The Conservative case for defunding the police (in some situations)

In recent weeks, a number of outspoken politicians and radical* activists on the left have been calling for the abolishment, or “defunding”, of our police forces. Understandably, many Americans have reacted to this movement, and its entrance into mainstream discourse, with fear and disdain. The idea is unprecedented, if not insane.

To be clear, in most times and most places, this makes sense. Across America — no matter what the alternate-reality media wants you to believe — police forces are generally one of our most trusted institutions. A 2015 study conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Justice (even after the Black Lives Matter movement forced a second look) found that 90.7% of black respondents felt police behaved properly when answering a call for assistance.

Indeed, According to Gallup polling, police forces are one of just three institutions that the majority of Americans steadfastly have had a great deal of confidence in (53% of 2019 respondents). As Fox News Commentator Tucker Carlson points out, police forces enjoyed “far more confidence than [Americans] had in almost any other institution — banks, religious leaders, the health care system, television, news, public schools, corporate America, newspapers — name one.”

…as original as the leftist radicals think they are with their latest scheme, Calvin Coolidge, a Republican President, had “defunded the police” — more than 100 years ago.

The reason is obvious. Across most towns and cities in America, police forces are effective, they are responsive, and they are hard-working. They do exactly what we want a government agency to do. In the words of the U.S. Constitution, they help to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, [and] provide for the common defense.” In these places, conservatives (and citizens in general) should fight fervently to defend the police from anyone who suggests abolishing them.

However, regrettably, in some places (often areas mismanaged by decades of one-party rule), police forces have largely abandoned their guiding principles. At best, these police agencies have become unaccountable, bureaucratic protection rackets. As Peter Suderman from Reason describes, large police unions have only one purpose when it comes to flexing political power: “defend the narrow interests of police at the expense of public safety. They exist to demand that taxpayers pay for dangerous, and even deadly, negligence.”

At worst, these departments have become obliging tools of the totalitarian despots. Remember how a Democratic judge had police jail Shelley Luther for daring to keep her Dallas salon open? She had taken every health precaution, her customers chose to come at their own risk, and Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s team sought her advice. But that was clearly not enough to comfort the mind of District Judge Eric Moyé, who sent police after Ms. Luther. Most Americans are willing to give actions of police officers some benefit of the doubt, but only if we recognize that they are enforcing sensible laws rather than arbitrary, capricious orders from tyrants.

We should recognize that any effort to weaken the government’s ability to arbitrarily harrass Americans represents a conservative victory for all Americans.

Incidentally, it is often the same places where police are not doing the right thing that the cries to “defund the police” are also the loudest. While conservative may not agree with the Radical Left’s aims, we should recognize that any effort to weaken the government’s ability to arbitrarily harrass Americans a conservative victory for all Americans.

After all, without police, how would tyrants like Gretchen Witmer jail small business owners for trying to earn money to feed their families?

Without police, who would harass our black neighbors with impunity (claiming zealous enforcement of the law) and yet be happy to stand-by and let looters rob our stores?

Without police, who would sit idly outside and do nothing while the young in our schools are gunned down by a malevolent terrorist?

Without police, who would the left call on to confiscate guns from those of us exercising our constitutional rights? Antifa? Contrary to the beliefs of a certain Republican Senator from Arkansas, the left does not have endless “cadres of left-wing radicals” at its disposal. Moreover, even if they did, police officers at least represent law-enforcement while Antifa is a designated terrorist organization. If Antifa forces us to defend ourselves, I’m sure conservatives would not hesitate at the opportunity to perform a public service.

Of course, some places can be reformed. Others, especially in Minneapolis where one-party mismanagement has not been seriously challenged for decades, cannot.

Yet even when faced with undeniable evidence of rampant abuse by the , some conservatives might still be hesitant to agree on police defunding. Boxed in by the mental straightjacket of a bygone era, they assert that it has never been done before. Like sheep, they insist that there is no alternative to having police protect us.

We must convince them otherwise, for these beliefs should not be part Conservative dogma because they are not true.

First, it is not unprecedented to eliminate a police department. Don’t forget that, as original as the some on left think they are with their latest scheme, a Republican President already did it — over a hundred years ago.

Here’s what happened. In 1919, the Boston Police Force felt they were due for a hefty pay raise. But rather than faithfully negotiate with then-Massachusetts governor Calvin Coolidge, they decided to unionize and go on strike. Without policemen on duty, criminals roamed the streets of Boston for days, looting and pillaging shops and businesses.

Coolidge regarded the strike as illegal, rightly proclaiming that “There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, any time.” Therefore, Coolidge fired them all — an act of defiance against a public sector union not repeated until Ronald Reagan. In total, more than 1,100 officers lost their jobs, and the state militia (today’s national guard) was called in to restore order. By successfully “defunding” and later replacing the insubordinate police force, Coolidge was thrust into the national spotlight. Most Americans clearly approved of Coolidge’s decision and the results. In just a few short years, he was elected the 30th President of the United States.

As for an alternative to the institutional police force, the answer is obvious. The Second Amendment provides for us citizens to create a “well-regulated militia” to protect ourselves and our communities. An armed neighborhood watch has no choice but to be accountable to, and be trusted by, their fellow citizens. Even many liberals seem to agree, hence why they advocate for it under another label — “community policing”. These neighborhood groups can, and should, hire some former police officers: the ones we know who tried to do the right thing even when their former departments had become rotten to the core. Such a movement will be successful because it is sensible. In turn, the results will facilitate among Americans the reawakening of appreciation for the Second Amendment — inoculating us against the next time a liberal billionaire tries to convince us it is outdated.

Of course, it is not in the interest of the totalitarians to allow their colleagues on the left to defund the police. This is why, for years, they have insisted to average Americans that “you don’t need guns when you can call the police.” It is also, I suspect, why they fund efforts to repeal stand-your-ground laws. Why else do they stoke racial tensions by tainting even unequivocally genuine acts of self-defense with accusations of racism to pit Americans against each other? It benefits them if you place absolute trust in the “law-enforcement” agencies. The ones they find a way to control.

Conservatives should not play into their hands. While we should continue to defend the police in most places, we should do the opposite in others. As the proverb goes, the “enemy of my enemy is my friend.” In cities where the totalitarian’s strangle on power via the police is most dangerous, we should actually support, rather than oppose, the radical’s cry to abolish and defund the police.

For further reading, I recommend Scott Shackford’s article on Reason.com. For years, Civil Asset Forfeiture has hurt poor Americans while the military industrial complex has sucked up precious taxpayer dollars on unnecessarily militarizing our police. I also recommend Christopher Zhen’s article on conservative reforms our justice system requires.

*- This label is admittedly a platitude. However, I use this label because it is a widespread, accepted term for the left-wing groups that generally have an unacceptable agenda (e.g. the same ones who right now cry in support of looting). Being radical in itself is not, and should not, be a fearmongering insult. Without the so-called “Radical Republicans” of the post-Civil War era, for instance, we would not have the crucial 14th and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.