thehuffingtonpost--2020-06-04--2020 Isn't 1968 And Donald Trump Isn't Richard Nixon

But for all of the similarities , 2020 isn ’ t 1968 .
The electorate has changed .
Trump ’ s supporters are neither silent , nor a majority .
And Trump ― who polling shows is an unpopular president ― isn ’ t in the same position in 2020 that Nixon was in 1968 .
Where Nixon ― seeking the White House ― offered himself as a solution to unrest and mismanagement , Trump ― the incumbent ― is its culprit .
When 1968 is summoned as a comparison to the present day , it is conjured as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disorder and failure .
Its milestones included the Tet Offensive in Vietnam that undermined any perception that the U.S. was prevailing in that war ; the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and the ensuing riots in more than 40 cities that saw federal troops deployed to Chicago , Baltimore and Washington ; the assassination of Robert Kennedy ; a rising crime rate ; the police riot at the Democratic National Convention ― all while the body count in Vietnam ticked up and up .
When Vice President Hubert Humphrey took up the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him for the same failures as Johnson , but also for the continuing chaos after the Democratic Party ’ s contentious nomination of Humphrey inside the International Amphitheater in Chicago as the police rioted outside .
Nixon ’ s focus on “ law and order ” and ending domestic turmoil worked because he could point to the people in the White House as the culprits .
And that underscores a key difference between then and now ― Trump isn ’ t the challenger like Nixon , he occupies the office Johnson did in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former Vice President Joe Biden , who can make the case for the incumbent ’ s failures .
Even as Trump tried to take no personal responsibility for any of his actions , it was his policies that led to a mismanaged pandemic response and his support for police brutality and repression that escalated the protests .
Whatever failures of instituting “ law and order ” have occurred did so on his watch .
Nixon ’ s “ law and order ” campaign worked because he was riding a wave of white backlash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that was gathering momentum .
The backlash began after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the expansion of the welfare state under Johnson ’ s Great Society initiatives .
These laws and programs became linked in the minds of many white Americans with riots in Black neighborhoods in Los Angeles ’ Watts neighborhood , Detroit , Cleveland and elsewhere that exploded prior to 1968 after acts of police brutality or harassment .
White voters began to oppose further civil rights legislation , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racist housing practices .
In 1966 , King protested for equal housing rights in Chicago ’ s Bungalow Belt .
This was where descendants of Polish and German immigrants were able to buy into the American Dream of homeownership , but red-lining practices excluded Blacks .
When King and his followers marched through the streets of this community , he was pelted with rocks and met with chants of “ White Power !
” and “ Burn them like Jews !
” Douglas wasn ’ t the lone liberal ― or policy ― @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil rights movement during this period .
New York City voters rejected a ballot initiative creating a civilian review board for police officers by a two-to-one margin .
Anti-civil rights candidates won the governorships in Alabama , Florida and Georgia .
California Gov .
Pat Brown ( D ) lost his reelection to actor Ronald Reagan , the brash young standard-bearer of the new conservatism who expertly trolled student radicals and civil rights activists .
“ Whether we like it or not , the people want separation of the races , ” Brown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results to the midterms of 2018 .
Trump , as he touted Republican candidates two years ago , renewed his rhetoric on race and crime with overhyped warnings of a caravan of dangerous undocumented immigrants poised to invade the country .
While voters in solidly GOP states backed Trump in important Senate races , Republicans lost the House as the suburbs , which white voters had once fled to , turned sharply against the party and Trump .
In 1968 , Nixon found a receptive audience as a champion for the white backlash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of insurrection ” in “ Watts and Harlem and Detroit and Newark ” and what they were “ planning for the summer ahead.
” The nation “ must take the warnings to heart and prepare to meet force with force , ” he said , adding , “ our first commitment as a nation in this time of crisis and questioning must be a commitment to order.
” What did exist in 1968 was a large group of voters opposed to the protests , the student radicals , the rock-and-roll culture and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s law-and-order rhetoric was effective because it could peel away conservative white Democrats who already felt alienated from their party .
But those voters are much fewer in numbers today , while moderate voters who typically vote Republican but are repelled by Trump ’ s rhetoric are up for grabs in this November ’ s elections .

In certain ways, 2020 feels a lot like 1968. Federal troops and local police are clashing with Black people sick of police brutality and discrimination. Americans are dying in massive, alarming numbers ― then, in the Vietnam war; now, as the coronavirus pandemic spreads across the nation. Americans are angry.
And President Donald Trump, in his bid for reelection, is echoing the same language Richard Nixon used in his successful 1968 presidential campaign.
Advertisement
“I am your president of law and order,” Trump said Monday on the South Lawn of the White House as the sound of peaceful protesters being violently dispersed with pepper pellets, smoke grenades, flash-bangs and baton-wielding military police echoed in the background.
He declared he would be the voice of the “Silent Majority” ― a favorite Nixon phrase parroted by Trump since he began his first presidential campaign in 2015. Now, it’s a nod to those who want the police to start cracking heads to quell widespread tumult, and Trump hopes to ride that wave of “law and order” backlash to reelection.
But for all of the similarities, 2020 isn’t 1968. The electorate has changed. Trump’s supporters are neither silent, nor a majority. And Trump ― who polling shows is an unpopular president ― isn’t in the same position in 2020 that Nixon was in 1968. Where Nixon ― seeking the White House ― offered himself as a solution to unrest and mismanagement, Trump ― the incumbent ― is its culprit.
Protesters were tear-gassed as the police dispersed them near the White House on Monday to make way for what became President Donald Trump's controversial photo-op at a church. ROBERTO SCHMIDT via Getty Images
Advertisement
When 1968 is summoned as a comparison to the present day, it is conjured as a symbol of chaotic change, upheaval, disorder and failure. Its milestones included the Tet Offensive in Vietnam that undermined any perception that the U.S. was prevailing in that war; the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and the ensuing riots in more than 40 cities that saw federal troops deployed to Chicago, Baltimore and Washington; the assassination of Robert Kennedy; a rising crime rate; the police riot at the Democratic National Convention ― all while the body count in Vietnam ticked up and up.
At the time, Nixon was running to replace President Lyndon Johnson, whom he argued had failed to enforce “law and order.” He knocked Johnson for his failures to quell riots, to subdue student activists and to win the war in Vietnam. Johnson, besieged from his left over his disastrous Vietnam policy, withdrew from the race.
When Vice President Hubert Humphrey took up the mantle, Nixon could not only blame him for the same failures as Johnson, but also for the continuing chaos after the Democratic Party’s contentious nomination of Humphrey inside the International Amphitheater in Chicago as the police rioted outside. Nixon’s focus on “law and order” and ending domestic turmoil worked because he could point to the people in the White House as the culprits.
The year 2020 seems similarly disorienting. A viral pandemic has caused depression-level unemployment and the botched government response has left more than 100,000 dead from the disease. Amid the pandemic, police and self-appointed vigilantes continued to kill Black Americans ― Ahmad Aubrey in Georgia, Breonna Taylor in Kentucky, and, in the tipping point, George Floyd in Minnesota. Police then violently repressed the protest movement sparked by Floyd’s killing as looters took advantage.
The president, meanwhile, has been woefully unable to rise to the challenges confronting him. In the early stages of the coronavirus threat, he called concerns raised about it a hoax. Finally responding to it, he teetered between endorsing stay-at-home measures to then endorsing protests to end them.
Advertisement
And that underscores a key difference between then and now ― Trump isn’t the challenger like Nixon, he occupies the office Johnson did in 1968. It is his challenger, former Vice President Joe Biden, who can make the case for the incumbent’s failures. Even as Trump tried to take no personal responsibility for any of his actions, it was his policies that led to a mismanaged pandemic response and his support for police brutality and repression that escalated the protests. Whatever failures of instituting “law and order” have occurred did so on his watch.
Nor can Trump’s situation be likened to Nixon’s 1972 reelection. The latter’s resounding win that year wasn’t the result of promises to restore “law and order,” but instead on his record as president and attacks on his rival as a left-wing extremist.
A Different Electorate
Today’s voting public is also very different than the one Nixon sought to win over in 1968.
Nixon’s “law and order” campaign worked because he was riding a wave of white backlash to civil rights activism and welfare policies that was gathering momentum. The backlash began after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the expansion of the welfare state under Johnson’s Great Society initiatives. These laws and programs became linked in the minds of many white Americans with riots in Black neighborhoods in Los Angeles’ Watts neighborhood, Detroit, Cleveland and elsewhere that exploded prior to 1968 after acts of police brutality or harassment. White voters began to oppose further civil rights legislation, in particular bills that would end unfair, racist housing practices.
