Skip to main content

Systemic Racism, Police Brutality, and Governmental Overreach

There has been much talk lately about systemic racism.  There have been protests and riots and talks of defunding the police.  From no-knock warrants to knee-to-the-neck techniques, the training and accountability of police departments throughout our nation have come under intense scrutiny.  The multitude is screaming for change, but the movement seems to be tainted by Marxism and anti-Western sentiment.  What are we to think?

I'm not here to say whether systemic racism exists.  With the historical and modern examples of injustice against blacks and other people groups, it seems logical to affirm that there is an element of truths to these claims.  On the other hand, not every injustice against a black person is racially motivated, nor is systemic racism the answer to every inequality between different cultures and classes in our society, so we should be careful not to push that narrative past the limits of facts and reason.  This is a conversation that requires nuance and respect, two things that seem to be in short supply these days.  That is a conversation for another day.

What I want to discuss today is another, and perhaps the primary, issue underlying police brutality--governmental overreach.  As a general rule, we in the United States are overregulated.  We are regulated and taxed and fined and penalized, etc.  We have to have a permit to build on our own land, or to hunt, to fish, etc.  We're so overregulated that we don't even think about it anymore.  We're so overregulated that we embraced the closure of our economies and the violation of our rights for a virus about which we knew very little.

This government intervention in our lives is at least a part of the problem.  I don't want to distract from any valid class or race issues that may exist, but you can't fix the problem if you haven't properly identified all of the contributing factors.  Governmental overreach is at least a significant part of the problem, and it has largely gone unnoticed.  Governmental overreach is a systemic problem that underlies police brutality in the United States.

I feel bad for police officers.  I grew up wanting to be a cop, and I still think it would be a rewarding career, but it would be difficult to do their job in good conscience in many places in America today.  You see, cops don't make the silly laws they are required to enforce.  They aren't the ones who wrote the laws criminalizing marijuana or setting arbitrary speed limits.  They aren't the ones who outlawed the sale of raw milk or the collection of rainwater.   They aren't the ones who created thousands and thousands of laws that make it utterly impossible for normal people to go through their lives without infringing in some way upon one regulation or another.  They aren't the ones who shut down our States and made it illegal to get a haircut, play in the park, and walk on the beach.  They are simply the ones who have to enforce those laws.

Unfortunately, we have voted ourselves into this position.  The majority of citizens in our nation fear a world without government overreach.  We like to complain when we don't get to do what we want to do, but we really long to be coddled by Uncle Sam.  The responsibility of self-regulation is simply too scary.  We cannot fathom a world where the government, federal, state, or local, is not integrally involved in every aspect of our lives.  If the government doesn't do it, we assume, then it cannot possibly get done.  Without government schools, the masses would go uneducated, right?  If the government didn't build the roads, on what would we drive?  If the government didn't build parks, they wouldn't exist, right?  We are all closet Socialists.

Furthermore, because we have created an environment that presumes government intervention, our civil institutions often attract and/or create an attitude of superiority and condescension.  As someone who interacts with local health departments on a regular basis, I can assure you that many (though certainly not all) government employees have an inflated sense of self-worth.  Much like the average American citizen, they simply can't envision a world where anything gets accomplished without some regulatory bureaucracy being involved.  Career government employees often enter with and/or develop a savior complex, firmly believing that it is their job to solve our problems, to protect us from ourselves, and to keep us from making any decisions that might harm us.

Another recent news story illustrates this same principle.  The Supreme Court handed down a ruling regarding LBGT employment rights, one which portends a fierce battle for churches in the years to come.  The Internet is full of people arguing over whether or not the ruling was correct, but few are asking the correct question: why is Uncle Sam involved at all?  Why does the government have anything to do with hiring, firing, etc?  Governmental overreach is so pervasive that we now assume the Federal government's right to dictate the personnel decisions made by private business owners.

If we really want to eliminate, or at least greatly reduce, police brutality, limiting government is the first step.  Don't misunderstand me.  I am not proposing that we eliminate police departments, nor am I denying that we should reexamine the training that police officers receive and the regulations that leave them unaccountable.  I am suggesting, however, that we trim the penal code that encourages the pervasive police presence in our lives.  Imagine how many fewer encounters with police there would be in a less-regulated society!  Imagine how many encounters that escalated into violent episodes could have been avoided altogether without pointless invasions of personal liberty!

It is simply mystifying that so many people are calling to replace police officers with alternative government institutions and programs, as if more government could possibly be the answer to abuses by government employees.  There seems to be an inherent philosophical inconsistency amongst the #defundthepolice mindset.  If you really want to eliminate abuse by police officers, you have to go to the root of the problem.  Police officers are hired to enforce the will of the Legislature.  Police brutality is a symptom of an overregulated society, and you will not heal the symptom until you cure the disease.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...