Just What Is the 'Appropriate' Way for Police to React to Mayor de Blasio?

Today on NRO

JACK FOWLER: As a donor, you are part of the dynamics that make NR work. Your Support Keeps NR Going.

KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON: The curious career of two ideas and one word. Whose Liberalism?

JOHN FUND: The only problem with the Senate's 'Dr. No' is that he's retiring. Coburn, a True Statesman, Steps Down.

LEE HABEEB: It's dishonest or paranoid to claim that the greatest danger to young black men is from the police. Cops' Lives Matter.

SLIDESHOW: Movie Preview: Unbroken.

Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty

December 29, 2014

Hope your holiday was terrific.

Just What Is the 'Appropriate' Way for Police to React to Mayor de Blasio?

NYPD Commissioner William Bratton, Sunday:

NYPD Commissioner William Bratton said it was "very inappropriate" for police officers to turn their backs to video screens showing Mayor Bill de Blasio speaking at an officer's funeral Saturday.

Rudy Giuliani, Sunday:

Giuliani said. "The mayor is not in any way to be treated with people turning their backs. It doesn't matter whether you like the mayor or you don't like the mayor, you have to respect the mayor's position."

Yes, the NYPD officers acted in a disrespectful manner when they turned their backs to the mayor. It's disrespectful because a lot of men and women on the police force do not respect the mayor -- right now, and sadly, for the foreseeable future. This was not an accidental faux pas; this was the clearest way to send the signal, "Despite the fact that you are in the city's highest elected office, we don't respect you."

Let's begin by saying that any NYPD officer reacting to the news that two of his brother officers were gunned down in cold blood deserves a wide berth in processing all of the emotions from that horrific event. There's a lot of anger in the force, and they've got good reasons to be angry. A symbolic gesture like this might be a particularly powerful and not destructive way of channeling that anger.

"Respect the office, not the man." Boy, some elected officials make this simple request difficult.

Just how contemptuous of others can an elected official be before he's no longer automatically entitled to "respect"? Can we all agree that an elected official can do something or say something that creates a circumstance where having a title in front of your name just isn't enough to require that respect? I'm sure we can all think of particularly vivid examples . . .

"Meow!"

(The details of Represenative David Wu's erratic behavior and psychiatric troubles can be found here.)

Why are we asked to "respect the office" of mayor, president, or other elected official? Do custom and tradition and civic life really ask us to greet every action of every elected official with "respect"?

Our system allows for the impeachment of presidents and other elected officials. Is that really "respectful"? Or is an impeachment an act of respect for the office, to decide that a particular individual, through criminal or other supremely unethical behavior, must be removed, because letting him stay will damage that office and the public's respect for it?

If that's the case, respect for the individual occupying high office isn't automatic, compulsory, or reflexive. It is conditional -- given in broad conditions, encompassing mere political disagreement or personality conflicts. But that respect can be revoked, given sufficient provocation.

Let's go back to what de Blasio said after the grand-jury decision in the Eric Garner case:

I was at the White House the other day, and the President of the United States turned to me, and he met Dante a few months ago, and he said that Dante reminded him of what he looked like as a teenager. And he said, I know you see this crisis through a very personal lens. I said to him I did. Because Chirlane and I have had to talk to Dante for years, about the dangers he may face. A good young man, a law-abiding young man, who would never think to do anything wrong, and yet, because of a history that still hangs over us, the dangers he may face -- we've had to literally train him, as families have all over this city for decades, in how to take special care in any encounter he has with the police officers who are there to protect him.

And that painful sense of contradiction that our young people see first -- that our police are here to protect us, and we honor that, and at the same time, there's a history we have to overcome, because for so many of our young people, there's a fear. And for so many of our families, there's a fear. So I've had to worry, over the years, Chirlane's had to worry -- was Dante safe each night? There are so many families in this city who feel that each and every night -- is my child safe? And not just from some of the painful realities -- crime and violence in some of our neighborhoods -- but are they safe from the very people they want to have faith in as their protectors? That's the reality. And it conforms to something bigger that you've heard come out in the protests in Ferguson, and all over the country.

