Just Following Orders May Cost Cops Public Support

Cops enjoy strong public support in this country and rightly so. They do important and often dangerous work. But I fear that support will begin to slide, perhaps steeply, unless police, their departments and their unions begin opposing the constitutionally-dubious COVID19 edicts of power-drunk state and local officials.

Americans have seen a lot of disturbing things during this crisis: things most of us never imagined we would see in a free country. But cringe-inducing photos and videos of local or state police cuffing soccer moms on playgrounds and evicting senior citizens from beach chairs have for me been the most jarring images of all. I know from social media surfing and discussions with friends that I’m not alone. Our “first responders” are in danger of losing the support of millions of Americans if they’re first to respond when it comes to trampling our civil liberties.

We’ve seen the bizarre spectacle of California cops chasing down paddle boarders and joggers at the beach, and enforcing the only-one-person-in-the-pool-rule. We read with disbelief about police "sting operations" against “illegal” manicurists and pedicurists. Police in Ohio busting Amish barn parties; Brighton, Colorado, cops cuffing a dad playing t-ball with his kids; it goes on and on, one ugly scene after another.

America is assuming the look and feel of a police state. But you can’t have a police state without willing police. Unless the police themselves take the lead in turning that around, by getting back on the side of the citizens and the Bill of Rights, the reservoir of goodwill they enjoy will start draining away. If the words “to serve and protect" come to mean "to persecute and punish," Americans who typically welcome a police presence may come to view them as arbitrary power personified.

I have to believe – I have to hope – that most of the officers involved in these incidents also find them abhorrent. I have to believe they question the legality and propriety of the orders they’re following.  But what if most cops don't harbor such doubts? What if a majority of them and their supervisors actually enjoy being part of this unprecedented power trip? The implications of that are ominous to contemplate.

“Just following orders” isn't an acceptable excuse. The 20th century’s greatest tyrannies and atrocities were enabled by a just-following-orders mentality. Our law enforcers are sworn to uphold The Constitution, not to robotically do the bidding of whomever signs their paychecks. Just as it look Nixon the anti-communist to "go the China," it must be the police who lead us away from the emerging police state, not just for our good but for their own.

Admittedly, it’s hard for the lone cop to take a stand against these edicts. That’s a tough thing to do in organizations that put a premium on hierarchy, discipline and following orders. Disobedience or dissent could derail their careers. Individual cops can't be expected to study the legality of every law they’re asked to enforce.

This is where police unions and associations need to be flexing more muscle, advocating for the cops within their ranks who won't be party to out-of-control politicos shredding the Bill of Rights. Unions and associations are in the good position to push back, and to give voice to those within their ranks who object to what they’re being asked to do. These unions are good at negotiating pay hikes and generous pensions. But they must be good for more than just that. They need to understand that it will cost them and their members public trust and support if they become complicit in the destruction of the laws they are sworn to uphold.

If the police and police unions don’t recognize this as an urgent potential problem, and if they don’t take the lead in arresting the creation of an emerging police state, by leading power-drunk elected officials in a more sober direction, America’s perception of those who "protect and serve" might never be the same again. 

The Short Life and Sudden Death of Faux Federalism

After more than a century in exile, or maybe banishment would be a better word, the founding principle of Federalism came roaring back into fashion in many Democrat-dominated states in the Trump era, with California and Colorado leading the rebellious pack. The transformation came miraculously and instantaneously on the day Donald J. Trump took the oath of office. It seemed like a sea change of sweeping significance.

Suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, the party that spent the last century methodically concentrating power in the grasping claws of central government, the party that long dismissed and denigrated conservative support for "states' rights" as a sinister echo of slave-era thinking, the party of one-one-size-fits-all, as long as that size is XXL, rediscovered "states' rights" and even "local control" as rallying cries.

