Pages

Saturday, December 27, 2025

A Newer Deal Part 9: Fix politics! And a (very) few people who seem to get it.

I'm close to finishing my Newer Deal series, a ten-part – (“tl;dr”) -- array of thirty-five proposals for Democrats and their allies, that might empower them to save America and the world, during the year ahead. 

(Folks who’d rather view it through Substack might start here.)

Yes, I waste time in forlorn hope that fresh ideas will influence a party that – while they are the good-guys in this era of vicious national strife – are arthritic/calcified in their tactical and polemical rigidity. Still, a few folks out there appear sufficiently immune to the Zorblaxxian Lobotomy Ray to actually read and comment cogently. 


Here’s one fellow whose Substack appraisal of my “Newer Deal” is not just coherently lucid. It riffs fresh perspectives about what's happened to American conservatism, plummeting from the erudite honesty of William F. Buckley to the clever hypocrisy of Newt Gingrich, to Sarah Palin's dizzy unsapience, to the vile purity of Trumpism. 

Heck, go read him instead of me. While flattering -- he calls me a "political gadfly with a blog that reads like Thomas Paine crossed with a frustrated systems engineer" -- the fellow is also incisive: "if you can’t get 60% of Americans to nod along, you’re not doing politics. You’re doing wishful thinking. And wishful thinking, however righteous, loses elections."*** There's even a short summary of some of my proposals that impressed him most. 


But on with this slog! I gave the full list of proposals in Part Three. Then, in parts 4-8, I dissect and appraise most of them - from IGUS (Inspector General of the United States) to subpoena powers for the Congressional minority, to sunsetting secrets and NDAs, to restoring in-Congress expertise that Newt Gingrich banned, so that uppity nerds could not utter the words that no Republican wants to hear: "Um, sir or madam, that's not true."

Now in Part 9 let's serve up a few more, so we can wrap up my year-end daydream... that anyone will listen.


 == Gerrymandering ==

By now we're all familiar with the desperately-evil way politicians steal powers that belong to the People. I cheered when Californians - urged by moderate GOP governor Schwarzenegger - ended the vile practice by popular referendum, as have a number of other blue states... but effectively no red ones. And those lopsided efforts put the absolute lie to Republican claims that 'everybody does it.'  (As it's been blue states leading the way in ending the damned Drug War.)

So, Maryland and Illinois gerrymander too? And now California has retaliated vs. the obscenely shameless voter rape by the Texas GOP? 

BFD. Just watch. If they ever get a chance, Democrats will ban it, nationwide! As I propose here:


END GERRYMANDERING!  We shall return the legislative branch to the people, by finding a solution to an indefensible cheat that lets politicians choose voters, instead of the other way around.  We shall encourage and insist that states do this in an evenhanded manner, either by using independent redistricting commissions or else by innovative and inherently fair means, like minimizing overlap between state legislature districts and those for Congress. 

 

Since in many districts, the majority party primary is the only election that matters, we shall act to see to it that all citizens in such a district may get to vote in that election, regardless of party registration.

 

Newly elected members of Congress with credentials from their states shall be sworn in by impartial clerks of either the House or Senate, without partisan bias, and at the new member’s convenience. 


The House may be called into session, with or without action by the Speaker, at any time that a petition is submitted to the Chief Clerk that was signed by 40% of the members. 



That last couple of paragraphs was added to address recent, outrageously turpitudinous behavior by "Speaker" Mike Johnson in the fall of 2025.


Note: 1) The Senate remains inherently gerrymandered to favor small states with extra power. (We needed TWO Dakotas?) Forget changing that, for now. Concentrate on reminding farmers why their grandparents loved Franklin Roosevelt.

2) John Roberts and ilk will continue concocting contorted rationalizations to allow continuation of gerrymandering's massive cheat. Hence, elsewhere I offer innovative ways to get around the "Roberts Doctrine" that wriggle-justifies letting state legislators rob their own citizens of voting power. See a general deep-dive ... and this never-seen-elsewhere proposal!