That's an explicit statement that he fears what the NYPD would do to his son. That's a pretty hefty accusation and one that he exacerbates moments later by contending that the police force he oversees makes its decisions based upon racism:

This is now a national moment of grief, a national moment of pain, and searching for a solution, and you've heard in so many places, people of all backgrounds, utter the same basic phrase. They've said "Black Lives Matter." And they said it because it had to be said. It's a phrase that should never have to be said -- it should be self-evident. But our history, sadly, requires us to say that Black Lives Matter. Because, as I said the other day, we're not just dealing with a problem in 2014, we're not dealing with years of racism leading up to it, or decades of racism -- we are dealing with centuries of racism that have brought us to this day. That is how profound the crisis is. And that is how fundamental the task at hand is, to turn from that history and to make a change that is profound and lasting.

If you doubt that section of de Blasio's speech was directed at the NYPD, then ask yourself this: when the mayor says, "Black Lives Matter," who is he saying it to? Who does he think doesn't think that black lives matter?

If you're a mayor and you accuse your police force of racism, can you really be surprised to see your police force behaving in a disrespectful manner? And can you legitimately expect them to continue to respect you?

With all of that in mind, I wonder how many Americans agree with the president in this cheery self-assessment?

President Barack Obama says the U.S. is less racially divided than it was when he took office, despite recent protests over police treatment of black people.

Obama says mistrust between police and minorities isn't new. He says it's being talked about more because the proliferation of smartphones allows more interactions to be recorded.

The president says he thinks the issue of race has surfaced in a healthy way.

Obama spoke to NPR News before leaving for his winter vacation in Hawaii.

He says it's understandable that many people feel race relations have worsened, pointing to extensive media coverage of protests in Ferguson, Missouri, and in New York. But he says minorities who have dealt with discrimination all their lives know things have improved.

Gallup's long-term polling points to consistent, generally positive assessment of race relations, and then there's this recent poll:

A majority of Americans now say that race relations in the United States are bad, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, which showed the most pessimistic assessment of racial issues in almost two decades.

In the wake of protests over the deaths of unarmed black men at the hands of police, just four in ten Americans told pollsters that they believe race relations in the United States are "good," while 57 percent disagreed. And nearly a quarter -- 23 percent -- classified the current state of the country's racial issues as "very bad."

The data showed a dramatic slide from just 18 months ago, when a July 2013 poll indicated that a majority -- 52 percent -- offered an optimistic view of race relations.

The Two Biggest Donors in Politics Are on the Left

The next time somebody complains about Republicans winning because of all of that big money in politics, remind them that the two biggest donors of this past cycle were Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg, aiming to help pro-cap-and-trade and pro-gun-control Democrats. Steyer donated nearly $75 million, Bloomberg $27 million. By comparison, the biggest right-of-center donor was Sheldon Adelson, with . . . $13 million. A cheapskate by comparison!

ADDENDA: Thanks to Doug Ross for naming the Morning Jolt his best newsletter of 2014.

www.NationalReview.com

Sail with National Review

Join your favorite writers for National Review's 2015 cruise to Alaska — a once in a lifetime opportunity for you and your family. Learn more here.

What National Review is reading — order your copy today!

The Hobbit Party
By Jay Richards

Love National Review online? Save 75% off the newsstand price and subscribe to National Review magazine — print or digital versions available!

Looking for the perfect gift for that special conservative in your life? Give the gift of National Review or shop the NR store!

To manage your National Review e-mail preferences, click here, or to read our privacy policy, click here.

This e-mail was sent by:
National Review, Inc.
215 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Search This Blog

Diogenes-Light

Just What Is the 'Appropriate' Way for Police to React to Mayor de Blasio?

Just What Is the 'Appropriate' Way for Police to React to Mayor de Blasio?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

FOLLOW THE MONEY - Billionaire tied to Epstein scandal funneled large donations to Ramaswamy & Democrats

Breaking: Left-Wing Black History Children’s Book Distributed by Simon & Schuster Is Heavily Plagiarized

Pence goes full swamp on Donald Trump.