My writeup last Friday about Chicago canceling ShotSpotter got me thinking. The question I had was simple … “why?”
Any reasoned look at that technology makes it clear that it’s helpful. I mean, who wouldn’t want police to know where bullets are being fired? One could argue about the costs, but its benefit to Chicago—especially in high-crime minority neighborhoods—is undeniable.
The activists have their complaints, but it takes little intellectual heft to dismantle them completely. Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson undoubtedly understands this as well.
Even his quiet, last-minute announcement that he was canceling the service was telling. It wasn’t something he was proud to do or something he thought would make him more popular.
No, the mayor did something that hurt his city, and he knows it will hurt his credibility as well. So why do it? Because he kept a promise made during his campaign, and he knew backing down would be worse.
Why make such a promise? He capitulated to activists, something politicians do all the time.
First, a confession.
Before I bash Johnson for his morality, I’d like first to bash myself. In 1998, I ran for State Assembly in California, and I wasn’t immune from bowing to activists either.
One group in particular had been fighting a freeway extension for years. They had a beautiful neighborhood—South Pasadena—and feared the town's character would be ruined if the freeway was allowed through.
They were passionate and organized, unlike the many thousands of people who would’ve benefited from the new freeway. They pressured every local candidate to oppose that extension, and we all did. Twenty-five years later, it remains unbuilt, with no plans to do so.
We all justified it, of course. “If the other side wants it bad enough, they’ll organize and make it happen. That’s democracy!” In reality, though, we capitulated to a small group of people because they were organized.
Sometimes, activists can be self-centered, like my freeway opponents. Other times, like in Chicago, they’re just woefully misguided.
There’s no ulterior motive for the activists who oppose “all things police.” I’ve debated their kind online, and there’s definitely a group of people who, in their hearts, believe their community’s problems stem from racist cops and a justice system that targets them for oppression.
Driven by the zeal of ‘doing good,’ they hold rallies, show up screaming at city council meetings, sign petitions, and volunteer on campaigns.
In Chicago, they were enough to win candidate Johnson’s promise to end the program. He became mayor last April with 52% of the vote, in an election where only 29% of eligible voters bothered to participate.
The ShotSpot campaign was just the latest twist on “Defund The Police”, a concept never popular outside the progressive activists. Even at the height of the George Floyd frenzy, Gallup showed that 81% of black Americans said they wanted police to spend the same or more time in their community, with only 19% wanting less. Yet city after city bowed to the loud.
(FYI, if you wonder why President Biden seems to be siding with a murderous Hamas regime, or wonder why the U.S. gives billions to corn farmers, just re-read what I wrote above.)
I won my primary in 1998, then lost in the general election. Had I won, I would’ve kept my promise, and that would’ve been the wrong decision for my community.
In the end, politicians often make decisions based not on the smartest voices, but the loudest. Democracy is a great system, but not a perfect one.
– Ken
In my town, everyone knows that if you want long-term change, you vote. If you want short-term change on a specific issue, you write emails and pack a city council meeting.
But sometimes activists overestimate their own clout during elections. "But my candidate's rallies were so packed! He couldn't have lost!"
Also, from what I've read, the ShotSpotter issue wasn't purely racial. The system is expensive and largely ineffective, although it has helped police find and save unreported gunshot victims. So it might just be a matter of waiting a few years until the technology is perfected.
I know this is a cliche, but … the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
That large “silent majority” that Nixon once described needs to get squeaky.