== Defend the enemy they hate most 

      -- their enemy called fact ==



Some years ago the Internet Caucus of the California Democratic Party asked me to write -- and publicly present -- a piece of 'futuristic legislation." While tempted to address changes in the Outer Space Treaty that we discussed at NASA's Innovative & Advanced Concepts program - (NIAC) - or at the Space Development Conference...


... I chose instead to try out something hugely science fictional... encouraging Americans to rediscover something called Objective Reality!  


Summarized and condensed, here it is.



 THE FACT ACTThe Fact Act will begin by restoring the media Rebuttal Rule, prying open "echo chamber" propaganda mills so that assertions may at least be briefly challenged by opponents


Any channel, or station, or Internet podcast, or meme distributor that accepts advertising or reaches more than 10,000 followers will be required to offer five minutes per day during prime time and ten minutes at other times to reputable 'vigorous adversaries.' Until other methods are negotiated, each member of Congress shall get to choose one such vigorous adversary, ensuring that all perspectives may be involved. 


Those 535 groups will get equal numbers of subpoenas to forge forth and challenge echo chambers, so that they may then supply further material evidence on their public sites. And those adversary sites will be subject to this same rebuttal rule.

 

The Fact Act will further fund experimental Fact-Challenges, where major public disagreements may be openly and systematically debated and adversaries reciprocally confronted with demands for specific evidence.

 

The Fact Act will restore full funding and staffing and autonomy to both the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the executive Office of Science and Technology Policy (OTSP). 


Every member of Congress shall be funded to hire a science and fact advisor from their home district, who may interrogate the advisory bodies – an advisor who may also answer questions of fact on the member’s behalf. 

 

This bill further requires that the President must fill, by law, the position of White House Science Adviser from a diverse and bipartisan slate of qualified candidates offered by the Academy of Science. The Science Adviser shall have uninterrupted access to the President for at least two one-hour sessions per month.4



And yes, I know parts of this will never pass. But notice the common theme for at least half of my proposals. Not only will they sound reasonable to 60%+ of average, voting people, but they are nearly all about ensuring the continuation of the 'secret sauce' of our enlightenment experiment.


Accountability.



                      == VOTER ID ==


STOP OPPOSING THIS! It's a trap to make us look bad. 


Sure, confederates want to use Voter ID laws to repress voting by poor US citizens, as with their old tricks like poll taxes. (They have never shown appreciable evidence of significant non-citizen voting.) Still, blanket rejection of voter ID is just walking into a trap.  Stop reacting out of reflex!


Instead, we must point to the hypocrisy! That these same states are currently closing DMV and state services offices in districts with Democratic voters.  The exact places to get that ID they need!


Hence, the GOPper cheaters aren't aiming at honesty or verification, but repression!  Moreover, when it is put to folks this way, you can be sure that millions will grasp the difference. And give us that 60%+.


Also note, helping poor US citizens to get their ID resolved is a great way to help them stop being poor! Helping them to rise up in the world. And also, it will help protect U.S. citizens from abuse by ICE!


Let's be seen as the ones offering fair and just solutions.


 

THE VOTER ID ACT: Under the 13th and 14th Amendments, this act requires that states mandating Voter ID requirements must offer substantial and effective compliance assistance, helping affected citizens to acquire their entitled legal ID and register to vote. 

 

Any state that fails to provide such assistance, substantially reducing the fraction of eligible citizens turned away at the polls, shall be assumed to be in violation of equal protection and engaged in illegal voter suppression. 


If such compliance assistance has been vigorous and effective for ten years, then that state may institute requirements for Voter ID.     

     

In all states, registration for citizens to vote shall be automatic with a driver’s license, or passport, or state-issued ID, unless the citizen opts-out.


