Have We Gone Mad?

It seems so.  A police officer in Minneapolis places his knee on the neck of a suspect who dies as a result.  And in a matter of hours, protests, violence and looting erupt across America.  The cry from such groups as “Black Lives Matter” is “stop police brutality” as if one officer’s conduct in one city is representative of law enforcement everywhere.  Then, in a matter of days, the calls are for an end to “institutional racism” which morphs into demands for the removal of symbols of racism such as confederate statues and those of prominent American founders.  And, of course, moves to defund police departments were widely heralded.

What happened?  It was no surprise the Radical Left welcomed the opportunity to exploit the Minneapolis tragedy by participating – and leading – protests containing violence-prone members.  

But what was not foreseen was the manner in which the usual media outlets downplayed the violence and concurred in the script entitled “Police officers aim to kill blacks.”  At the same time, those on the Right, Republican leaders in particular, who should have been disputing that false narrative were largely silent.

“Black Live Matter” as an organization is a fraud.  Leave aside its outrage when even a left-wing politician (like Bernie Sanders) counters “All Lives Matter”.  They don’t want to hear it.  In truth, it seems indisputable that for the group’s adherents, Black lives matter only when ended by police action, justified or not.  Where are the protests in Chicago where 315 homicides, mostly black on black, occurred last year alone?  By contrast, 235 blacks died as a result of police action that year in the entire country.   In 2018, over 7400 blacks were murdered nationwide, again mostly by fellow blacks.  By contrast, whites who are six times more numerous in the United States, included about about 6000 murder victims.

Yet the allegation of racism is so intimidating – even terrifying – to a prospective target, few have the courage or the inclination to tell the truth. 

Certainly not craven leaders in the media and the business world who seemingly are stepping all over one another to climb aboard the “BLM” wagon and join in the left-wing chorus about police brutality.  It’s simply easier to go along.

Yes, we’ve gone crazy in supplication to ignorant mobs.  But it is very saddening – and alarming – for America that so few of us are willing to raise our voices in her defense.  What happened to our national character?

New Covid-19 Statistics - What They Mean for Public Policy

News broadcasts feature prominently each day Covid–19 infection and fatality numbers.  The death rate in the U.S. is presented at about 6% (7% worldwide).  These are horrifying and scary figures, indeed.

However, recent testing of thousands of Americans suggests that these results are heavily skewed on the negative side.

Apparently, far more people have been infected than was previously believed.  That is because the virus results in little or no problems for most of those infected.  Further, the updated statistics make clear that, except for the elderly and those affected with serious health conditions (such as diabetes) the risks are mild and low.

The revisions, however statistically sound they may be, are not very comforting for the exceptions just noted.  Isolation, “stay at home” remain appropriate policies for them until such time as a vaccine is administered.

But is that sensible?  Having been alerted to the risks, should not competent members of the vulnerable group be free to join the broader society, if they wish?

What about children returning to school?  In most situations, that would seem the right thing to do.  Neither the children nor staff members (because of relative youth) are at serious risk.  But here is a complication.  What about the child who lives with grandparents?  Although the child who becomes infected is likely to be OK, he can nonetheless spread the virus to them.  Isolating the elderly family members from the grandchild living with them is totally unrealistic.  Does that mean that a child in that situation should not go to school?

Likewise, is the middle-aged child caring for her 85 year old mother going to be able to return to work?  If so, she too is risking the exposure of her parent to the virus she will likely carry, even if asymptomatic.

To be sure, there are difficulties to “re-opening” life and inevitably there will be second-guessing if and when death rates move up.  But a free society – to which most Americans seek to return – has always carried risks.  Inherent in the exercise of freedom is that some will abuse it by acting irresponsibly or malevolently.  Focus on the abusers, not the vast majority who are not.

Thus, for instance, leave beach goers alone.  They do not pose serious threats to the non-elderly.  Same goes for any other large gathering including concerts and sporting events.  Go at your own risk. 

That is what freedom is – and America should be – about.

What is Institutional Racism?

I’ll confess that until quite recently I had no idea that some people thought that America was afflicted with it.

Of course, racism – seemingly ingrained prejudice – has a long history in our nation (and everywhere else).  But slavery ended as the result of the Civil War.  Jim Crow laws were repealed a half century ago and broad civil rights legislation was approved about the same time.  Simply put, de jure discrimination as government policy was long ago abolished. 

But according to many on the Left, we remain a racist land with our institutions irredeemably infected.  But how can that be?  Black Americans are “everywhere” in institutions of prominence, such as government (all branches), academia and business.  Didn’t white Americans elect a black president?

But no matter.

