The Conversation

In New York City the assembled police force has taken to turning their backs on the Mayor when he speaks in a flagrant show of disrespect. He has tried to raise the topic of inequitable treatment of some African-Americans by the police and some perceive his attempt as a lack of support for the police everywhere. It is a hazard inherent in trying to address complicated topics where there may be fault on all sides. You may have noticed that with some people there is a great reluctance to speak on certain topics such as religion, politics, governmental policy and many others. It's because we don't know how to talk about them and we don't know how to listen about them. I want to tackle a couple of those topics in this space and I hope I can do that without feeding the monster itself.

The last several months, heck, longer than that, have brought people into the streets to voice dislike of policies that seem to be discriminatory or just plain wrong-headed. The most recent is the example of demonstrations protesting the police shootings of unarmed black men and boys and the inability of our justice system to adequately address the shootings to the satisfaction of the public. It is critical that the public be satisfied because it is from “the consent of the governed” that our government derives its just powers. So, perceptions do matter. Recently the tide turned and two police officers were murdered by a man who made references to the shootings of Eric Garner and Michael Brown and who then shot himself. He was planning to kill himself anyway since he had already killed his girlfriend and decided to take a couple of cops with him. It was murder in a heartless and cold blooded way. Passions are high and public speech is trying to lead us to choose sides but we don't have to do that. There is plenty of blame to go around and the solution to the problem of justice and perception of justice does not lie in choosing sides.

Sometimes I am cautious about engaging in discussion of hot button topics because I just don't thrive on controversy. I much prefer sensible discussion and entertaining alternative viewpoints. For instance, while the murder of those police officers is deplorable it really has nothing to do with the complaints of those who are protesting what they perceive is unfavorable treatment of black males by the police. Our emotions are charged. We immediately go into fight mode to defend our perspective but that is not where the answers ultimately lie. The answers lie in a transparent, introspective look at what we ask our first responders such as police to do. Theirs is a difficult task, one that requires split second decision making and it must be acknowledged that mistakes will be made. Our task is to find agreement on how to minimize those mistakes and assure the public that every effort at justice and caution was observed. In each of these cases that has not been done. The system has rendered judgment in some cases but it has not been a transparent one and not one that is perceived as just.

Military conflict offers another potential conflict. Much has been made of the soldiers returning from Vietnam to less than respectful treatment and there is a national resolve to not allow that to happen again. That is admirable but that does not mean that it is necessary to endorse the military conflict into which our nation is thrust. It is quite possible to disagree with the militaristic posture and still be a patriot. Many good citizens may not accept the premise that is given to justify our use of military force but that does not diminish respect for those who act at their nation's request. So, the discussion should not be about whether we support our troops or not. It should be about whether or not our government exercised due diligence in asking those men and women to risk their lives so that we can continue to live without being subjected to danger or sacrifice. Did we exhaust all other alternatives? Is the cause so serious so as to require human lives be sacrificed or can we accept some other solution? I have to say that as long as the people of the United States allow their elected representatives to make war then we should be willing to accept responsibility and sacrifice accordingly. Those men and women that serve do so at our request and behest, like it or not. So, it is our profound responsibility to enter debate about policy and elect representatives that will represent our wishes.

In the case of our police things are a little different. They are not military but are civilians just like the rest of us. Their motto is To Protect and To Serve but that can't be done if they are allowed to use violence without being called to be responsible for their actions. That does not represent a lack of appreciation or respect for police, it shows the the people are taking responsibility for what we ask them to do on our behalf. If we see things that we feel are unjustified then, again, it is time for debate and course correction. That is just the way democracy works. Blind acceptance is a characteristic of a totalitarian state.

Just as we are asked to be supportive of police and the military it is also important that the people be respected when they speak out in protest. Yes, we can expect protest to be lawful but sometimes it need not be peaceful. Being lawful and peaceful are not the same thing. When the civil rights marchers approached the bridge at Selma it was anything but peaceful but it was lawful, at least until the police began beating them. Sometimes the only way the people can be heard is by joining together and speaking as one. It is an unfortunate fact that some will take advantage of the disorder by committing illegal acts and that should be met with enforcement action. But the people must be allowed to speak peacefully even if it is disorderly.

Those policemen that turn their backs on Mayor DeBlasio should not show such disrespect but should acknowledge that his responsibility is to all the people and not just the police. It should be remembered that the American Revolution was fomented by people meeting in taverns and engaging in acts of violence. My Take is that we should learn the difference between disrespect and disagreement.