In 1966, King protested for equal housing rights in Chicago’s Bungalow Belt. This was where descendants of Polish and German immigrants were able to buy into the American Dream of homeownership, but red-lining practices excluded Blacks. When King and his followers marched through the streets of this community, he was pelted with rocks and met with chants of “White Power!” and “Burn them like Jews!”
Voters in these once-solidly Democratic neighborhoods fueled the 1966 defeat of Democratic Sen. Paul Douglas, a committed civil rights advocate who King had once called the “greatest of all senators.” Nationally, public support for King collapsed, even before his 1967 “Beyond Vietnam” speech that earned him intense criticism, as Gallup measured his favorability as 32% positive and 63% negative.
Advertisement
Douglas wasn’t the lone liberal ― or policy ― to fall to the backlash against the civil rights movement during this period. New York City voters rejected a ballot initiative creating a civilian review board for police officers by a two-to-one margin. Anti-civil rights candidates won the governorships in Alabama, Florida and Georgia. California Gov. Pat Brown (D) lost his reelection to actor Ronald Reagan, the brash young standard-bearer of the new conservatism who expertly trolled student radicals and civil rights activists. “Whether we like it or not, the people want separation of the races,” Brown mused after his loss.
Contrast those results to the midterms of 2018. Trump, as he touted Republican candidates two years ago, renewed his rhetoric on race and crime with overhyped warnings of a caravan of dangerous undocumented immigrants poised to invade the country. While voters in solidly GOP states backed Trump in important Senate races, Republicans lost the House as the suburbs, which white voters had once fled to, turned sharply against the party and Trump.
In 1968, Nixon found a receptive audience as a champion for the white backlash. He warned of the “organizers of insurrection” in “Watts and Harlem and Detroit and Newark” and what they were “planning for the summer ahead.” The nation “must take the warnings to heart and prepare to meet force with force,” he said, adding, “our first commitment as a nation in this time of crisis and questioning must be a commitment to order.”
Troops march along a street in Washington in April 1968, responding to protests that turned violent following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in Memphis, Tennessee. The grief and anger caused by his killing sparked tumult in cities throughout the U.S. The Washington Post via Getty Images
Half a century later, a significant increase in the public acknowledgment of racial discrimination has occurred, particularly among white Democrats. And amid the current ferment, support for civil rights protests is increasing, not decreasing.
Advertisement
A plurality of whites expressed backing for Black Lives Matter protests for the first time in May, according to a daily tracking poll by Civiqs conducted for the liberal blog Daily Kos. A HuffPost/YouGov poll found 78% percent of Americans, including 74% of white Americans, view police brutality as a serious problem.
Poll after poll also shows white Democrats increasingly agreeing with Black Americans that systemic racism is real and needs to be addressed. This convergence, dubbed the Great Awokening by Vox, is evident in the multi-racial nature of the protests in the streets around the country since Floyd’s death at the hands of the Minneapolis police.
“There is a change in mindset that’s taking place — a recognition that we can do better,” former President Barack Obama said at a roundtable discussion hosted by the Obama Foundation on Wednesday. Today’s protests are made up of “a far more representative cross-section of America ... that didn’t exist back in the 1960s,” he added.
What did exist in 1968 was a large group of voters opposed to the protests, the student radicals, the rock-and-roll culture and the demonstrations against the Vietnam War. Nixon’s law-and-order rhetoric was effective because it could peel away conservative white Democrats who already felt alienated from their party. But those voters are much fewer in numbers today, while moderate voters who typically vote Republican but are repelled by Trump’s rhetoric are up for grabs in this November’s elections.
One of Nixon’s most famous commercials was titled “Law and Order.” It featured fast-cut clips of burning buildings, young radicals, bloodied protesters and police in distress set to a discordant soundtrack. “I pledge to you we shall have order in the United States,” Nixon intoned.
Advertisement
Trump may pose for photo-ops for his personal social media audience today. But that is a strategy aimed solely at his closest followers. On Tuesday afternoon, less than 24 hours after Trump made his “president of law and order” declaration, his comments had been cut into a political ad. Tellingly, it is not Republicans who are using Trump’s words, but Democrats. Priorities USA, a Democratic super PAC, plans to air the spot in this campaign’s most crucial states: Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
The ad highlights the violent dispersal of peaceful protesters from in front of the White House so Trump could stroll out for his photo-op in front of the historic St. John’s Episcopal Church. It ends with the voice of Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington from a CNN interview.
“The president just used a Bible and one of the churches of my diocese as a message antithetical to the teaching Jesus,” Budde says. “I just can’t believe what my eyes are seeing.”
The message is clear: Americans may still worry about law and order, but they should see Trump as a threat to it, not the solution.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-06-04--Republicans Prove They Can Focus During A Pandemic... On Confirming Judges

ASSOCIATED PRESS Justin Walker , the nominee to be U.S .
Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit , at his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on May 6 .
The Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to advance Justin Walker ’ s nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit .
There ’ s nothing particularly pressing about filling this court seat ; it ’ s not even vacant until September .
But McConnell is personally invested in Walker ’ s ascent .
McConnell has known Walker , 38 , since Walker was in high school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House last year for a seat on a U.S. District Court in Kentucky .
Republicans confirmed Walker to that seat last fall , despite the American Bar Association ’ s rating him “ not qualified ” based on his lack of experience ( at the time , his resume included being an associate law professor and a former law clerk to then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the D.C. Court of Appeals ) .
Walker has only been a district judge for a matter of months , but McConnell wants him to have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the ABA said he is qualified this time .
Walker ’ s nomination was the Judiciary Committee ’ s first order of business when the Senate came back into session in early May after a six-week break due to the pandemic .
The panel held his confirmation hearing that week instead of holding hearings on any number of issues it has jurisdiction over related to the health and economic fallout from the coronavirus .
The committee could , for example , have spent the last few weeks holding hearings that look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staff and incarcerated people , changes in immigration policy tied to the pandemic or the spike in hate crimes against the Asian American community .
Instead , the committee met Thursday to vote out Walker ’ s nomination in a party-line vote .
All that ’ s left is for the full Senate to confirm him , which could happen as soon as next week .
“ It is warp speed , ” said Carl Tobias , a law professor who holds the Williams Chair at the University of Richmond and is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given the compelling need for the Senate to address all of the horrible health and economic risks created by COVID-19 and all of the complications created by COVID-19 to have hearings , floor debates and votes.
” Democrats strongly oppose Walker , who has come under fire for praising Kavanaugh for having written the “ road map ” for overturning the Affordable Care Act .
Walker also described the Supreme Court ’ s decision to uphold the law as indefensible and catastrophic .
“ Can anyone here say with a straight face that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience and a few months on the job as a district court judge in the Commonwealth of Kentucky is the best person for this job ?
Anybody ?
” Sen. Dick Durbin ( D-Ill. ) asked in Thursday ’ s hearing , to silence .
“ He ’ s not , and we know it.
” “ The nomination of Justin Walker is not only a personal favor to the Republican leader , it is a direct attack on the Affordable Care Act in the midst of a public health crisis in America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oppose this nomination.
” The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights — a coalition of more than 200 national civil and human rights organizations , including the NAACP and the Human Rights Campaign — also strongly opposes Walker ’ s nomination , characterizing him as “ hostile to health care.
” “ At this perilous time in our nation ’ s history , the Senate should maintain a laser focus on efforts to save lives and mitigate the devastating economic impact of COVID-19 on the American people , ” reads the group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The Senate should not process judicial nominations — particularly those like Mr. Walker who seek to dismantle health care protections for vulnerable people — until the shock of the pandemic has been diminished.
” Walker said in his confirmation hearing that his past comments on the Affordable Care Act came before he was a judge and that he was talking about the legal analysis in the case , not the merits of the health care law itself .
Like so many of President Donald Trump ’ s circuit court nominees , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Society , a conservative legal organization that has effectively been picking Trump ’ s judicial nominees for him .
There is a clear theme to these court picks , too : They have records of being anti-LGBTQ , anti-abortion and anti-voting rights .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― As the nation grapples with a deadly pandemic and nationwide protests for racial justice, Senate Republicans are acting with urgency … to put Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s protege into a lifetime seat on the nation’s second-most-powerful court.
The Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to advance Justin Walker’s nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. There’s nothing particularly pressing about filling this court seat; it’s not even vacant until September. But McConnell is personally invested in Walker’s ascent.
Advertisement
McConnell has known Walker, 38, since Walker was in high school. The senator recommended him to the White House last year for a seat on a U.S. District Court in Kentucky.