Any state that 'purges' its voter rolls must first attempt to contact affected voters, both via their registered address and, using modern technologies, conveying such notification to them via any accessible change-of-address process, such as used by the Postal Service.



Note that "compliance assistance" has long been a demand by Republicans, whenever a new regulation puts any kind of burden on corporations or rich individuals. There's ample precedent for insisting that the principle also apply, when burdens are imposed upon the poor.


Dig it again: do not fall for their traps!  They are the ones doing electoral cheating of all kinds. Don't give them a chance to point at us.




            == EQUAL VOTING RIGHTS FOR THE HOUSE! ==


As I said, there is an inherent 'gerrymander bias', imposed upon us by the Constitution, in apportionment of seats in the U.S. Senate. And while I'd amend that bias away, if I could, I can't... we can't... so stop whining about it. OR about the Electoral College!**


But the the House of Representative is a different story. As the Senate represents states, the House is supposed to represent the People with utter fairness. And it doesn't, because of a silly law (not in the Constitution) from the 1920s. Which was incidentally the heyday of the Ku Kux Klan.


 And so...



THE WYOMING RULE: Congress shall end the arrangement (under the  Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929) that perpetually limits the House of Representatives to 435 members. Instead, it will institute the Wyoming Rule, that the least-populated state shall get one representative and all other states will be apportioned representatives according to their population by full-integer multiples of the smallest state's population. The Senate’s inherent bias favoring small states should be enough. In the House, all citizens should get votes of equal value. 



Note a few things. The newest members would be tight for office space! But technology should let up to 600 representatives vote, just fine. It would bring reps closer to their now-fewer constituents. And yes, urban voters would see some relief from their wholly unjustifiable under-representation in the House.


Oh, and yes, this would affect the Electoral College. By a bit. Not tons. But some.


** And there are things we can do about the Electoral College other than the silly National Popular Vote Compact. We can discuss those elsewhere. But they do not fall under the 60%+ Rule.




          == Housing and Rural Citizens ==

 

THE RURAL AMERICA AND HOUSING ACT: Giant corporations and cartels are using predatory practices to unfairly corner, control or force-out family farms and small rural businesses. We shall upgrade FDR-era laws that saved the American heartland for the people who live and work there, producing the nation’s food. Subsidies and price supports shall only go to family farms or co-ops. Monopolies in fertilizer, seeds, machinery and other supplies will be broken up and replaced by competition. Living and working and legal conditions for farm workers and food processing workers will be improved by steady public and private investments.

Cartels that buy-up America’s stock of homes and home-builders will be investigated for collusion to limit construction and/or drive up rents and home prices and appropriate legislation will follow. 



These final two are pretty much self-explanatory. And heck yes, the Rural America Act is a blatant effort to persuade farmers and such to ask their grandparents about FDR.


The next one speaks for itself. If expressed right, sustainability can come under the 60%+ rule.




                      == Sustainability ==


THE SUSTAINABILITY ACT will make it America’s priority to pioneer technological paths toward energy independence, emphasizing economic health that also conserves both national and world resources.  Ambitious efficiency and conservation standards may be accompanied by compromise free market solutions that emphasize a wide variety of participants, with the goal of achieving more with less, while safeguarding the planet for our children.



        == Getting near the end ==


Okay, enough for this session. But me reiterate a core point...


... that our biggest problem right now is to patch the damage done to America's systems of accountability, deliberation, negotiation, resilience and pragmatic problem-solving! Problem solving by the People and by honest representatives, who are adults and sincere citizens.  And hence, most of these proposals are about that...


..while passing the 60%+ test. Reforms that are so blatantly reasonable that they might bridge simplistic partisan chasms and draw nods of support from most decent folks.  And hence... their votes.


Do we want more?  You'll get more! As in the miracle year of 2021-22, when Pelosi+Schumer etc. allied with Bernie, Liz, AOC and their wing to pass some really excellent bills!  They concentrated mostly on governing -- infrastructure and taxation, better bureaucracy and bringing home domestic manufacturing. All of them great priorities!  And if you get all children under Medicare (one of these proposals) then the rest becomes inevitable.


