If a consensus exists for any government action these days, it concerns the need for police reforms.
A new AP-NORC opinion poll shows that, among all American adults, 69% believe at least major changes need to be imposed on policing to counter evidence of racial bias. While Republicans are less adamant about this than Democrats, even among those identifying as supporting the GOP only 5% said no changes are necessary.
And yet the nation’s elected representatives seem uninterested in tackling the issue and hammering out compromises. Instead, they prefer to dig in their heels, lob political insults at each other and hinder any form of debate that might lead to a solution.
Law enforcement justice will become a political weapon for the upcoming election, while the public’s desire for real change will be ignored. George Floyd has become a talking point for fundraising and votes. Americans should be outraged by that.
House Democrats were expected to pass their own version of reform Thursday night along party lines, with no input, amendments or support from Republicans. Because of Democratic opposition in the Senate, a Republican version of reform fell five votes short Wednesday in a procedural vote that would have allowed debate.
Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, meanwhile, has said the House version won’t get consideration in the Senate.
Where does that leave Americans? Frustrated.
Each side is hoping for an election sweep in November that would allow it to ram through a politically pure version of reform, if pressure still exists for such a thing in January. But voters have many issues on their mind this fall, and elections are seldom decisive enough to allow for that sort of one-party power. Nor would that be good for the nation.
Debate is the only way both sides can reach an agreement, and it is the only way all Americans can be represented. Representative government, by definition, requires regular compromises among those elected by different constituencies in a vast and diverse country. In this case, neither side should expect to get everything it wants, but the American people should expect to get something that will move the nation forward toward more colorblind and accountable policing.
Instead, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused Republicans of “trying to get away with murder” in their bill. It would be hard to find a more incendiary and divisive choice of words, given the current climate.
Are the two sides far apart? The Republican version would incentivize state and local police to ban chokeholds (something some of them already have done) by threatening to withhold funds. It would make lynching a federal hate crime. It would compile a database on the use of force and the execution of no-knock warrants, impose penalties for not using body cams and set rules for the retention of police records.
It isn’t unusual for Republicans to want solutions focused on local governments.
The Democratic version would do much of this as a federal requirement, creating national standards on body cams and for banning chokeholds. It would outlaw no-knock warrants.
One major difference between the two is that the Republican version does nothing on “qualified immunity,” which is the doctrine that shields police officers from civil lawsuits concerning how they performed their duties. Democrats would do away with this.
Surely, these differences are not enough to warrant complaints that they are irreparable or beyond compromise. The AP-NORC poll also found that 71% of Americans support requirements for body cams and 67% want clear standards for the use of force. Whether Washington imposes this or incentivizes local governments to do so ought make little difference.
Compromise takes courage. That can be especially hard during an election year.
But a lack of courage in this case, when protests are a daily occurrence and public opinion is clear, does nothing but further the erosion of public trust and feed a dangerous undercurrent of cynicism in American government.