Republicans confirmed Walker to that seat last fall, despite the American Bar Association rating him “not qualified” based on his lack of experience (at the time, his resume included being an associate law professor and a former law clerk to then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the D.C. Court of Appeals). Walker has only been a district judge for a matter of months, but McConnell wants him to have a seat on the D.C. Court of Appeals, and the ABA said he is qualified this time.
Justin Walker, the nominee to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit, at his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on May 6. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Walker’s nomination was the Judiciary Committee’s first order of business when the Senate came back into session in early May after a six-week break due to the pandemic.
Advertisement
The panel held his confirmation hearing that week instead of holding hearings on any number of issues it has jurisdiction over related to the health and economic fallout from the coronavirus. The committee could, for example, have spent the last few weeks holding hearings that look at the health and safety of corrections staff and incarcerated people, changes in immigration policy tied to the pandemic or the spike in hate crimes against the Asian American community.
Instead, the committee met Thursday to vote out Walker’s nomination in a party-line vote. All that’s left is for the full Senate to confirm him, which could happen as soon as next week.
“It is warp speed,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor who holds the Williams Chair at the University of Richmond and is an expert on judicial nominations. “Especially given the compelling need for the Senate to address all of the horrible health and economic risks created by COVID-19 and all of the complications created by COVID-19 to have hearings, floor debates and votes.”
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky., left) chats with Justin Walker ahead of his Senate confirmation hearing. Caroline Brehman via Getty Images
Democrats strongly oppose Walker, who has come under fire for praising Kavanaugh for having written the “road map” for overturning the Affordable Care Act. Walker also described the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the law as indefensible and catastrophic.
Advertisement
His remarks are particularly worrisome to supporters of the health care law as the D.C. Circuit Court is the main U.S. appeals court for issues of constitutional law, meaning a challenge to the ACA’s constitutionality could potentially come before him.
“Can anyone here say with a straight face that this 38-year-old individual with no practical courtroom experience and a few months on the job as a district court judge in the Commonwealth of Kentucky is the best person for this job? Anybody?” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) asked in Thursday’s hearing, to silence. “He’s not, and we know it.”
“The nomination of Justin Walker is not only a personal favor to the Republican leader, it is a direct attack on the Affordable Care Act in the midst of a public health crisis in America,” Durbin added. “I oppose this nomination.”
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights — a coalition of more than 200 national civil and human rights organizations, including the NAACP and the Human Rights Campaign — also strongly opposes Walker’s nomination, characterizing him as “hostile to health care.”
“At this perilous time in our nation’s history, the Senate should maintain a laser focus on efforts to save lives and mitigate the devastating economic impact of COVID-19 on the American people,” reads the group’s April 27 letter to senators. “The Senate should not process judicial nominations — particularly those like Mr. Walker who seek to dismantle health care protections for vulnerable people — until the shock of the pandemic has been diminished.”
Advertisement
Walker said in his confirmation hearing that his past comments on the Affordable Care Act came before he was a judge and that he was talking about the legal analysis in the case, not the merits of the health care law itself.
Walker is all but certain to be confirmed.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-06-04--American Policing Has Always Been About Enforcing White Supremacy

I would argue the very first police force that meets the definition of a modern , 24-hour , uniformed , law-enforcement-oriented force is actually the Charleston City Watch and Guard , which is formed in the 1790s to manage a mobile slave population that works outside the home of their owners .
And the minority white population at that time was terrified about the possibility of slave uprisings , revolts , etc .
So they needed a force that could manage that mobile slave population , prevent them from forming reading groups , being disorderly in the street , participating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with little bits of pocket money that they were able to obtain .
But we don ’ t hear about that force as the origins of policing , because their primary objective under the law was to manage slaves .
In northern police forces , slavery is also a factor , because one of the functions of early policing in the north is the capture of escaped slaves and returning them to the south .
But more importantly for the formation of policing in the north is really the management of this massive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ molded into an industrial workforce .
So how did they end up in this massively expanded role in society ?
It ’ s tied to neoliberal austerity politics , which says that the only thing the government can do to help people is to take its resources and invest them in the already most successful parts of the economy in hopes that some of that wealth will magically trickle down to everyone else .
There ’ s a bipartisan consensus across the board that the government can no longer meaningfully intervene in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most wealthy , and that they can not go forward anymore to provide any kind of decent social safety net .
The result [ is ] massive wealth inequality .
The result of that has been mass homelessness , mass untreated mental illness , mass untreated drug problems , mass under- and unemployment , and the black markets of drugs and sex work and stolen goods that go along with that .
It ’ s mostly budgetary .
What I advocate and what people are doing across the country is they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public safety challenges , the health and security challenges that their communities face that have been turned over to police to manage ?
Then once we ’ ve identified those things , we can start talking about what specific interventions would be better .
Is it a youth violence problem ?
Is it an opioid overdose problem ?
Is it a problem of homeless encampments ?
Is it domestic violence ?
Whatever those problems are , we have evidence-based alternatives that we could be relying on instead of policing .
Then we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to shift resources from policing and jails into these targeted community-based interventions — violence interrupters , domestic violence programs based in the community , safe injection facilities , drug treatment on demand , building high-quality youth centers with real staffing to help young people .
These are the things that make their community safer and healthier , not our police .
I ’ ve been a police scholar for the last 20 years .
I work with and write with and know police all over the world .
And most police wake up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with some idea about trying to help people .
They think they ’ re doing something positive .
They may be misguided in this understanding , but they don ’ t all come at it maliciously .
Some [ police officers ] have become jaded and unnecessarily violent and racist .
But I don ’ t think that is the majority of officers .
A strategy of trying to weed out a few bad apples or make the training better so they don ’ t become bad apples really , or hire more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make policing better — this all misunderstands the structural imperatives that drive the violence , discourtesy and injustice .
We need to have a structural analysis of the mission that police have been given rather than tinkering around with the attitudes of individual officers .

Alex S. Vitale has had a busy week. The Brooklyn College professor and author of “The End of Policing,” and his academic peers, all experts in the history of American policing and police brutality, have been called on a lot since mass protests sprang up nationwide in the wake of the police killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Tony McDade.
The good news is that the ideas that Vitale feels like he, along with his colleagues and many on-the-ground activists, have been screaming about for years, are finally entering the mainstream. You’ve probably seen calls on your Instagram, Twitter and Facebook feeds to increase anti-bias training, prosecute officers who use excessive force against Black civilians, and to “defund the police.” These demands cut to the core of Vitale’s work. In his book “The End of Policing,” Vitale writes that in the desire to frame “the problem of policing as one of inadequate training and professionalization, reformers fail to directly address how the very nature of policing and the legal system served to maintain and exacerbate racial inequality.”
Advertisement
I got a chance to speak with Vitale over the phone for nearly an hour on Thursday morning about how we got to this moment. We talked about the history of police forces and their initial ties to slavery, the limitations of individual “good cop” narratives, and what calls to “defund the police” and funnel that money into community initiatives really mean.
One thing remained clear throughout our discussion: There is no reforming racism out of American policing, because it is built into the system’s very bones. When I asked him if white supremacy had been a vital component of American policing since day one, Vitale did not mince words. “Yes,” he said.
You write that the current form of policing we see in America is “based on a mindset that people of color commit more crime and therefore must be subjected to harsher police tactics.” Are our police departments in any way reformable in their current state?
There are things that we could do to reduce the harms of policing. And groups like Campaign Zero have identified a few things that have some evidence behind them, but this won’t really change the kind of gross injustices at the heart of the way we are utilizing police in the United States. So while these horrific killings [of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor] have galvanized anger, a lot of this is also driven by the everyday overuse of policing, especially in our poorest communities.
Advertisement
I want to dig into the history, because I feel like people don’t quite understand how we ended up at this point. Can you talk me through a little bit of the history of American police departments and the enforcement of white supremacy? How closely are these things linked?
Policing gets formed, for the most part, in the late 18th and early 19th century, in both Europe and the United States. In both contexts, there are three primary drivers of the formation of new police departments: colonialism, industrialization, and in the U.S., slavery. Policing emerges when there’s a crisis in each of these forms of exploitation, to the extent that a system of more modern social control is needed.