Only, alas...


...what we need right now, above all, is a heap of reforms to save the very notions of democracy and accountable law, themselves... and even the very concept of things called facts.


Hence, those aims have been our top emphasis, here.  We'd be weathering the Trumpian psychotic episode far better, if some of these simple measures had been in place, when a perverted tyrant-toddler took over the helm of our great ship-of-state, steering it toward rocks.


 In Part Ten we'll round out some of the last items from the agenda that I've offered in this series. Including -- yes -- some of the stuff you hyper-liberals want on the agenda.


And sure. Some of those things are pretty urgent, too. Just as soon as we cement-in the survival of any sort of decent republic, at all.




======================================

======================================



*** When "Mongoose" says that you need 60% to 'do politics' he's talking about now, amid phase 9 of the US Civil War, when we have deeply opposing 'sides' and the art of negotiating has long been shredded by one of those sides. And one of those sides is entirely responsible. Look up Dennis "friend to boys" Hastert, the criminal perv whom Republicans elevated to head of their party and Speaker and two heartbeats from presidency. The "Hastert Rule" forbade any Republican officeholder from ever again negotiating in good faith with a Democrat, or even having one as a friend. And politics - as an art of listening, negotiating and occasional compromise - died that day in America.


Perhaps someday we'll return to the maturity of when Americans with just 40% support will be heard and get to make practical tradeoffs with their neighbors in positive sum ways. It may take a space mission to destroy that Zorblaxxian Lobotomy Ray that's been shining down on this country for some time, now.


24 comments:

  1. Well, I need to read the mongoose thing. Haven't got around to analyzing your reform attempts, but I do thing as a broad strategy, you're on the right track in that systemic change is needed.

    One thing I think you're missing is how authoritarianism has been baked into the justice system. It's not just Republicans who've gone mad. It's not just conservative justices with an agenda.

    We're seeing in the DOJ itself and state level justice systems, under pretty much EVERY administration since I graduated law school 30 years ago. What you haven't done much to address is low-level fascism.

    I'm grappling with changes to revise the fundamental incentives for people who work within these fields. One strand: LEOs are routinely taught tricks to "get around" constitutional restrictions. After a couple of generations, this training has created an LEO culture with contempt for the constitution embedded into their earliest training.

    They might mouth loyalty to these ideas, while their professional training is all about ways to demolish the constitution. Their idea of "good police work" is to bully citizens into surrendering their constitutional rights instead of an inherent respect for them.

    This is the kind of street-level authoritarianism that's even more toxic than the high level kind. It's sorta analogous to the problems caused by political corruption. The everyday, low level corruption is, in fact, far more culturally destructive than the high level variety (the kind of country where bribing low-level officials is routine). The reason is that it touches the everyday life of the citizen and can loom over their thinking.

    Street-level authoritarianism are the kind of tactics police or other law enforcement agents use in daily encounters with citizens. For example, the courts have found that law enforcement is allowed to lie to the public to achieve their goals.

    This makes a lot of sense when dealing with say, career criminals or violent criminal offenders. But it makes much less sense when it's an official enforcing administrative law.

    So here's the problem, when LEOs are taught how to lie to a suspect and tricks that get them to surrender their constitutional rights, they can then use them in any encounter. If police feel disrespected on the job, they can easily bully citizens they don't like.

    To take a simple example, police offen get rather mad at citizens recording LEO interations with the public. Police will then frequently demand the citizen stop recording, and will lie to them about legal statutes restricting their actions. If the citizen resists and cites their constitutional rights, police will then threaten them with arrest due to "obstruction," which is so vaguely-defined that police can do quite a bit to you, including throwing you in jail overnight, without much of a factual pretext.