These newly-neofederalist states weren't going to just take orders from the hated Trump administration. They weren't going to follow federal laws and regulatory diktats with which they disagreed. These states now wanted the autonomy and sovereignty they were due under our federalist system of governance. A strong whiff of secessionism filled the air, especially in California. 

Some went even further down the road toward open rebellion by forming a state-led cartel, with California at the helm, to establish stricter-than-federal vehicle emissions standards. Members of this new "Cali cartel" weren't just seeking autonomy under this unworkable two-tiered regulatory scheme; they were (and still are, since this power struggle is now before the courts) hoping to leverage their clout as car markets to make their standard the de facto national standard, effectively turning the federalist idea on its head.

This wasn't federalism but reverse federalism, in which a subgroup of states attempts to impose its emissions standard on all the other states, in textbook wag-the-dog fashion.   

Some rebel states further tested established boundaries my engaging in foreign policy. They vowed to abide by terms of the never-ratified Paris Climate Accord, for instance, a treaty Trump ran against.  California further upped the ante by negotiating a cross-border cap and trade scheme with Canada. 

Such shows of defiance delighted liberals and turned certain Governors (like California's Gavin Newsom) into instant celebrities. But they also constituted a challenge to federal power and prerogatives without parallel in recent history, prompting the Trump administration to push back. The provocateurs then posed as the "victims" of Trump's aggression and iron rule. It was a simplistic morality play some in the press eagerly played up. 

But then -- BAM! -- COVID19 hit and the zebras began showing their statist stripes again. 

Suddenly, America's most Trump-defiant states are the states bleating loudest for federal help, federal bailouts, federal guidelines, federal "leadership" -- even for federal force against states that won't impose Constitutionally-dubious lockdowns of various sorts. And suddenly, states unwilling to join the stampede to trample civil liberties become rogue "holdout states" that must be brought to heel. Trump now finds himself under fire from the neofederalist left for not imposing a national lockdown; for not ordering states to comply; for granting governors the latitude to tailor responses that meet their circumstances.

We're learning a lot about ourselves and our country, good and bad, during this crisis. It's become a gut check that was probably overdue. We're seeing the world more clearly and soberly as a result. True colors become much more vivid in a midst of tough times. Now we can put to rest any notion that Democrats suddenly have seen light on the merits and virtues of the federalist system of governance. We can see that faux federalism was just another pose they struck for partisan purposes.

They are what they've always been; statists to the marrow. 

Crazy has Consequences

Turns out that there's only so much crazy some companies can take. That's all for the better of the sane, and all the worst for the crazy.

I like to think of it as economic Darwinism.

Regulatory Malpractice

Stories like this one, which indicates that California's "landmark" diesel control law was based on a 340 percent overestimate of pollution levels by the state's Air Resources Board, makes one wonder what other costly regulations are premised on false -- or even falsified -- government data.

The government is conveniently immune from the sorts of malpractice claims that can be brought against private individuals and entities, meaning it can walk away from such costly debacles embarrassed (perhaps) but unscathed. And that's an injustice that needs addressing. It's time to change the rules so that injured parties and average citizens can hold the government liable in such cases of regulatory malpractice. That might help make the reflex-regulators a lot more careful about getting the science right before they begin recklessly imposing new rules.

Who Lost California?

There's a thoughtful piece in today's Wall Street Journal that poses a somewhat parochial, California-centric question, which nonetheless has relevance for other states, like Colorado, where citizen initiatives and referenda have gained popularity as governing mechanisms.

California is a basket case, obviously. But who's responsible? Some people blame the state's fondness for citizen initiatives and so-called "ballot-box budgeting" -- an accusation we hear in Colorado as well. Others (like the writers of the piece) argue that the state's notoriously free-spending politicians, in tandem with a smothering regulatory climate, are responsible for killing the California dream. "The Golden State's problem is not overly controlling voters," the authors conclude, "but out-of-control politicians."