“The very first police force that meets the definition of a modern, 24-hour, uniformed, law-enforcement-oriented force is actually the Charleston City Watch and Guard, which is formed in the 1790s to manage a mobile slave population.” - Alex S. Vitale, Author of "The End of Policing"
I would argue the very first police force that meets the definition of a modern, 24-hour, uniformed, law-enforcement-oriented force is actually the Charleston City Watch and Guard, which is formed in the 1790s to manage a mobile slave population that works outside the home of their owners. And the minority white population at that time was terrified about the possibility of slave uprisings, revolts, etc. So they needed a force that could manage that mobile slave population, prevent them from forming reading groups, being disorderly in the street, participating in religious activities, going to speak-easies with little bits of pocket money that they were able to obtain. But we don’t hear about that force as the origins of policing, because their primary objective under the law was to manage slaves. In northern police forces, slavery is also a factor, because one of the functions of early policing in the north is the capture of escaped slaves and returning them to the south. But more importantly for the formation of policing in the north is really the management of this massive new immigrant population that’s being molded into an industrial workforce.
Early policing in the middle of the 1800s is not really focused much on crime. In fact, there’s terrible corruption in that early police [force], and they’re often working with the criminals. Instead, what it’s doing is it’s trying to micromanage the public behavior of these immigrant, working-class populations. Controlling what’s happening in the taverns, checking the length of women’s skirts, preventing people from boisterously congregating, and a whole set of “nuisance laws” that really weren’t about crime but were about trying to stamp out what was perceived to be disorderly and unproductive behavior, like public drunkenness.
And were those nuisance laws always at their core designed to target immigrant populations and populations of color?
Absolutely. In part, because what we’re talking about is behaviors that are associated with new immigrants and working-class populations. Rich people drink alcohol in fancy restaurants and their homes. Poor people drink alcohol in overcrowded taverns that spill out onto the streets, on their front stoops. So even the objective enforcement of the law will fall disproportionately on these more vulnerable populations. There’s a famous 19th-century saying, that “the law in its majesty forbids both the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges, stealing bread, and begging in the streets.”
So then there’s just one other factor for the origins of U.S. policing, which is colonialism. The U.S. had police forces like the Texas Rangers, whose primary objective was to drive out Native American and Spanish and Mexican landowners to make way for white settlement in the South and Southwest.
So essentially from day one, whiteness and white supremacy are tied deeply into what we think of as modern policing.
Advertisement
Yes.
You also write about the increasing militarization of American police departments, especially since the late 1960s. I’m curious if you could talk me through that a bit.
Militarization is not just about hardware. The militarization of policing is also about a set of tactics and strategies used by police. It’s about training and the formation of all kinds of specialized units, like drug units and gang units and gun interdiction units, that have all taken on a military esprit de corps. And this is driven, in large part, by directives from political leaders to the police, to wage a war on drugs and a war on crime, a war on gangs and a war on immigrants and a war on terrorism. The warlike stance of the police is not an accidental overreaction. They’ve been told, in no uncertain terms, that this is what’s being asked of them.
You also talk about “the warrior mentality” that police have been trained to have. What exactly is that mindset, and what sorts of behaviors does that then encourage?
One of the problems with the warrior mindset is that it causes police to view the public as an oppositional force to be neutralized. This has led to a whole series of really egregious police killings, where officers have come to believe that any sign of threat is an existential threat to them and must be immediately neutralized. I don’t know if you remember [John Crawford III], African American guy in a Walmart [in 2014], trying to legally purchase a [BB] gun, which he had in his hand. An officer arrives on the scene, and sees a Black man with a [BB] gun, and kills him.
There have been a number of these cases, where, for instance, a Black person is in a car and is pulled over and says, “I have a legally registered gun.” The officer sees the gun and then shoots the guy in an open-carry state, right? So it’s this neutralization mindset, which, of course, is always applied unevenly by race.
Advertisement
How does that tie into some of what we’ve seen over the last week, like armed groups of white men in Philly claiming to “protect police,” who are then using pepper spray against peaceful protesters, many of whom are Black. What is the dynamic playing out there and is there a historical precedent for that?
Policing claims to be politically neutral, but it never has been. It is a force for maintaining a certain version of “order” that benefits specific groups disproportionately. So when officers assess what’s a threat and who’s an ally, this is always done through a political lens. White supremacists and evangelical Christian extremists and Oath Keepers are seen as the keepers of order along with the police, while African-Americans fighting for community investments and more political power are seen as inherently disorderly and destabilizing.
And so right-wing groups have always been a kind of natural partner to the police, especially in relationship to political policing. So groups like The American Legion have aided police. They’ve facilitated the blacklisting of people, gathered intelligence on organizations, and historically have been used to break up political meetings and union strikes at the behest of local police. In addition, there’s a long history of business involvement in political policing, offering police bribes and unofficial paychecks, to act as basically private security to discourage unionization and break up labor organizing.
“The racially disparate outcomes are baked into the decision to turn these problems over to the police to manage. The violence is baked into the decision to turn these problems over to violence workers.” - Alex S. Vitale
Over the last century, police have been asked to take responsibility over increasing areas of public health and safety — overdoses, wellness checks, domestic violence disputes. You point out in your book that often, you then end up with police officers who, (a) do not have training to deal with these expanded responsibilities and (b) don’t even have a clear education and understanding of the laws they’re supposed to be enforcing. How did police become responsible for this crazy breadth of public health and safety issues, without any requirement for proper education?
Advertisement
First, let me take on the proper education part. One of the things we’ve been hearing over the last five years is that there are problems with police training. So we want to give police CIT [Crisis Intervention Team] training, and deescalation training, and anti-bias training. First of all, there’s no real evidence that any of that training works. Second of all, a fair amount of it is contradictory. You cannot train police to do every job in society. Police are violence workers. They should be limited to those tasks where we can’t come up with a nonviolent alternative.
So how did they end up in this massively expanded role in society? It’s tied to neoliberal austerity politics, which says that the only thing the government can do to help people is to take its resources and invest them in the already most successful parts of the economy in hopes that some of that wealth will magically trickle down to everyone else. There’s a bipartisan consensus across the board that the government can no longer meaningfully intervene in the economy, except to subsidize the already most wealthy, and that they cannot go forward anymore to provide any kind of decent social safety net. The result [is] massive wealth inequality. The result of that has been mass homelessness, mass untreated mental illness, mass untreated drug problems, mass under- and unemployment, and the black markets of drugs and sex work and stolen goods that go along with that.
Instead of going back and saying, “Oh, maybe we should actually house people,” or, “Maybe we should actually set up youth employment programs,” we turn those problems over to the police to manage. Then when there’s violence and racially disparate outcomes, we say, “Oh, well, maybe the police need more training.” No. Narcotics units don’t need anti-bias training. We need to get rid of the war on drugs. The racism [and] the racially disparate outcomes are baked into the decision to turn these problems over to the police to manage. The violence is baked into the decision to turn these problems over to violence workers.
So what’s the alternative?
It’s mostly budgetary. What I advocate and what people are doing across the country is they’re doing community needs assessments. What are the public safety challenges, the health and security challenges that their communities face that have been turned over to police to manage? Then once we’ve identified those things, we can start talking about what specific interventions would be better. Is it a youth violence problem? Is it an opioid overdose problem? Is it a problem of homeless encampments? Is it domestic violence? Whatever those problems are, we have evidence-based alternatives that we could be relying on instead of policing. Then we need communities to demand their elected officials to shift resources from policing and jails into these targeted community-based interventions — violence interrupters, domestic violence programs based in the community, safe injection facilities, drug treatment on demand, building high-quality youth centers with real staffing to help young people. These are the things that make their community safer and healthier, not our police.
Advertisement
It’s been very striking, if not surprising, to watch governors and mayors in predominantly blue states and cities, often who ran on progressive platforms, kowtow to police departments. What’s going on there?
Well, I think a big part of the problem is that the mainstream of the Democratic Party has capitulated to the idea that there’s no alternative to neoliberal austerity. They’ve cast their lot with the billionaires in the hopes that the billionaires will provide them some little relief so that they don’t end up being Detroit. And so that means that they refuse to tax the rich and refuse to provide decent services and that when problems emerge, they define those problems as ones of individual and group moral failure to be criminalized by policing.
Because the alternative would be to acknowledge that these problems are the result of market failures. But if the mayors did that, then that would demand that they intervene in those markets, [which] goes up against what their campaign contributors in this oligarchic class want. The Democratic Party will never get to the base of this problem until they quit taking money from billionaires and become a real party of the working class and poor.
Protesters hold up their phones outside the White House on June 3 during a demonstration against police brutality and the killing of George Floyd. ERIC BARADAT via Getty Images
Advertisement
Wednesday evening, Mayor Garcetti in Los Angeles announced that he plans to cut $100-150 million from the LAPD budget and reinvest that money into communities of color. And we’ve seen similar calls to “defund the police” across the nation. Do you feel like this moment is different? Are we primed for change?