    When police can lie to you, it compels citizens to resist orders from police. Because if an order can be a lie, well, police can then bully you into harming yourself. These types of interactions destroy the public's relationship with government.

    I haven't thought through all the parameters, but off the top of my head, there need to be some restrictions on lying to the public. When public officials can routinely lie to citizens, it compels defiance. It also subverts the whole benefit of law in the first place, which is a defined set of behaviors that will trigger state force against a citizen. This way, the citizen who wishes to comply can avoid bullying by the state. This provides everyday economic efficiency by avoiding non-productive conflict.

    ReplyDelete
  2. JV thank you for that. It was dark and also enlightening. Nothing new, of course, I've seen plenty and that is as a privileged white male. And yet I have also met folks at all levels... a majority of cops... who have appeared (with great convincingly plausible firmness) to have dedicated attitudes similar to the military officers I've known.

    And most realize that the cameras will soon be undetectable.

    The core point of The Transparent Society is that technologies loom that must be embraced by citizens, because they will enable direct accountability of power centers, including the police... but we may be fooled into trying for shadows that will far more benefit predatory types.

    The synergies of light must benefit accountability, or they will certainly destroy it.

    ---
    I recently posted a call for folks to send images of ICE raids that feature abusive behavior to the local parole officers. There's a very good chance that those folks will recognize their clients, even when masked, since I'd bet my left ball that many of them are ex-cons.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Larry (from last time),

    do you want to take out the garbage

    If that's all it takes to be considered autistic or close, then most of us are.

    Also... no. What you detected in that question was its dishonest nature. People tell all sorts of little lies for socially valid reasons. We HAVE to spot them in order to correctly interpret them... which you can obviously do. We don't have to like them. Challenging them is a clear statement that trusting relationships avoid them as much as is reasonably possible.

    My wife uses questions like that one occasionally. I KNOW what she wants, smirk at them, and then ask if she wants the mathematician's response. Or my son's response. My sone does NOT pick up on the implied meanings. She's learned not to ask them of him, so I know she's fully capable of adapting to less of these little lies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People tell all sorts of little lies for socially valid reasons. We HAVE to spot them in order to correctly interpret them

      As a teenager, which is when "Would you like to take out the garbage?" came up, I was much less able to separate the implied and the polite from the literal. As an adult, I certainly don't blame my mother for asking what she thought of as the equivalent to "Would you please take out the garbage?"-- a question which wouldn't have bothered me at all even though is almost equivalent. The difference is that the "please" version, while couching the command as something pleasant also feels like a plea. That is, it feels as if I'm being implored to do a favor for a loved one. The "Would you like to..." sounds as if I'm being offered an opportunity, as if I'm the one having a favor done for me by the offer.

      The notion that we must engage in polite lies to smooth our interactions has validity, but I think only when one of the parties doesn't know the lie is a lie. When Aunt Tilly asks me if I'm enjoying a party that I find incredibly boring but I answer "Yes", she is comforted because she believes me. I'm telling her something that she wants to hear, but that she believes to be true. This is a fundamentally different thing from being coerced into asserting a lie that the other person well knows is a lie. No one is being comforted there. Rather, the underlying message is, "Your deference to me is more important than reality."

      I'm going off on this to actually make a political point. The Trump administration regularly coerces people into telling lies that everyone knows are lies. It's one reason I first expected him to lose support, because people don't tolerate it when they know they're being played. Being wrong about that is one of the great disappointments of my life.

      Delete
    2. There is an angle where the "would you like to..." question makes sense as something other than one of those little lies. It tests whether your sense of justice includes the task. Justice is all about what we can reasonably expect of others and what we think is reasonable for them to expect of us. So... a failure to hear the question that way implies a failed test, right? Essentially... "No. My sense of just behavior doesn't include that."

      If so, it makes sense for parents to issue those questions periodically and be frustrated when they get negative results. My child hasn't learned manners yet! Grr. 8)

      Delete
    3. It tests whether your sense of justice includes the task.