Google the term and this is what you’ll find:  “Institutional racism (also known as systematic racism) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions.  It is reflected in disparities regarding wealth, income, criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power and education among other factors”. 

 

Those who use this sort of language (Black Lives Matter, etc.) usually label themselves as Social Justice Warriors.  They consider that differences in achievement among racial groups are proof of the existence of the injustices cited.

Thus, by that logic, the fact that whites, as a group, have higher home ownership rates than blacks can be attributed only to discrimination.  Likewise, academic attainment of Americans of Jewish ethnicity over non-Jewish whites indicates pro-semitism, right?  And, let’s not forget that the social justice perspective compels one to find that the presence of black athletes in the NFL and NBA (all out of proportion to their percentage in the U.S. population.) means other racial groups are being discriminated against.

This analysis is, of course, founded on reducto ad absurdum…

There are other explanations to explain the discrepancies in outcomes such as education, commitment, talent and so forth and are far more likely to have merit.

Justice in America should include equality of opportunity.  The same was never promised for outcomes.

The Facts on Police Killings

The death of George Floyd has reignited calls across America, even among some prominent Republicans and conservatives, to “do something” about police brutality.

Is the alarm justified?  As I observed last week, some people in authority will abuse their positions and that certainly includes police officers.  It is a fact that power corrupts.

So, of course, some cops are brutal in their treatment of members of the communities they police.  And sometimes law enforcement officers kill without justification.

But are certain groups singled out as targets by police in general?  That certainly is the contention of such radical groups as Black Lives Matter and their boosters in the media and elsewhere.  Is it true?

No.

Consider some statistics.  The U.S. population is about 330 million of whom 37 million are termed black.  According to the FBI, for the past several years, about 220 African Americans have been shot and killed by police each year.

I did some calculations of my own.  After adjusting the total black population downward by subtracting the very young (under 18), old (over 65) and female, the chances of a black male in the middle age group becoming a victim of a deadly police shooting is .00002 or 2/100,000.  Slim indeed.  (Justified shooting would put this risk for the innocent even lower.)

By contrast, a police officer’s chances of being shot dead in any given year nationally are .00007, more than three times higher.

So yes, police brutality – and wrongful killings – do exist.  But they hardly constitute an epidemic or a national crisis in reality.

Having concluded this, The Sensible Conservative must concede that in this, as in many other areas of public concern, perception has become reality.  The shapers of that false “reality” have much to answer for.

Why Did the Actions of a Minneapolis Police Officer Become Assaults on Law Enforcement Personnel Everywhere?

Why does the perceived misconduct by a police officer against a black person generate attacks against cops in general and rioting in the neighborhood where the subject event occurred?

And why is the policeman’s actions in Minneapolis a cause for protest and rioting in Atlanta and Los Angeles, for instance?

Why is the conduct of a single person in a particular city attributed not only to that city’s police force but to law enforcement everywhere?

A half-century ago in the era of Bull Connor and the Birmingham, Alabama, police force, the actions of policemen attacking civil rights marchers was fairly characterized as the policy of the local government.

But now?  And of all places, Minneapolis which is run by liberals.  (The very same could be said about the Baltimore riots of only a few years ago.)

Has the Left’s propensity to place Americans into racial camps borne bitter fruit indeed?  If one’s sense of identity is primarily racial, instead of one’s personal individual character, then an attack on, for instance, a fellow black is taken personally as if it is on oneself.  That is motivation to revenge the attack on a fellow tribe member. 

Following that line of thinking, the police officer is a member of the law enforcement tribe, so any cop is a fair target for retribution.

That’s simply crazy – and such thinking is truly dangerous for Americans.

Abuse of power by police will always occur.  Some people will allow authority to go to their heads.  We can do our best to weed out (and major police departments do) those deemed risks, but the nature of humankind is that power corrupts – always has, always will.  Should we, therefore, abolish police forces – because some members will be abusive – and let anarchy reign?

The culprit in police brutality and misconduct episodes in tolerant modern day America is the individual alone (unless there is evidence to the contrary).  Culpability does not belong to broader forces.  

Viewed from such a perspective, the media coverage of the riots appears shameless and outrageous.

Where are the voices making clear that “violent protest” in the context of a civil society is an oxymoron?  And why don’t we hear an outcry from the Left and black leaders of condemnation against the rioting which destroys the property and lives of those in the typically vulnerable communities affected?

Be assured that to the extent significant segments of society tolerate and excuse such conduct - as is certainly the case now – inevitable future deaths of black criminal suspects will generate an even more violent reaction against “them” (members of the other “tribes”).

Tribal thinking – promoted by the Left – is indeed a danger to the American nation.