It’s not an accident that “defund the police” has become a major message from this movement and that we’re seeing concerted action on this front. This is the result of years of struggle on the ground. There are dozens of cities that before this week were already calling for defunding the police, but they were being ignored by the media and ignored by politicians because it was threatening to the political order. And now that anger about the failure to deal with these demands is unleashed on the streets and channeled into these already existing budget battles. This is not just Los Angeles, right? Nashville. Portland. I’m sure you saw the open letter from [Mayor Bill] De Blasio staffers [demanding “radical change”]. I mean, that is an uprising in his own office.
Just in case any of our readers don’t understand what it means when they see calls to “defund the police,” can you explain what defunding police would look like on a practical level?
“Defund the police” captures a continuum of ideas. On the one hand you have these very specific campaigns on the ground who’ve identified specific dollar amounts. In Minneapolis, they want to take $45 million out of the police budget. In New York they want to take out $200 million from the police budget. In Los Angeles, $150 million. And then they want that money transferred to address community needs. It’s very concrete. Usually these numbers are based on budget assessments.
That’s really the exciting model, but there’s also a longer-term philosophical element to “defund the police” for a lot of people. It’s tied to this concept of prison and police abolition. It’s about trying to imagine and build a more just and equitable world where we don’t have to rely on policing to manage regimes of exploitation. It has these immediate concrete needs that might be a road map towards a more fundamental change in society.
Advertisement
When there is a rash of public criticism of police and policing, it sparks defensiveness and a rush for people to say, “Well, I know a cop who’s a good person. Not all cops are bad people.” And — of course! — there are good people who go into law enforcement. I’m curious how you encourage people to tease out the difference between an individual’s morality or goodness, and the ineffectiveness or the intrinsic issues of a structure.
I’ve been a police scholar for the last 20 years. I work with and write with and know police all over the world. And most police wake up in the morning or join this job with some idea about trying to help people. They think they’re doing something positive. They may be misguided in this understanding, but they don’t all come at it maliciously. Some [police officers] have become jaded and unnecessarily violent and racist. But I don’t think that is the majority of officers. A strategy of trying to weed out a few bad apples or make the training better so they don’t become bad apples really, or hire more diverse officers because that will somehow magically make policing better — this all misunderstands the structural imperatives that drive the violence, discourtesy and injustice. We need to have a structural analysis of the mission that police have been given rather than tinkering around with the attitudes of individual officers.
And you point out in your book, which I found so striking, that there is little evidence that diversifying police departments actually changes outcomes.
There is no evidence. In fact, the only evidence that we have is that in some cases it makes it worse. Most studies show it has no effect, good or bad, but a few studies actually show that African-American officers are more likely to arrest Black people than their white counterparts in similar situations.
Advertisement
Does that indicate to you that police officers are simply being funneled into a structure and an ideology that is inherently encouraging these kinds of racist behaviors?
Yes. When we tell the police that they’re at war with the public, when we tell the police that they are the only tool to solve community problems, this will inherently lead to problems. Because what tools do the police have to solve our community problems? Guns, handcuffs and ticket books and threats and harassment. And these tools are inherently demeaning, degrading and violent. If we don’t want degrading and violent treatment, don’t get the police involved.
I’ve also noticed an uptick in “feel-good police content” from the protests popping up on a lot white peoples’ social media feeds; photos of officers taking a knee or hugging a Black protester. What do you make of the impulse to post stuff like that? And what are the limits of that feel-good content?
So Derecka Purnell wrote a piece for The Appeal that [argued] we should not be embracing the police in our protests. That this is a fake narrative that imagines that the problems are just ones of superficial attitude adjustment. [Feel-good acts of solidarity] are really symbolic public relations designed to deflect legitimate anger about our overreliance on policing. We don’t really care what the attitudes of those officers are. We don’t want them in our lives. It’s not a matter of what race they are or how enlightened their ideas are about racism. It really doesn’t matter.
I think that that is something that white people who have not had to deal with overpolicing are struggling to grasp, though perhaps something more white people are beginning to grasp. I think there’s a comfort in imagining that it’s just about, “What if people were just kinder?” But what you’re saying is that this is a structure, this is innate, this racism is baked in from day one. So, given all of that, are you hopeful in this moment?
Advertisement
I’m pretty pessimistic about the situation in Washington. [President Donald] Trump is trying to weaponize the police and the military for political purposes. He’s going to campaign on a law-and-order platform of putting down the protests, and he’s using police and the military to help accomplish that for him. And the Democrats really have nothing to offer. [Former President Barack] Obama’s address to the nation last night was horrible. It made him instantly irrelevant in the current conversation. He had nothing to offer people, except to trot out the same tired list of reforms that were implemented in Minneapolis and had no effect.
But at the local level, I’m more hopeful. We have these organizing campaigns all across the country to defund the police, to redirect resources into community needs. And these movements are growing and becoming more powerful. And policing is ultimately a local matter. It’s not a federal matter. So we can really make huge changes at the local level, no matter how messed up the situation in Washington is.
So for people who see what’s going on and say, “My eyes are open. I want to be part of the change. I want to be part of the solution.” What should they be doing?
It’s such a difficult circumstance. We still have an active pandemic underway. So people have to be responsible about [protesting in the streets]. They have to wear masks. They have to avoid unnecessary contact. And they also have to explore alternative ways of expressing their anger.
People need to be putting more signs in their windows, standing out on their stoops with signs and doing car caravans. We need to be creative and we need to lean on our elected officials and demand that they provide us with some basic modicum of justice in this matter. And that can involve phone calls and Twitter storms and letters to the editor. We need to be operating on all fronts.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-06-04--California Gov. Newsom Likes To ‘Go Big’ But Doesn’t Always Deliver

ASSOCIATED PRESS Gov .
Gavin Newsom announces new criteria related to coronavirus hospitalizations and testing that could allow counties to open faster than the state , during a news conference at Mustards Grill in Napa , Calif. , Monday May 18 , 2020 .
( AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli , Pool ) “ I recognize that I ’ m setting myself up .
I ’ m not naive to that , ” he told his hometown newspaper in 2003 as he embarked on a campaign to sell his controversial plan .
It hinged on slashing welfare payments for homeless people and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hotels , converting them into long-term housing with health and social services .
Over-promise he did , and the venture ultimately failed .
But that pledge by Newsom — who at the time was a young , politically connected wine shop owner relatively new to public office — previewed a brand of political leadership on full display today as the first-term governor confronts an unprecedented public health emergency that has decimated the state ’ s economy and killed more than 4,280 Californians .
“ This governor wants to get a lot done even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quite there yet .
It ’ s uniquely his approach , ” said Democratic strategist Dana Williamson , longtime adviser to former Gov .
Jerry Brown .
“ He isn ’ t afraid to go big .
The upside is establishing yourself as a real leader and , in the case of COVID , saving lives .
But the downside is it doesn ’ t always work out quite perfectly.
” Newsom has a long history of pushing big ideas before they become popular , including legalizing gay marriage and recreational marijuana use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free health care for undocumented immigrants .
Since his entry into public life , he has cultivated the image of a political risk-taker willing to buck the Democratic Party establishment .
And although he has demurred , there is widespread speculation that Newsom has presidential ambitions .
Since the start of the pandemic , Newsom has been praised by public health experts and Democratic strategists for making politically courageous decisions such as enacting the nation ’ s first statewide stay-at-home order , preventing widespread sickness and death .
He has dramatically expanded hospital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as they erupt , from dire shortages of protective gear for hospital workers to inadequate testing in rural towns and poor , inner-city neighborhoods .
In other cases , the governor has artfully avoided making specific promises .
For instance , he has called the safety of nursing home patients and staff members a “ top priority ” without detailing plans , allowing him to dodge criticism even as more than half the deaths in California have occurred in long-term care facilities , according to state data .
Yet so far Newsom is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 70 % of likely voters say he ’ s doing a good job of handling the pandemic , according to a new poll released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California .
His overall approval rating has climbed by double digits since February , rising from 52 % to 64 % .
“ People can be forgiving and give the governor the benefit of the doubt , but that can turn from positive to negative very quickly , ” Baldassare said .
“ The risk is public opinion can shift very quickly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not going well or according to expectations.
” “ When you have a crisis like this that is unprecedented , there is no real playbook , ” Zingale said .
“ I think Gavin Newsom was made for this moment .
This is a situation where you want a governor who is high-energy , deeply earnest and prone to action rather than inaction.