      Hmmmm.

      At the time, I do believe that taking out the garbage was a responsibility of mine. However, there was no specific time it had to be done. If I'm recalling the situation correctly (at least 50 years ago), we were in the middle of either a discussion or an activity that I was interested in, and the request/demand to perform a chore at that moment seemed like an imposition.

      Before I read this comment, I was considering adding to the earlier discussion in this manner: To my mom at the time, there was no difference between "Would you please take out the trash?" and "Would you like to take out the trash?" My rebuttal to that could have been that the second question sounds like "Would you like to have ice cream for dessert?" No one would ask, "Would you please have ice cream for dessert?"

      Delete
  4. Not that long ago I took up the Voter ID challenge with a guy who argued for it and that those of us who opposed it were obviously engaging in enemy action. I told him I'd support Voter ID, but he'd have to spend a bit of money making damn sure everyone had an ID. His comeback was "It is already easy" and I said "No it isn't, but that's the price of my support." We went back and forth for awhile with him not budging which demonstrated that what he actually wanted was a drip line for his indignation.

    No. I didn't expect him to budge. I just wanted to see how he argued his case in the presence of someone who would compromise on it. He demonstrated that his indignation was more important to him than winning.

    Not everyone is going to be like that guy, though. I get it. That's why more of us could be dangling the idea out there to find enough folks to get amendments. Slow work and annoying dealing with the indignation, but taking away their weapons is a useful thing to do.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Voter ID
    From here (NZ) I am not sure the problem is Voter ID
    To me it appears that the problem is the "Voter Register"

    Here and in the UK there is a non-political organisation whose JOB is to keep the Voter Register up to date
    With the Voter Register it is quite easy to check if a voter is kosher

    That register can then be used after the election to check if there has been any voter fraud

    The other part is sufficient polling stations to ensure low wait times


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fight over here is about preventing voting.

      The ID argument is just one way they do it. Polling stations is another. We've outlawed a number of older games from previous generations ranging from poll taxes through IQ tests and non-secret ballots.

      Liberty for Me, but not for Thee.
      That's the issue.

      Delete
    2. The fight over here is about preventing voting.

      I think duncan's argument is that voter suppression should not be tolerated by the system, whereas here in the States, it seems to be a tacitly accepted way of insuring the "correct" outcome. "Free and fair elections" means more than the mathematical requirement that each vote is accurately counted. It also means that all citizens who want to are allowed to cast their vote (and that others are not). Voter ID is presented as a way to insure the latter, but in practice is more of a way to undercut the former.

      Delete
    3. I agree that we should not accept voter suppression. That's why some of us balk at imposing voter ID requirements. We know damn well what they intend.

      Our host is recommending judo over sumo, though. Makes sense to me.

      Delete
  6. I'll agree many here - voter ID is not a big issue. Why? Retail vote theft is not how its done. Elections are rigged ahead of time. How?

    Here's a bit of an article by Margot Cleveland over at The Federalist:

    "But stealing an election by fraud is not the only way to rig an outcome. Elections are rigged when systemic violations of election law occur, disparately favoring one candidate and allowing for tens of thousands of illegal votes to be counted.
    And the election was rigged with every illegal drop box placed in Democrat-heavy precincts.
    The election was rigged when the Pennsylvania legislature unconstitutionally authorized no-excuse absentee voting and when Philadelphia clerks illegally inspected ballots and then told Democrat activists which voters needed to cure their ballots for their votes to count.

    The election was rigged when Wisconsin election officials ignored the state election code, telling voters they were “indefinitely confined” because of Covid and that nursing homes could ignore Wisconsin’s requirement that special voting deputies oversee elections in residential facilities.

    The election was rigged with every dollar of Zuck Bucks designed to get out the Democrat vote, and with every leftist activist embedded in county clerks’ offices to push such efforts while accumulating untold voter data to the benefit of the Biden campaign.

