Sometimes there is a news item that crosses all the barriers. The coronavirus has become central to every discussion, from foreign policy to economics. The assessment of every leader has been filtered through its lens and every market swing seems dependent on the latest news and trends. Then, just as it seemed like nothing could displace the virus, another overwhelming issue has come to the fore - sharing the same potential impact on every aspect of our lives.

That is why I am writing about police brutality and riots on TalkMarkets.

In a recent piece on foreign policy, I suggested the focal point for US foreign policy should be the rule of law. I praised the fact that, for the most part, the US is a nation of laws. We fight our battles in elections and through the courts. But the U.S. is, like any nation, imperfect. Right now, we are witnessing a breakdown in the rule of law.

As the current reality unfolds, some will point to extra-legal actions by police: racism, killings, knees and choke holds. Others will point to extra-legal actions by protesters and rioters: shooting, looting and fires. Tellingly, the accusations are primarily based on the idea that the other side broke the law. 

Protesters' signs read "It shouldn't be illegal to be black."

This emphasis on legality is a good thing as it reflects a desire for the rule of law. It becomes a bad thing when people stop seeking legal redress for their situation. When they think the rule of law can not protect them, then the situation can quickly spiral to an extremely dangerous and new reality. Yugoslavia and Lebanon are two cases where ethnic struggle led to a breakdown in the rule of law and a collapse of society.

If we were in normal economic times these riots might be like others than have occurred in the past. They might come and go. But when combined with 30% unemployment, there is a danger than the situation will quickly burn out of control.

Facing this reality, it'd be nice to call for a moratorium on racism and an acceptance of the challenges of the jobs police have. It'd be nice to point to prosecutions and argue the law is being perfectly enforced. But people will be racist, justice will sometimes fail and policemen (and others) will continue to act outside the law. 

Humankind is imperfect. 

The goal of our legal systems is not to eliminate imperfection, it is to limit its impact on society as a whole.

Long-term, I think the situation demands fundamental changes to our educational system. At the end of this piece, I've included an excerpt from one of my books on this topic. However, these changes would take decades to have their full effect.

In the short-term, something more drastic is needed.

In 1790, the United States had a total population of 3.9 million people. The government was devolved into multiple states and cities, with the Federal government limited in its powers. A simple reading of the Constitution suggests a government with taxing and monetary powers, that enabled the unification of communications and commerce, that managed foreign policy and that oversaw some aspects of justice. Everything else was devolved. In a simple sense, local free citizens didn't want to hand over their power over regional and local priorities to a distant government that would not share those priorities. They wanted a government that was accountable to them.

At that time, Virginia was the largest state with 747,000 people (of whom only 455,000 were free). Pennsylvania came next with 434,000 people and then Massachusetts with 379,000.

These populations demanded some measure of autonomy because they did not share the priorities that a unified government would have.

Today, the Minneapolis Metro area has 3.6 million people. The city itself has 425,000 people. The Minneapolis Metropolitan area is almost as large as the United States in 1790 and the City of Minneapolis has almost as large a population as any state had free citizens in 1790. Despite this, Minneapolis has a unified city government. The police are organized into five precincts but serve a central police organization.

Citizens in Minneapolis various neighborhoods may well feel that the police force is not under their control. Back in 1790, even if all the citizens of Rhode Island voted, there was legitimate fear that a strong Federal government would fail to address their regional priorities and protect their local rights. The same thought process could be applied to a city like Minneapolis. Local areas within the City might legitimately feel that even if they vote, the central powers of the City government will not address their local priorities and rights.

The City government, due to the simple size of the City, is no longer accountable to its citizens.

For me, the answer is simple. Whenever possible, policing and other services should have their management devolved to smaller local areas. Instead of five precincts, Minneapolis might be better served by having a police department in each of its 13 wards. After all, locals should have a far more direct hand in selecting and overseeing those who are there to protect them. 

Of course, 'local' does not necessarily mean 'good' - it just means accountable. In 1790, Virginia wanted its independence in order to keep slavery intact. In order to address this, regional, state and federal bureaus should exist to investigate local civil rights violations, corruption, organized crime and other threats to the proper operation of local police forces. If a local police force looks the other way when an overzealous and trigger happy former employee commits a murder, the state Bureau of Investigation would get involved - just as they did in Georgia.

