a costly logistical issue.

Second, privatization means contracting with private or nonprofit vendors to provide goods or services. Already Minnesota contracts out several billion dollars with vendors to provide many health and other services. There is little evidence here and in the research on privatization that this type of contracting saves money. Often the reason to do this type of contracting is to give more flexibility in service delivery, or to use vendors who have technical expertise the state lacks. But this flexibility and expertise is often costly.

Transaction costs
Also, contracting out often incurs significant transaction costs. Shifting state functions to third parties means expenses in phasing out and reorganizing the government and doing the bidding process to find vendors. When contracts are let, monitoring and compliance costs are incurred. Taxpayers should not foot the bill for contracts if there is no oversight to ensure that money is being spent properly.

These costs are often ignored when privatizing. A 2007 Legislative Auditor report noted that in 2005 more than $4.7 billion was contracted out to nonprofits for health services. It found little accountability and oversight for the money. It echoed a 1992 report that found little oversight given to technical contracts awarded by the state. Thus, taxpayers often do not know if they are getting quality services for their money.

There is also the assumption that letting contracts saves money because of vendor competition. Yet, the legislative auditor and others have found that competitive bidding environments rarely exist. Often only one vendor is available, because of technical skill or capacity, or because the contract needs to be for such a time period that it all but renders competition nil. Private monopolies replace public ones, but with less accountability.

Finally, with contracting out there is the potential for government actually to expand and not contract its reach. With government contracts comes increased supervision and control over private and non-profit entities. Those ideologically opposed to big government who see contracting out as a solution may find in fact Big Brother's reach gets even larger.

The shedding or unloading of state functions
Third, privatization means the shedding or unloading of state functions. This means that there are some functions the government will no longer perform or fund. Private vendors and citizens are on their own to decide how to distribute and receive these services. This type of privatization asks a normative question regarding what we want government to do.

Load shedding implicates tough choices with clear losers. Government workers lose jobs, as is true with other types of privatization. But as with any type of privatization, research suggests that load shedding means many people, especially the poor, will not receive some services. Equity is lost; the more affluent make do, the poor do without.

Approximately 76 percent of the budget goes to education and health and human services. Throw in public safety and local government aid and that totals more than 90 percent of the budget. No matter which privatization option is considered, the question becomes what do we not want the state to do that we feel the private sector can and will provide in a way that will not hurt the poor, affect quality of services, and which can save the taxpayers money?

Privatization forces tradeoffs. It may make sense in some situations, but thinking cost savings is the only issue is naive. Instead, a host of issues, including quality, equity, control and fairness must also be addressed.