    The election was rigged when Georgia rendered the election code’s mandate of signature verifications inoperable and the state court delayed a hearing on Trump’s challenge to the Georgia outcome until after the vote certification, thereby ignoring evidence that more than 35,000 illegal votes were included in the state’s tally — more than enough to require a court to throw out the election. [ https://thefederalist.com/2022/06/22/j6-committee-focuses-on-election-fraud-claims-while-ignoring-tactics-used-to-rig-the-2020-election/ ]"

    It has now been admitted that 315,000 votes in Fulton County, Georgia were counted with the chain of custody broken https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/fulton-county/fulton-county-elections-officials-admits-315000-votes-werent-signed-by-poll-workers/DJ5PCEA7GVFEBK743JMERPDAGY/ . We can therefor never know who actually won that election.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whoever it is on this list who keeps talking about laws having "mission statements" has the right of it. Election laws should be about insuring that citizens get to cast their vote, others do not, no one gets to vote multiple times in an election, and the votes are counted accurately. The rules themselves are details as to how that all comes about, but the goal should be clear and non-partisan.

      Pennsylvania law requires that mail-in votes have a date filled in on the envelope, even though there is no practical reason why that should be the case. In a just world, the legislature would recognize that and change the rules. They don't because the rule is seen as a way to suppress Democratic votes. So as long as it is the case that laws themselves are written in a way to violate the principle that every citizen gets to vote, others do not, no one gets to vote multiple times in an election, and the votes are counted accurately, then you and The Federalist are willfully ignoring another way that voter theft is accomplished.

      Delete
    2. Every time the Republicans accuse the Dems of something it's actually a confession

      Delete
    3. Half of MCS's anecdotes are disproved BS lies. The other half are... anecdotes! And yes, deserving of discovery, nakedness and accountability. Meanwhile his cult is GENERALLY and almost universally corrupt and insane. At all levels an in the entirety of all of their endeavors and actions.

      An anecdote may be a punishable act. But a universally evil and toxic criminal gang is another story, entirely.

      Delete
  7. Motion captures suit... ProTip: Use wisely!

    https://x.com/cixliv/status/2004899966326858157

    ReplyDelete
  8. @John Viril,
    I fear there is not one easy solution, but must be addressed from multiple vectors.

    First of all: Overall culture. The Police is just part of the general society that nurtures certain beliefs. Working with Hollywood to abandon copaganda might be one of multiple paths. Doing away with the "Street Warrior mentality" courses and gurus another one.

    Second: Education. LEOs over here gain the equivalent of a bachelors degree and three full years of training. You also need to be both eligible for a general university sturdy and have certain basic physical fitness requirements which you must maintain yearly.

    Third, reduce both general poverty and catalysts for violent crimes. That, in the long run, means less necessity to maintain a oversized militarized police force and this less transgressions.

    Fourth, try to break up the brotherhood aspect a bit. Cops in a unit with many complaints against it don't get promoted. Play the same Game in the next higher administrative Level, so that LEO agencies must compete both in the terms of effectiveness and public acceptance to be funded. Give them bonuses and funds that can be withdrawn If to be found füll of bad apples.
    Staff HR with ordinary civilians and keep them apart from the general police.
    Stop selling military surplus gear to the police

    While the camera thing is certainly one way to keep them accountable, legal steps can be made to prevent that.
    Iirc, it is a felony now in France to film the police without consent. Elsewhere, you can theoretically get into trouble for violating privacy rights (though I think a police officer represents the state and as such is to be Held to different standards.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A HUGE problem with all of that is that the USA does not have "a police force"
      The USA has something like 500 different and independent police forces

      Delete
    2. Thank goodness we have so many different police forces. If we had far fewer, there would be a lot more blood in the streets.