If local neighborhoods chose their own police, then the entire narrative would change. Instead of an unaccountable police force that runs roughshod over local priorities, the police would accountable to their citizens and citizens would be accountable for their police. Citizens of Minneapolis Ward 8 could look to themselves for answers. With this dynamic in place, the rule of law could be strengthened instead of being broken apart.

Perhaps most importantly, those who are taking advantage of this situation because they seek a breakdown in the rule of law would find themselves marginalized by a population finally empowered to take responsibility for its own policing.

Even with this change, issues in policing would remain. We'd still have to do the slow and difficult work of overcoming racial bias in law enforcement and we'd still have to address violence in inner cities. Despite the challenges that would remain, making police and citizens more accountable for one another would do nothing but strengthen the rule of law.

Of course, the issues facing American race relations are not just about policing. Those on the side of the protesters might argue that historic injustice and white privilege are to blame for our growing tensions. They put the onus for solving issues on the privileged population. Those against the rioters might argue that social breakdown within the black community is responsible for the tension. They put the onus on the population represented by the protesters.

Although they disagree about many things, almost all parties acknowledge that there are deeper issues at play.

Last year, I published a book about a small shift in our Presidential elections. Instead of debates, there would be a reality show. Candidates would be put into simulated situations: a foreign policy disaster, a domestic crises etc... TV viewers would then vote based on their performance in the simulated situations. For the benefit of ratings, the producers of the show add a weirdo who's been living in his mother's basement to the lineup of candidates. He literally goes by the name: Candidate Everyone. 

Here is a relevant excerpt from the book...

--

As expected, the other candidates had done exactly what they’d needed to. Each in turn had been led out of the soundproof room. They’d taken their seat behind the massive replica desk in the faux Oval Office. And then a ‘staffer’ had rushed in with news.

“Mr. (or Mrs.) President,” he’d announced breathlessly, “An unarmed black teenager has just been shot by the police.”

The real politicians nailed the challenge. They asked all the questions necessary to seem even-handed. And then, one-by-one, they pandered to their base while trying not to say anything too offensive to the rest of country.

For some, the shooting was “an unfortunate accident in a high-stress situation,” for others it was revealing of “a racism that we as a country still have to overcome.” Some called for patience and trust in the local investigatory processes; others called for task forces designed to identify and ferret out hidden racism. And a few took more radical positions. One called (despite the lack of evidence provided by the staffer) for federal charges against the police. Another (again, despite a lack of evidence provided by the staffer) suggested the teenager had been a criminal and had somehow gotten what he had deserved.

Freddie came closest of all to satisfying everyone. He called for an investigation. But he also called for patience. His administration, he promised, would deal harshly but fairly with racism – even as it understood the challenges faced by the police. He announced an increase in funding for both community programs and police salaries. He tried, as well as one could, to make everybody happy.

It was a no-win situation; he couldn’t have done better. An Emperor knows to distribute his favors and that’s exactly what Freddie did.

But I knew Everyone wouldn’t do that.

I knew he’d try something else, and he’d fail.

And he knew it too.

As Everyone – the last of the candidates – is led down the tunnel I see a martyr being led to his execution. Everybody watching knows what is about to happen.

He’s a martyr, but also a flash in the pan. Soon enough, he’ll be forgotten.

Everyone takes his seat. His eyes roam over the glass wall, almost frantically trying to see the faces watching him. Then he closes his eyes, intertwines his hands and closes his eyes.

I can’t take my eyes off of what I’m watching, even as I know that this is the end of Candidate Everyone. Then the staffer rushes in and announces, breathlessly, “Mr. President, an unarmed black teenager has just been shot by the police.”

Everyone opens his eyes. He gets up from his desk, silently.

“I know,” he says, facing the one-way glass, “That this is a fictional scenario. I know I’m supposed to be cold and calculating. I know I’m supposed to choose which Americans matter more to me. I know I’m supposed to pander to their priorities.”

He stops and shakes his head. “The problem is, there’s truth to this fiction.”