” Newsom ’ s political career dates back to the late 1990s , when he was appointed to San Francisco ’ s parking and traffic commission by its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Brown tapped Newsom to fill an open seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors .
Running as the incumbent in 1998 , Newsom was elected that year to his first full term on the board .
During his early years in public life , he honed his approach to politics — aggressively seeking national media attention for first-in-the-country social and economic policies .
In 2004 , the year he took office as mayor , Newsom granted same-sex couples marriage licenses before it was legal , and in 2006 he signed into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health care program , which covered all city residents regardless of their immigration status or ability to pay .
“ Gavin has always believed that if you show people you ’ re thinking big and trying hard , they will take that over timidity , even if you might fail , ” said Ragone , who remains a close , informal adviser to Newsom and also advises New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio .
“ He wasn ’ t able to completely eradicate homelessness , but the voters were OK with that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Success doesn ’ t have to be an absolute policy triumph.
” “ We had no idea that there were such big problems in skilled nursing facilities based on what the governor was saying , ” Chin said .
“ By the time we found out , it was too late .
”

Gov. Gavin Newsom announces new criteria related to coronavirus hospitalizations and testing that could allow counties to open faster than the state, during a news conference at Mustards Grill in Napa, Calif., Monday May 18, 2020. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, Pool) ASSOCIATED PRESS
By Angela Hart
Gavin Newsom knew it was a political gamble when, as the newly elected mayor of San Francisco, he promised to eradicate chronic homelessness.
“I recognize that I’m setting myself up. I’m not naive to that,” he told his hometown newspaper in 2003 as he embarked on a campaign to sell his controversial plan. It hinged on slashing welfare payments for homeless people and redirecting those funds to acquire single-room occupancy hotels, converting them into long-term housing with health and social services.
Advertisement
“I don’t want to over-promise, but I also don’t want to under-deliver,” he said.
Over-promise he did, and the venture ultimately failed. But that pledge by Newsom — who at the time was a young, politically connected wine shop owner relatively new to public office — previewed a brand of political leadership on full display today as the first-term governor confronts an unprecedented public health emergency that has decimated the state’s economy and killed more than 4,280 Californians.
The COVID-19 pandemic has catapulted the 52-year-old Democrat into greater national prominence, winning him praise and voter support for taking decisive action to control the spread of infection in the absence of strong federal leadership.
But it has also exposed his penchant for making ambitious, showy announcements — often broadcast to a national audience — that aren’t necessarily ready for prime time. His plans regularly lack detail and, in some cases, follow-through.
“This governor wants to get a lot done even if all the details aren’t quite there yet. It’s uniquely his approach,” said Democratic strategist Dana Williamson, longtime adviser to former Gov. Jerry Brown. “He isn’t afraid to go big. The upside is establishing yourself as a real leader and, in the case of COVID, saving lives. But the downside is it doesn’t always work out quite perfectly.”
Advertisement
Newsom has a long history of pushing big ideas before they become popular, including legalizing gay marriage and recreational marijuana use, halting death penalty executions and expanding free health care for undocumented immigrants. Since his entry into public life, he has cultivated the image of a political risk-taker willing to buck the Democratic Party establishment. And although he has demurred, there is widespread speculation that Newsom has presidential ambitions.
Since the start of the pandemic, Newsom has been praised by public health experts and Democratic strategists for making politically courageous decisions such as enacting the nation’s first statewide stay-at-home order, preventing widespread sickness and death. He has dramatically expanded hospital capacity while seeking to attack major problems as they erupt, from dire shortages of protective gear for hospital workers to inadequate testing in rural towns and poor, inner-city neighborhoods.
But as the crisis wears on, the list of Newsom’s unfulfilled promises is growing:
On April 7, he told MSNBC host Rachel Maddow that he had inked a deal securing “upwards” of 200 million protective masks per month, enough to “supply the needs of the state of California — potentially the needs of other Western states.” But nearly two months later, just 61 million surgical masks have arrived in California, while no higher-caliber N95 masks have been delivered, according to Brian Ferguson, spokesperson for the state Office of Emergency Services — despite Newsom’s promise that the deal included at least 150 million N95s. The $1 billion effort has been riddled with flaws, and the state so far has taken back nearly $250 million from the Chinese contractor, BYD Ltd. Co.
Later that month, Newsom announced a deal with Motel 6 that would provide thousands of rooms for homeless people in need of shelter. At least 5,025 Motel 6 rooms at 47 sites would open their doors to homeless people, “effective immediately,” should counties opt in, he said. But to date, just 628 Motel 6 rooms are open to homeless people at six sites.
Newsom also said in April that California must dramatically expand COVID-19 testing before it reopens to at least 60,000 — ideally 80,000 — tests per day. But the state still has not consistently reached 60,000 tests per day, even as it has allowed most counties to ease their stay-at-home restrictions
In other cases, the governor has artfully avoided making specific promises. For instance, he has called the safety of nursing home patients and staff members a “top priority” without detailing plans, allowing him to dodge criticism even as more than half the deaths in California have occurred in long-term care facilities, according to state data.
Advertisement
Yet so far Newsom is showing strong support from Californians. Nearly 70% of likely voters say he’s doing a good job of handling the pandemic, according to a new poll released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California. His overall approval rating has climbed by double digits since February, rising from 52% to 64%.
But his support could erode if the public begins to notice that his promises — and lofty rhetoric — do not match reality, said Mark Baldassare, president and CEO of the institute.
“People can be forgiving and give the governor the benefit of the doubt, but that can turn from positive to negative very quickly,” Baldassare said. “The risk is public opinion can shift very quickly if people get a sense that it’s not going well or according to expectations.”
Although Newsom himself has acknowledged criticism that the state is falling short on some fronts, his chief spokesperson Nathan Click defended the governor’s approach.
“When it’s your life or livelihood on the line, wouldn’t you want leaders who are moving aggressively to help people on every possible front?” Click said in a statement. “He’s not afraid to swing for the fences — especially in a time of massive need.”
Advertisement
Daniel Zingale, Newsom’s former chief adviser, who retired earlier this year, argued that the governor’s handling of the pandemic has saved countless lives while bolstering the social safety net for those at greatest risk of contracting the coronavirus.
“When you have a crisis like this that is unprecedented, there is no real playbook,” Zingale said. “I think Gavin Newsom was made for this moment. This is a situation where you want a governor who is high-energy, deeply earnest and prone to action rather than inaction.”
***
Newsom’s political career dates back to the late 1990s, when he was appointed to San Francisco’s parking and traffic commission by its then-mayor, Willie Brown. Soon thereafter, Brown tapped Newsom to fill an open seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Running as the incumbent in 1998, Newsom was elected that year to his first full term on the board.
During his early years in public life, he honed his approach to politics — aggressively seeking national media attention for first-in-the-country social and economic policies. In 2004, the year he took office as mayor, Newsom granted same-sex couples marriage licenses before it was legal, and in 2006 he signed into law the nation’s first universal health care program, which covered all city residents regardless of their immigration status or ability to pay.
Newsom, in his 2013 book “Citizenville,” described his leadership approach as “Ready, fire, aim.”
“I’m as proud of some of my failures in business and politics as I am of my successes,” he wrote. “Failure isn’t something to be embarrassed about; it’s just proof that you’re pushing your limits, trying new things, daring to innovate.”
Advertisement
Newsom believes strongly in setting “audacious goals,” even if he risks over-promising or alienating supporters, said Peter Ragone, who was press secretary for part of Newsom’s mayoral tenure.
“Gavin has always believed that if you show people you’re thinking big and trying hard, they will take that over timidity, even if you might fail,” said Ragone, who remains a close, informal adviser to Newsom and also advises New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. “He wasn’t able to completely eradicate homelessness, but the voters were OK with that because they saw he was trying. Success doesn’t have to be an absolute policy triumph.”
***
Now Newsom is facing the biggest challenge of his political career, with several high-profile crises slamming California at once: A global public health emergency. Widespread civil unrest sparked by the killing of an African American man in Minnesota, George Floyd, at the hands of a white police officer, Derek Chauvin. Rising unemployment that could reach 30%. And another potentially devastating wildfire season.
The coronavirus pandemic, in particular, could have long-lasting consequences for Newsom’s future, said Dr. Leonard Marcus, co-director of the National Preparedness Leadership Initiative, a joint program of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
“The politics of crisis leadership are high-consequence,” Marcus said. “For every political leader, a crisis like this is going to make or break their career.”
Advertisement
Davis resident Simon Chin has grown disillusioned with Newsom since the start of the crisis.