I sometimes worry about the implications of ballot-box governance, even while supporting some ballot measures that, while not flawless, are in my view beneficial on balance -- our city and state TABOR being a good case in point. My preference is that citizen initiatives be used carefully, narrowly and sparingly, as a last resort. I sometimes think they are becoming seen as a first resort, and that's a problem.

It often comes down to a lesser-of-evils calculation. Which does one fear more: the danger of direct democracy, or elected officials who have a tendency to run wild if left to their own devices? Initiatives might be thought of as a "governor" placed on the engine of a rental vehicle, which keeps it from being driven recklessly. The vehicle still can be steered where the drivers (the politicians) want it to go. But it can't go there at any speed the driver's desire. The drivers retain some discretion, but are also constrained by the vehicle's owner (the people), in order to discourage crashes.

It's not a perfect analogy, I know, or the perfect governing model. But there is no perfect analogy, or perfect governing model. At least our system affords us the freedom to experiment.

Come Hither, Californians -- but Please Check Your Politics at the Door

The Colorado Springs Gazette has a fun editorial today on why the migration of Californians to Colorado is a good thing, and a positive sign that we're doing things better here. I agree up to a point, though I think transplants should be required to sign a document, renouncing all the way-out and wacky political ideas for which that state is famous, before being allowed in.

We could set up highway checkpoints and airport screening areas where escaped Californians would be quizzed about their politics, much like California sets up screening points to stop invasive species or contagious plant diseases from crossing state lines. Those unwilling to recant -- to acknowledge the error of their ways and leave California ideas and politics in California -- will be turned back, or given a bus ticket to Portland. California should be quarantined, ideologically speaking, lest its refugees do even more harm than they already have to the intermountain West.

What will be the point of leaving California for Colorado or Wyoming or Montana, after all, if you continue to support the sorts of politicians and policies that made life in the Golden State unbearable?

The editorial correctly credits Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights as a major reason we're not the basketcase California is -- which is something people should keep in mind when they start taking shots at TABOR. And the paper proposes an intriguing new economic development strategy for Colorado, based on each Coloradan personally recruiting a Californian we care about to move here. And I'm willing to do my part.

So hey, all my California friends -- Mac and Jody, Marty, Scott and Molly, Bruce, Paul, Steve -- give it up already and come live in Colorado! The California dream is a dying ember. Taxes are lower here. Hassles are fewer. Avalanches are less of a threat than earthquakes. Sanity still prevails, outside a few urban enclaves. Our economy isn't completely in a shambles -- and you can help make it better. And you'll have the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (for as long as it lasts) to protect you against the predations of politicians.

We've got plenty of extra beds at the Paige house if you need a place to bunk while settling in.

One for the Refrigerator Door

You can never go wrong with me calling Californians hypocrites, slackers and elitists. And doing it right to their faces, in the L.A. Times, really takes blue steel cajones.

So you just have to love today’s column by George Skelton, “Let go of the past and allow offshore drilling,” which cuts like a clean ocean breeze through the rhetorical and intellectual fog obscuring energy realities in the Golden State. It's one for the refrigerator door.

The entire column is worth reading, but here’s where Skelton puts it all in context:

"California is the nation's biggest consumer of gasoline -- 45 million gallons a day, plus 10 million gallons of diesel. That makes us the third-biggest petroleum-consuming entity in the world, behind only the United States and China.

We are the nation's No. 3 oil-producing state, behind Texas and Alaska.

But California produces only 39% of the crude oil it uses. An additional 16% comes from Alaska and the remaining 45% is bought from foreign sources, according to the California Energy Commission.

So there's a gusher of hypocrisy here: The state that is the biggest consumer of gasoline in the nation -- but produces less than 40% of what it uses -- is opposed to drilling for more oil off its shores. We're slackers not pulling our weight."

Bravo, George Skelton, for giving your fellow Californians the spanking they so richly deserve. But the rest of Americans are only a little less confused, deluded and hypocritical -- which makes this a piece of opinion journalism that deserves a wider audience.