He purses his lips and then continues, “I know everybody watching this has felt, at some point, imprisoned or trapped. Sometimes they have been constrained by forces none of us can control. But often we are imprisoned by ourselves. I know this to be true. I have lived it.

“That is why I can recognize that this ‘fictional’ scenario is one of those situations. In this moment, I can’t know who was right or who was wrong. But we’ve created a prison for ourselves. Its walls are the relationships between black and blue and white and brown. They are made of fear, resentment and apprehension. We aren’t the only ones with these walls. They exist in every society. But that doesn’t mean we can’t be free of this reality.”

The other candidates are silent. The audience is silent. I imagine the nation is silent. Wondering where Everyone is going with his little speech.

“The question, of course, is how? Some want to bust out and kill the guards. They choose anger and resentment. But that only builds another, worse, prison. Anger and resentment have fueled catastrophic wars in Lebanon, Yugoslavia, the Congo, Syria and many other places.

“Others choose the path of redistribution, transferring money or assets from rich to poor or from white to black. They want to be the wardens. This may yield some rough form of justice, but it doesn’t actually help those who receive the funds. Economic redistribution has undermined the economies of Venezuela and Zimbabwe. It has hurt everybody.

“I watched this all. I’ve seen people trapped and I’ve known what it’s like. And I’ve known that there was nothing I could do. People were trapped, and there was nothing I could do.”

He pauses, takes a breath.

“But now I can do something. At least in this fictional scenario, as President of the United States, I can do something. I am not powerless. I can break the prison of circumstance. And we can all live free.

“As immigrants to this country have long shown, education provides an opportunity for the next generation to be stronger than the one that came before. And education is an area in which we have fundamentally failed the children of our inner cities.

“My idea is simple: let us provide transport and tuition grants to every student – from Kindergarten onwards.

“But not everybody will receive the same grant.

“Instead, students from lower-income families will receive grants that are greater than the median cost of education. And students from higher-income families will receive grants that are smaller. Larger grants will make lower-income students more desirable to educational providers, including those that have catered to wealthier families. Larger grants will give our poorest students access to the greatest advantage wealthier children have: access to quality education. When we raise people up, we can help prejudices gradually fall away. And, if you’ll allow me a bit of poetry, we can use the walls of our prisons to build houses for our families.

“As with my healthcare initiative, parents can augment their grants with contributions of their own. Wealthier students will be able to attend the same schools as poorer ones – it will just cost more out of pocket. Nobody will be punished.

“And if parents don’t spend the full grant amount they will be able to receive up to 5% back – in cash. Our educational costs have been spiraling upwards, without improving outcomes. So, just as with healthcare, we’ll use the free market to improve both quality and cost. And with the 5% cap, parents will be prevented from cashing out on their own childrens’ futures.

“Now, you might be worried this proposal will create other walls between us. After all, given the choice, the religious will go to religious schools, progressives to progressive schools, and African Americans to African American schools. Many who stand for public education argue that it can bring us together by fostering a single culture with a single set of values.

“But even if this worked, is a single culture really what we want? Don’t we want to encourage a diversity of cultures? Won’t that lead to a more vibrant and dynamic society? So instead of building a single house and making everybody live in it, why don’t we just visit one another?

“It would be easy. We can randomly assign students to other schools within their geographic area for two weeks out of every year. Schools don’t have to participate, we can’t force anybody to do this. But we can make it a requirement if they want to be eligible for educational grants. We can require them both to host these ‘ideological exchange students’ and allow their own students to visit the schools of others. I imagine few will resist. And the students themselves will receive a small grant to encourage their attendance.

“In this way, the religious and the secular, the conservative and the liberal, the white and the Hispanic, the rich and the poor, the Jew and the Muslim can be exposed to one another as people even as they strengthen their own cultures. Through this, we can build a truly vibrant, diverse and respectful society.

“These sorts of shootings – these sorts of conflicts – aren’t fiction. I’m afraid they never will be. But we can make things much much better. And we can stop throwing away so much human potential.”

With that, Candidate Everyone turns and walks from the faux Oval Office.

--

In summary, I think we should devolve policing (and other government functions) and we should reinvent American education.

What do you think?