by Nomad
Bryan's Analogy
In August 1900, the US was in the midst of the political debate about US policy towards the newly-acquired territory of the Philipines.At the heart of the question was: should America adopt an imperialist attitude? Is that mentality acceptable for a country that portrays itself as "freedom-loving" and a champion for human rights?
On this subject, William Jennings Bryan, an orator, and politician from Nebraska gave a remarkable speech. In it, he made an especially insightful analogy:
The young man upon reaching his majority can do what he pleases. He can disregard the teachings of his parents; he can trample upon all that he has been taught to consider sacred; he can disobey the laws of the state, the laws of society and the laws of God. He can stamp failure upon his life and make his very existence a curse to his fellow men and he can bring his father and mother in sorrow to the grave; but he cannot annul the sentence, “The wages of sin is death.”Any country that bases its foreign policy on domination and exploitation, Bryan believed, would pay a similar price.
And so with this nation. It is of age and it can do what it pleases; it can spurn the traditions of the past; it can repudiate the principles upon which the nation rests; it can employ force instead of reason; it can substitute might for right; it can conquer weaker people; it can exploit their lands, appropriate their property and kill their people; but it cannot repeal the moral law or escape the punishment decreed for the violation of human rights.
That punishment doesn't come from international courts but in the higher court of Karma. A mighty nation, Bryan said, "cannot avoid the natural and legitimate results of its own conduct."
If we have an imperial policy, we must have a great standing army as its natural and necessary complement. ...A large standing army is not only a pecuniary burden to the people, and, if accompanied by compulsory service, a constant source of irritation, but it is ever a menace to a republican form of government.
It wasn't just an article of faith. There was a logic to Bryan's theory.
The army is the personification of force, and militarism will inevitably change the ideals of the people and turn the thoughts of our young men from the arts of peace to the science of war.
If a nation that denies other people the right to self-government in other nations, in short order, it will inevitably deny its own minorities the same liberties.
As Bryan said, the poison that starts out in the hand will eventually reach the heart.
As Bryan said, the poison that starts out in the hand will eventually reach the heart.
The People as the Enemy
In real terms, Bryan's warning about the price of Empire has been playing out inside the nation ever since the war on terrorism began. The trail of oppression- from the battlefield to the homeland- has been clearly defined.As an article in The Atlantic points out:
In an effort to remedy their relative inadequacy in dealing with terrorism on U.S. soil, police forces throughout the country have purchased military equipment, adopted military training, and sought to inculcate a "soldier's mentality" among their ranks. Though the reasons for this increasing militarization of American police forces seem obvious, the dangerous side effects are somewhat less apparent.At no time did anybody question why police departments around the country would require such equipment and advanced weaponry. The war was not against "them" anymore, it seems, it was against the people as a whole. The same people ironically whose taxes paid for the weapons used against them if they dared to protest government policy. In short, the people had become the enemy.
Undoubtedly, American police departments have substantially increased their use of military-grade equipment and weaponry to perform their counter-terrorism duties, adopting everything from body armor to, in some cases, attack helicopters.
Americans are becoming numb to the fact that law enforcement in the US can act with impunity and, even in the more outrageous incidents, will never be held accountable. Police officers are indicted in fewer than 1% of killings. Part of the problem is institutional with a system that favors law enforcement over citizens.
Victims of police misconduct are often plagued by institutional deficiencies, procedural obstacles, and high rates of acquittal. However, evidence strongly suggests that another aspect of the problem is an attitude that law enforcement requires a certain level of brutality and military expediency.
In recent years, the use of SWAT teams for routine law enforcement matters has been on the rise, with sometimes fatal consequences.
In recent years, the use of SWAT teams for routine law enforcement matters has been on the rise, with sometimes fatal consequences.
According to the US Department of Justice, 52% of police officers report that it is not unusual for law enforcement officials to turn a blind eye to the improper conduct of other officers. A majority of police officers ( 61%) state that they do not always report serious abuse that has been directly observed by fellow officers. And when asked, 43% of police officers surveyed agreed with the sentiment: “Always following the rules is not compatible with the need to get their job done.”
That's not a mentality of peacetime law enforcement. That is a war posture.
That's not a mentality of peacetime law enforcement. That is a war posture.
It really boils down to a fundamental question: Is the role of the police to enforce the law or to keep the peace? And what happens when that keeping peace means the denial of constitutional rights?
* * *
The 2016 Tribeca Film Festival winner for Best Documentary, Do Not Resist, explores the militarization of local police departments. That militarization includes more than training or tactics or the acquisition of hardware. It is very much about attitude.
Here's the trailer.