      One of my in-laws helped me understand an important issue about police forces in the US. There is a VERY fine line between the police and the people they have to arrest. It's not just that they are neighbors. The issue is that those of us who likely will never have to be arrested aren't willing to join the police.

      If you think of it all in terms of profiling, there's not much difference between the cops and criminals. Not here in the US anyway. There are obvious exceptions and we celebrate them at times, but they ARE exceptions.

      Delete
  9. Hi Alfred
    Other countries do manage to have a police force that serves the public
    Is America THAT different?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm no expert, but from what I've heard, many Latin American police forces exist openly to protect the rich and comfortable from the poor rabble.

      Delete
    2. Three differences to consider between US policing and other first world countries:

      (1) Education - Toronto police need a minimum of a 3 year university bachelor's degree (typically a 4 year honors) + a pre-certification course/test. NYPD only needs 2 years college (or 2 years in the military), and LAPD requires just a GED (high school diploma). But this varies a lot from police force to police force, so its hard to say that education is categorically different in the US vs other 1st world countries.

      (2) Handguns - The US is unique in that it has more guns than people (500 million guns vs 350 million people). And 44% of guns in the US are handguns, so that In the US, there's a reasonable chance that a person the police are interacting with, even a non-criminal; is carrying a handgun.

      (3) Danger - The number of US police officers killed each year is way more than in other first world countries. E.g. in Canada we've had 30 police officers who died in the line of duty in the last decade. (3 per year). Its front page news for a week if an officer is killed anywhere in the country. A construction worker in Toronto is 5 times as likely to die at work than a police officer.

      The same figure for the US is a little shy of 2600 officers who died in the line of duty in the past 10 years. Adjusting for 8.5 higher US population, and the number of US officers killed is about 10 times the rate in Canada.

      So personally, I'd think (2) and (3) are the key difference - a police officer in the US has to be aware of danger in every interaction, even a normal traffic stop. Add that to pressure to make arrests, and you have the basis for a siege mentality. Something has to give, and from a police officer's point of view, the easiest something is civil rights.

      Delete
  10. Solid discussion. Interesting.Nothing to do with the Newer Deal... but interesting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh ... were we supposed to stay on topic :-)

      Well .... re: Voter ID act - 10 years sounds onerous - but 4 (i.e. one complete election cycle) should work. Maybe add in "free" - i.e. if pole taxes are illegal, and an ID is required to vote, then shouldn't it be illegal to charge fore that ID? Therefore, there needs to be some $0 option for voting-eligible ID.

      re: Sustainability - another one that may be a 60%er is sealing old oil/gas wells (maybe with a methane collection option for the leakier ones). https://e360.yale.edu/digest/gas-drilling-emissions-health

      re. other 60%ers ... Republicans made a great deal of hay off of the 2 or 3 "Trans Athletes" in the USA, which motivated some by squicking them out, and was difficult for Democrats to respond.

      Do you have any sense how committed Republicans are to enabling pedophilia through child marriage?

      https://19thnews.org/2023/07/explaining-child-marriage-laws-united-states/
      and
      https://www.teenvogue.com/story/child-marriage-and-divorce-in-the-united-states

      Thoughts on (a) banning child marriage, and (b) legalizing child brides to file for divorce. (currently, in many states, a child can be forced into a child marriage, but cannot file for divorce, because they're minors, and minors don't have legal standing.)

      "According to divorce lawyer Nancy Zalusky Berg, the answer to that is no, not directly. A minor can’t file for a divorce because they’re not considered old enough to do it. That’s because marriage is considered a contract, and most laws stipulate that only adults can enter into contracts. So, if a minor wants to change their marriage contract, they need an adult to help them do it. “Our laws around marriage operate under the presumption that everyone’s an adult,” Berg explains to Teen Vogue. That’s a conflict when you consider that, between 2000 and 2015, there were at least 207,468 child marriages that occurred in 44 states, according to figures from PBS's Frontline."

      Delete