Rafael A. Mangual: The Limits Of Police Reform

Given my current understanding, this is right on target.

   I think we--perhaps liberal/progressive types in particular, but I'm not sure--tend to reason/react like this to policy problems:

• Problem arises.
• Don't address the particular problem directly (often: because you don't know anything about the issue).
• Instead: zoom up to stratospheric (often philosophical) level (because that high up, bullshitting is the norm.)
• Pretend you figured it out.

Instead of addressing the direct causes of the Floyd-Chauvin incident, progressives leapt to a false position they already favor on politico-religious grounds: 

The whole policing system is corrupt/racist.

And that's because: 

The whole American system--law, government, society, culture--is corrupt/racist.

Which is, of course, because:

The whole Western system (of everything) is corrupt/racist

(Hence the bizarre fact that this all spread to Europe, too.)

So the whole system must be overthrown and remade blah blah blah abolish police and, ideally, Year Zero the whole shebang... (note: frustrated hyberbole. By me I mean.)

   Once I noticed (or seem to have noticed) this tactic--ignoring the specific problem that requires actual knowledge and expertise to solve, and zooming instead up to the level at which bullshitting is permissible--I seem to see it everywhere. This is an error that, I think, is likely responsible for the left's repeated / semi-constant insistence on "big, systematic change." 

   Maybe Conquest's alleged first law is relevant here: everybody is conservative about what he knows best.

   Ask someone about some problem with something they know well, perhaps they're more likely to respond with specific suggestions for solutions--or even just for troubleshooting to start with. Both very modest. Ask the same thing of someone who doesn't know much, they kinda have no option but to respond in big, sweeping, general terms. They don't know anything about the specifics. Unless they say "I don't know"...ha ha! as if! They're going to give a big, sweeping--ergo probably bullshit--answer.

   This happens e.g. in the debate over the southern border wall, where those on the left say things like [breathy voice] Build bridges, not walls... Those on the right do something similar when they zoom skyward and argue that allowing people to break any laws at all leads to anarchy. Which, of course, it doesn't. People who are really interested in the answer and know even a little bit about the issues seem to argue about the question in the ordinary way--i.e. in terms of costs and benefits. Walls are cost-effective in many places, and aren't in many places. So put 'em where you need 'em. 

   Anyway. Zooming up the abolish the police! level is about as bullshitty as you can possibly get.

   Except that there is one clearly more bullshitty answer: "defund the police," where 'defund' is, apparently, used as a weasel word so as to be ambiguous between abolish and a large number of other hand-wavy BS options. Progressives love tactical ambiguity...