Conservatives, Police Unions, and the Future of Law Enforcement

Conservatives in America are at a crossroads. They face a choice between greater freedom or greater security. While striking this delicate balance has required ongoing policy choices throughout history, recent events involving law enforcement have brought these choices into sharp focus. Here’s how Patrik Johnson, writing last month in the Christian Science Monitor, described the choice:

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

“Police forces nationwide are being pulled between two opposite trends: more empathetic, community policing and an increasingly militarized response to crises.”

How conservatives, on balance, weigh in on this choice has far reaching consequences. On one hand, conservatives can support suggested reforms that embrace the value of empathy, minimize violence, alleviate tensions, and pave the way for 21st century policing appropriate to a free republic. Here is a key reform advocated by the protesters in Ferguson, Missouri, in reaction to the tensions in that city following a police shooting:

“A comprehensive review by the Department of Justice into systematic abuses by police departments and the development of specific use of force standards and accompanying recommendations for police training, community involvement and oversight strategies and standards for independent investigatory/disciplinary mechanisms when excessive force is used.”

Conservatives may scoff at some of the other demands – such as guaranteed “full employment for our people,” which, for starters, goes well beyond police reform. But conservatives better think twice before deciding there is no merit to any of the concerns of activist groups who have been animated, across the nation, by alleged excessive use of force by police.

Because there is a dark, shamefully pragmatic alternative course for conservatives. They can choose to fan the flames of racial animosity and fear, secure in believing that excessive force may never touch their communities. But excessive use of force by police is not primarily a racial issue. Ask the families of Kelly Thomas, or David Silva, or Kevin Hughey, or hundreds of others.

The issue, bigger than race, is this: Are we going to evolve into a nation where police are trained to use nonlethal force, trained to practice “empathic, community policing,” or not? And are we going to be a nation where police are held accountable if they cross the line, or not?

Which brings us to the fact that most law enforcement agencies in the United States today are unionized. These unions are politically active, and they tend to lean conservative in their political contributions. The practical choice conservatives face is stark: Do they want to take money from police unions not just in exchange for ignoring the serious financial challenges caused by their excessive pension benefits, but also in exchange for ignoring calls to better regulate use of excessive force?

Challenging the agenda of police unions will not only cost politicians their financial support. In some cases it can even earn their active retaliation. A troubling article by Lucy Caldwell, in a National Review article entitled “Police Unions Behaving Badly,” documents how a local politician in California was harassed after standing up to them in contract negotiations. And as Caldwell notes, “police unions are able to operate with absolutely no transparency because they are classified as private entities not subject to public-records laws.”

There are many reasons government unions, especially law enforcement unions, are problematic in a democracy. But when the teachers union in California went on record deploring the education reforms upheld in the Vergara decision – everyone, liberals and conservatives alike, saw them for who they are – a lobbying group that is more concerned about protecting bad teachers than they are about educating children.

Members of law enforcement themselves, perhaps even more than teachers, ought to be, and usually are, highly motivated to make a contribution to society. They have a strong sense of right and wrong, and justifiably feel there is a moral worth to the jobs they do and the profession they’ve chosen. So why are they letting their unions fight reforms that will weed out bad cops, and implement training and oversight programs that will result in fewer lives lost and lowered tensions in the communities they serve?

Conservatives can seize this opportunity to find the strength of their most enlightened convictions. They can join with liberals to reform and evolve law enforcement in the U.S. And in so doing they can help liberals to see how the agenda of government unions is in inherent conflict with the public interest – in law enforcement as well as in education. And they can start to work towards broader reforms as part of a powerful new coalition.

Alternatively, conservatives can revert to an ugly, divisive, racially tinged, belligerent message, endorsing security at any cost. They may reap short term political and financial gains from such a strategy. But they will further divide this nation, and in the long run, discredit themselves irrevocably.

*   *   *

Ed Ring is the executive director of the California Policy Center.


  1. Keep in mind. Retirement at AGE 50 with guaranteed payments which contain an Annual PENSION increase of 3 – 5%. Check out the value of this over a 30 year period. A N D. T H E N. B I T C H, B I T C H, B I T C H.

  2. You should see what Firefighters are getting in pensions. And with women becoming Police Officers & Firefighters, there is a growing landslide of Medical Disability pensions going out as 92% of the injured are female. Far exceeding their male counterparts. I don’t see how we can afford this.

  3. Police Unions are not conservative, but they are Fascistic.
    ALL LE organizations – at all levels of government – need to rethink how they interact with those they purportedly ‘serve’, and whose taxes pays their overly-compensated salaries.

  4. Back to the beginning, the Florida case involving a black wanna be ‘gansta’, Trayvon Martin, and the black wanna be ‘gansta’ Garner in Missouri were both flukes which were flamed by race baiter’s Al Sharpdum and Jesse Jackson, which, in my opinion, both should have been charged with inciting a riot. (Good luck on that when you have a racist in the White House a a racist as the Attorney General)
    The death of the black man in New York, without a doubt, was a racist act on the part of the New York police department.
    No one, white, black, purple, or orange deserves to DIE for selling untaxed cigarettes. No one with a sane mind could justify murder, which it plainly was, as shown on the video tape.
    For some entertaining reading, Google ‘New York Police Department/Union Views’ to read how openly racist the New York Police Department actually is.
    As for the Police in general, there are some (a few) really good ones who honestly care about protecting the rights of all citizens. It seems that they ALL used to choose law enforcement as a career for that specific reason.
    Their actions today in general seem to be for alternative reasons: ‘It’s all about me’, ‘what’s in in for me’.
    It seems obvious that a better psychological profiling of the officers that they do hire needs to be part of the hiring process.
    Far too many are being brought into the flock with ulterior motives, (with this gun and this badge, I am the man) unstable psychological thought processes, (inferiority complexes) and the few that seek employment for the right reasons are overwhelmed by the status quo.
    Once employed and assigned to an area or district, they soon become part of the ‘good ole boy network’, where the ‘frat boys’ take care of each other.
    As bad as Bob Filner was as a politician, he did have it right in the concept that a new chief of police needed to be brought in from the outside to eliminate the connection of long term friends within the department. I believe that many in the department feel ‘resentment’ that a woman was picked to be the new San Diego Chief of Police, and the existing ‘good ole boy network’ or ‘frat boys’ ideology was just entrenched deeper into the existing system of corruption and cover ups.
    One doesn’t have to look too far back to see the problems that were simply overlooked or ignored in San Diego’s police department. (Perverts Anthony Arevelos and Christopher Hayes come to mind offhand, numerous others could be quickly regurgitated with little effort.
    Rather than separate the weed from the chaff, the union dutifully represents ALL members, good or bad.
    You would hope they had the courage to do what is best for the community or society in general, but apparently is not the goal.
    Sad commentary, but that’s the way we’re heading.

    • Roger V. Tranfaglia says

      If the police unions need to be (more) transparent, put it on paper next time a new contract comes up!

Speak Your Mind