Chin’s father, 80-year-old George Chin, lived in Stollwood Convalescent Hospital in nearby Woodland. Chin regularly tuned into Newsom’s public briefings on the crisis to hear the governor say he was committed to preventing infections in nursing homes and protecting staff members and residents.
But infections in senior care homes continued to rise. And although Newsom has called for universal testing of residents and staffers, the state hasn’t provided the resources to make that happen, said Jason Belden, emergency preparedness director for the California Association of Health Facilities, which represents California’s roughly 1,200 state-regulated nursing homes.
State Health and Human Services Secretary Mark Ghaly said it’s the responsibility of nursing homes, not the state, to test.
“It’s not what we’re doing, and it’s, in our view, not feasible,” Ghaly said in an interview, noting that across the state, there are about 119,000 nursing home beds and about 90,000 staff members.
Newsom’s rhetoric at times has given the public a false sense of hope, said Dr. Michael Wasserman, president of the California Association of Long Term Care Medicine.
Advertisement
“When it comes to vulnerable older adults in California, all this governor has been doing is saying he’s going to act, he’s going to help them, but he hasn’t actually taken action,” Wasserman said. “People are dying because of it.”
Newsom’s reassuring statements during his public briefings made Chin feel like the state was doing more to prevent widespread infections, he said.
But Chin’s father died of COVID-19 on April 22. State records show 15 residents — roughly half of the nursing home’s capacity — died of the disease.
“We had no idea that there were such big problems in skilled nursing facilities based on what the governor was saying,” Chin said. “By the time we found out, it was too late.”
This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-06-04--Senate Democrats Kneel In Protest Of Racial Injustice

After an opening prayer , the moment of silence in the U.S. Capitol ’ s Emancipation Hall lasted exactly 526 seconds ― the same nearly nine minutes that an officer pinned down George Floyd with a knee on his neck , which killed him .
The action comes after a week of protests around the nation and the globe in response to Floyd ’ s death and hundreds of years of racial injustice , oppression and fear .
Protesters have also called for justice for Breonna Taylor , who was shot at least eight times by police in her apartment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enter ; for Ahmaud Arbery , who was chased down and shot by two men while jogging in a suburban neighborhood ; and for the many other Black people killed in racist violence .
“ These protests are an expression of fear , grief , frustration , anger and , most importantly , a call for change , ” Brown said in a statement on Thursday .
“ Our response must be to demand justice for all Black lives lost to police brutality , stand with the people who built this country and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to dismantle systems of oppression.
” Van Hollen told HuffPost in a statement that he took a knee not only for Floyd but for the many other Black people who have been silenced , abused and murdered throughout America ’ s history .
“ In the grief and anger of this moment , the Senate must support demands for immediate justice and urgently pass measures to ensure police accountability and root out systemic racism in all its forms , ” Van Hollen said .
Sen. Cory Booker ( N.J. ) , one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 526 seconds of silence and ended the observance with these words : “ George Floyd , Ahmaud Arbery , Breonna Taylor .
May we honor those dead by protecting all who are alive.
” Since the protests began , Senate Democrats have been speaking out on social media and proposing new legislation to lessen racial disparities .
Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( Mass . )
, along with her beloved dog Bailey , even joined protesters outside the White House on Tuesday in response to the widely criticized use of force against demonstrators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also pushing for measures to prevent further violent crackdowns on protests .
On the orders of the Trump administration , a slew of federal law enforcement officers have been deployed in Washington in addition to the D.C. police ― and military troops have been gathered outside the city ― during this week ’ s protests .
On Monday , Kaine proposed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for the next fiscal year that would prevent the use of military force on Americans exercising their First Amendment rights .
“ The President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against American citizens who are peacefully protesting on domestic soil , which they have every right to do , ” Kaine said in a statement announcing the amendment .
“ I ’ m not going to stand for it.
” Many Democrats are pushing for police reform legislation .
Heinrich said that such reform , as well as measures to protect protesters ’ First Amendment rights , is among his priorities going forward .
“ As so many of us engage in critical conversations about systemic racism and inequity in our nation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said in a statement about why he decided to kneel in protest .
“ We must act .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Senate Democrats gathered on Thursday for a moment of silence to honor the Black lives lost due to police brutality, with several lawmakers even kneeling in protest.
After an opening prayer, the moment of silence in the U.S. Capitol’s Emancipation Hall lasted exactly 526 seconds ― the same nearly nine minutes that an officer pinned down George Floyd with a knee on his neck, which killed him.
Advertisement
Sens. Tim Kaine (Va.), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Chris Van Hollen (Md.), Martin Heinrich (N.M.) and Sherrod Brown (Ohio), all of whom are white, knelt as well.
The action comes after a week of protests around the nation and the globe in response to Floyd’s death and hundreds of years of racial injustice, oppression and fear. Protesters have also called for justice for Breonna Taylor, who was shot at least eight times by police in her apartment after officers used a battering ram to enter; for Ahmaud Arbery, who was chased down and shot by two men while jogging in a suburban neighborhood; and for the many other Black people killed in racist violence.
“These protests are an expression of fear, grief, frustration, anger and, most importantly, a call for change,” Brown said in a statement on Thursday. “Our response must be to demand justice for all Black lives lost to police brutality, stand with the people who built this country and work with them to find long-term solutions to dismantle systems of oppression.”
Van Hollen told HuffPost in a statement that he took a knee not only for Floyd but for the many other Black people who have been silenced, abused and murdered throughout America’s history.
Advertisement
“In the grief and anger of this moment, the Senate must support demands for immediate justice and urgently pass measures to ensure police accountability and root out systemic racism in all its forms,” Van Hollen said.
“I knelt today because Black Lives Matter and I commit to being an ally to the black community,” Bennet said in a statement.
Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.), one of only three current Black senators, broke the 526 seconds of silence and ended the observance with these words: “George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor. May we honor those dead by protecting all who are alive.”
Since the protests began, Senate Democrats have been speaking out on social media and proposing new legislation to lessen racial disparities. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), along with her beloved dog Bailey, even joined protesters outside the White House on Tuesday in response to the widely criticized use of force against demonstrators there the previous day.
Democrats are also pushing for measures to prevent further violent crackdowns on protests. On the orders of the Trump administration, a slew of federal law enforcement officers have been deployed in Washington in addition to the D.C. police ― and military troops have been gathered outside the city ― during this week’s protests.
Advertisement
On Monday, Kaine proposed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for the next fiscal year that would prevent the use of military force on Americans exercising their First Amendment rights.
“The President is trying to turn the American military against American citizens who are peacefully protesting on domestic soil, which they have every right to do,” Kaine said in a statement announcing the amendment. “I’m not going to stand for it.”
Many Democrats are pushing for police reform legislation. Heinrich said that such reform, as well as measures to protect protesters’ First Amendment rights, is among his priorities going forward.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-06-04--Law Enforcement Seizes Masks Meant To Protect Anti-Racist Protesters From COVID-19

themovementink / Instagram Cloth masks that read `` Stop killing Black people '' and were intended to protect demonstrators from COVID-19 were seized by law enforcement .
WASHINGTON ― Law enforcement agents have seized hundreds of cloth masks that read “ Stop killing Black people ” and “ Defund police ” that a Black Lives Matter-affiliated organization sent to cities around the country to protect demonstrators against the spread of COVID-19 , a disease that has had a disparate impact on Black communities .
The Movement for Black Lives ( M4BL ) spent tens of thousands of dollars on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the country .
The first four boxes , each containing 500 masks , were mailed from Oakland , California , and were destined for Washington , St. Louis , New York City and Minneapolis , where on May 25 a white police officer killed George Floyd , a 46-year-old handcuffed Black man , setting off a wave of protests across the country .
But the items never left the state .
The U.S .
Postal Service tracking numbers for the packages indicate they were “ Seized by Law Enforcement ” and urge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Postal Inspection Service for further information.
” It ’ s not entirely clear what law enforcement entity seized the masks or why .
But the Justice Department , led by Attorney General William Barr , has taken an aggressive posture against demonstrations and on Thursday expressed concern about “ extremist agitators ” who are “ hijacking the protests to pursue their own separate and violent agenda.
” The Movement for Black Lives is a group of more than 150 leaders and organizations that are “ unified in a radical vision for Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and healing.
” It was started in December 2014 , a few months after the unrest in Ferguson , Missouri , following the police killing of Michael Brown .
“ Police have rioted coast to coast , beating and gassing protesters who have called for an end to police violence , with the explicit approval of President Trump , ” Chelsea Fuller , a spokesperson for the Movement for Black Lives , said in a statement to HuffPost .
“ Now , it appears they want to ensure that people who protest are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have failed miserably at stopping , ” Fuller added .
“ The continued surveillance and disruption of social movements under this administration is as chilling as it is dangerous .
It should be roundly condemned.
” The head of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday that protesters should “ highly consider ” getting tested for the coronavirus and worried that protests could “ unfortunately ” turn into “ a seeding event .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
UPDATE: 3:45 p.m. June 5 ― Federal authorities released the seized masks on Friday morning, hours after this HuffPost article was published.
Previously:
WASHINGTON ― Law enforcement agents have seized hundreds of cloth masks that read “Stop killing Black people” and “Defund police” that a Black Lives Matter-affiliated organization sent to cities around the country to protect demonstrators against the spread of COVID-19, a disease that has had a disparate impact on Black communities.
Advertisement
The Movement for Black Lives (M4BL) spent tens of thousands of dollars on the masks they had planned to send all over the country. The first four boxes, each containing 500 masks, were mailed from Oakland, California, and were destined for Washington, St. Louis, New York City and Minneapolis, where on May 25 a white police officer killed George Floyd, a 46-year-old handcuffed Black man, setting off a wave of protests across the country.
But the items never left the state. The U.S. Postal Service tracking numbers for the packages indicate they were “Seized by Law Enforcement” and urge the mailer to “contact the U.S. Postal Inspection Service for further information.”
The U.S. Postal Inspection Service did not immediately respond to HuffPost’s request for comment.
Rene Quinonez of Movement Ink in Oakland, who stayed up with his family producing the masks over the past few days and took them to the post office, told HuffPost that the employees at the location from which he shipped the boxes know him well.
“I have shipped a lot of stuff before,” he said. “It’s an inside joke that I’m always shipping a ton of stuff, usually next-day or two-day and paying some ridiculous fees.”
Advertisement
“These guys know that I ship apparel,” Quinonez said. “There was nothing out of the ordinary.”
Now he’s wondering if the government is watching him or watching the Black Lives Matter movement. “I just don’t understand it. It’s just really blowing my mind,” he said.
“We’re tired, but we’re going to try to rally some support and figure out how to replace these masks and how to support the movement,” he said. “This isn’t a weapon. It’s more about safety. We’re trying to figure out how to keep our community safe.”
It’s not entirely clear what law enforcement entity seized the masks or why. But the Justice Department, led by Attorney General William Barr, has taken an aggressive posture against demonstrations and on Thursday expressed concern about “extremist agitators” who are “hijacking the protests to pursue their own separate and violent agenda.”
The Movement for Black Lives is a group of more than 150 leaders and organizations that are “unified in a radical vision for Black liberation and working for equity, justice and healing.” It was started in December 2014, a few months after the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, following the police killing of Michael Brown.
Advertisement
“Police have rioted coast to coast, beating and gassing protesters who have called for an end to police violence, with the explicit approval of President Trump,” Chelsea Fuller, a spokesperson for the Movement for Black Lives, said in a statement to HuffPost.
“Now, it appears they want to ensure that people who protest are susceptible to the same deadly pandemic that they have failed miserably at stopping,” Fuller added. “The continued surveillance and disruption of social movements under this administration is as chilling as it is dangerous. It should be roundly condemned.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-06-04--Lone Protester Left Bleeding After Buffalo Cops Push Him To The Ground

Disturbing footage taken during a Buffalo , New York , protest shows police pushing a lone 75-year-old protester to the ground , causing him to hit his head on the concrete and bleed .
After an initial statement said the man “ tripped and fell , ” the police commissioner ordered an investigation and two officers were suspended without pay .
The protester was hospitalized in serious condition .
Videos captured by local media organizations show a large group of officers closing in on Buffalo ’ s Niagara Square to enforce an 8 p.m. curfew amid scattered anti-racism protests in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a close-up look at the force some officers use on protesters , even when they ’ re peaceful .
As seen in the clips , a single protester approached the officers and began speaking to them .
Two of the cops moved toward him , and at least one shoved him with his hand .
The protester , a white man , fell to the ground and audibly hit his head on the concrete , where he lay still and began to bleed from his ear .
The officers stopped to look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ directed them to keep walking .
“ One person was injured when he tripped & fell , ” police said in a statement issued by the city that doesn ’ t match what ’ s shown in the videos .
Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown ( D ) issued a statement late Thursday saying he was “ deeply disturbed ” by the incident and said the officers had been suspended without pay .
He also said the protester , who was not identified , was in stable but serious condition at Erie County Medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a Spectrum News producer who captured some of the footage , said the injured man was taken away in an ambulance and appeared to be alert .
Erie County Executive Mark Poloncarz , whose county contains Buffalo , confirmed on Twitter that the man was in serious but stable condition and said the footage he saw “ sickens ” him .
“ Police officers can not continue to hide behind the lie that they are protecting and serving , ” the ACLU of New York said in a statement calling out “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Andrew Cuomo said in a tweet that the incident was “ wholly unjustified and utterly disgraceful , ” and he had spoken with Brown about suspending the officers .
The protest in Buffalo was part of the swarm of demonstrations across the country .
The demonstrations were sparked by the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis last month and the outrage over the racism and violence in law enforcement that disproportionately affects Black people .
Police have used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse crowds , before and after curfews @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second time this week Buffalo police have come under fire for aggressively responding to peaceful protesters .
On Monday , video captured cops approaching a Black protester giving a TV interview with his hands up and tackled him to the ground .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Disturbing footage taken during a Buffalo, New York, protest shows police pushing a lone 75-year-old protester to the ground, causing him to hit his head on the concrete and bleed.
After an initial statement said the man “tripped and fell,” the police commissioner ordered an investigation and two officers were suspended without pay. The protester was hospitalized in serious condition.
Advertisement
Videos captured by local media organizations show a large group of officers closing in on Buffalo’s Niagara Square to enforce an 8 p.m. curfew amid scattered anti-racism protests in the area. The graphic footage offers a close-up look at the force some officers use on protesters, even when they’re peaceful.
As seen in the clips, a single protester approached the officers and began speaking to them. Two of the cops moved toward him, and at least one shoved him with his hand. The protester, a white man, fell to the ground and audibly hit his head on the concrete, where he lay still and began to bleed from his ear. The officers stopped to look at him until another officer stepped in and directed them to keep walking.
Warning: The videos below contain graphic content.
Just about an hour ago, police officers shove man in Niagara Square to the ground (WARNING: Graphic). Video from: @MikeDesmondWBFO pic.twitter.com/JBKQLvzfET — WBFO (@WBFO) June 5, 2020
Current situation in #Buffalo as police work to enforce the 8 p.m. curfew in Niagara Square. Caution: there is some vulgar language in the video. Tune to @SPECNewsBuffalo for the latest. Video Courtesy: Photojournalist Anthony Nelson pic.twitter.com/nP4AXgQGeR — Katie Gibas (@KatieGibasTV) June 5, 2020
Advertisement
“One person was injured when he tripped & fell,” police said in a statement issued by the city that doesn’t match what’s shown in the videos.
Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown (D) issued a statement late Thursday saying he was “deeply disturbed” by the incident and said the officers had been suspended without pay.
He also said the protester, who was not identified, was in stable but serious condition at Erie County Medical Center Hospital in Buffalo.
The Buffalo Police Department did not immediately return HuffPost’s requests for comment.
Katie Gibas, a Spectrum News producer who captured some of the footage, said the injured man was taken away in an ambulance and appeared to be alert. Erie County Executive Mark Poloncarz, whose county contains Buffalo, confirmed on Twitter that the man was in serious but stable condition and said the footage he saw “sickens” him.
Advertisement
“Police officers cannot continue to hide behind the lie that they are protecting and serving,” the ACLU of New York said in a statement calling out “military-geared” police.
Police officers cannot continue to hide behind the lie that they are protecting and serving.
Read our full statement here. https://t.co/j2qDsk48jt pic.twitter.com/9alNvHr0zI — NYCLU (@NYCLU) June 5, 2020
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said in a tweet that the incident was “wholly unjustified and utterly disgraceful,” and he had spoken with Brown about suspending the officers.
The protest in Buffalo was part of the swarm of demonstrations across the country. The demonstrations were sparked by the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis last month and the outrage over the racism and violence in law enforcement that disproportionately affects Black people. Police have used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse crowds, before and after curfews went into effect.
This is the second time this week Buffalo police have come under fire for aggressively responding to peaceful protesters. On Monday, video captured cops approaching a Black protester giving a TV interview with his hands up and tackled him to the ground.
Advertisement