The Making Of The American Police State | PopularResistance.Org
popularresistance.org
https://www.popularresistance.org/the-making-of-the-american-police-state/
The Making Of The American Police State
Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images
July 28, 2015 "Information Clearing House" - "Jacobin" - How did we get
here? The numbers are chilling: 2.2 million people behind bars, another 4.7
million on parole or probation. Even small-town cops are armed like
soldiers, with a thoroughly militarized southern border.
The common leftist explanation for this is "the prison-industrial complex,"
suggesting that the buildup is largely privatized and has been driven by
parasitic corporate lobbying. But the facts don't support an economistic
explanation. Private prisons only control 8 percent of prison beds. Nor do
for-profit corporations use much prison labor. Nor even are guards' unions,
though strong in a few important states, driving the buildup.
The vast majority of the American police state remains firmly within the
public sector. But this does not mean the criminal justice buildup has
nothing to do with capitalism. At its heart, the new American repression is
very much about the restoration and maintenance of ruling class power.
American society and economy have from the start evolved through forms of
racialized violence, but criminal justice was not always so politically
central. For the better part of a century after the end ofReconstruction in
the 1870s, the national incarceration rate hovered at around 100 to 110 per
100,000. But then, in the early 1970s, the incarceration rate began a
precipitous and continual climb upward.
The great criminal justice expansion began as a federal government reaction
to the society-wide rebellion of the late 1960s. It was a crucible in which
white supremacy, corporate power, capitalism, and the legitimacy of the US
government, at home and abroad, all faced profound crisis. The Civil Rights
Movement had transmogrified into the Black Power movement.
"Third World" Marxist and nationalist groups like the Black Panthers and the
Young Lords began arming. During riots in Newark, Watts, and Chicago, black
people shot back at cops and the National Guard; in Detroit, urban
"hillbillies" - poor white Southerners who had also been displaced by the
mechanization of agriculture - fought alongside their black neighbors.
Transwomen, drag queens, and gay men fought the cops who came to raid the
Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village. Women organized, filed successful
lawsuits, and staged large protests against discrimination.
Even the US Army was in rebellion. In Vietnam draftee insubordination took
the form of increasing drug use, combat refusals, and even "fragging" - the
murder of overly gung-ho officers.
Added to all this was the increasingly regular rioting that gripped
America's inner cities. Every summer from 1964 through the mid-1970s saw a
riot season, in which multiple major American cities were wracked by
massive, violent, fiery, spontaneous uprisings of mostly, but not
exclusively, unemployed and underemployed African-American youth. Cops were
shot, whole commercial districts were looted and burnt, and all of it was
captured on TV.
Importantly, these domestic social explosions hurt US imperialism abroad. In
the context of the Cold War, burning cities put the lie to official American
mythologies. If capitalism and liberal democracy were so much better than
socialism, why were black people in America so furious?
In 1967 the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, known as the
Kerner Commission,found that in every single case the precipitating cause of
the riots was police brutality. Furthermore, the commission found that
police tactical incompetence usually made things worse.
It was in response to this panorama of formal and informal rebellion - and
law enforcement's apparent inability to stop it - that the massive criminal
justice crackdown began. The opening move was President Johnson's Omnibus
Crime and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
Congress passed the bill literally in the shadow of smoke from yet another
riot - this one in outrage at the murder of Dr Martin Luther King. From the
passage of the Omnibus Crime and Safe Streets Act of 1968 emerged a new
super agency, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA), which
over the next ten years spent a billion dollars annually rationalizing and
retooling state and local law enforcement.
It was thanks to the LEAA that American police forces first obtained
computers, helicopters, body armor, military-grade weapons, SWAT teams,
shoulder radios, and paramilitary training, and started new militaristic
forms of interagency cooperation. The LEAA also pushed literacy requirements
and basic competency tests for police officers. In other words, the LEAA was
simultaneously an attempt to modernize American policing and to intensify
and expand it.
If Johnson laid the groundwork for the crackdown, Sunbelt Republicans
perfected the rhetoric. Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona linked the
redistributive efforts of the New Deal and War on Poverty to criminal
violence: "If it is entirely proper for the government to take away from
some to give to others, then won't some be led to believe that they can
rightfully take from anyone who has more than they? No wonder law and order
has broken down, mob violence has engulfed great American cities, and our
wives feel unsafe in the streets."
Here were the old demonizing tropes of white racism. Black people were cast
as dangerous, ignorant, unworthy of full citizenship, and thus in need of
state repression. As Nixon's chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, put it in his
diary: "[The President] emphasized that you have to face that the whole
problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes
this while not appearing to." A federal war on heroin followed and with it
came new laws like the RICO Act that empowered prosecutors. At the same time
Nixon began his appeal to "the silent majority," a group not named as white
but understood as such.
Meanwhile, as part of police modernization, counterinsurgency became the
framework. One law enforcement journal, describing what would become the
locked-down ghetto of the near future, advised: "Techniques to control the
people include individual and family identification, curfews, travel
permits, static and mobile checkpoint operations, and the prevention of
assemblies or rallies."
The article went on to describe rising crime rates as a precursor to
revolution, and lauded the "value of an effective police organization - both
civil and military - in maintaining law and order, whether in California,
Pennsylvania, Mississippi, or the rice paddies and jungles of Viet-Nam."
Upward Redistribution
Eventually this first phase of the criminal justice buildup began to
plateau. By the late seventies, a series of major scandals had revealed the
nasty side of policing and government spying. First among these was the
Nixon administration's burglary of Democratic Party headquarters in the
Watergate Hotel. Then the Knapp Commission hearings exposed the New York
Police Department's appalling corruption, while the Senate's Church
Committee revealed rampant domestic spying and began reining in the CIA.
From other quarters came revelations about the brutality in Southern
prisons. Many lockups in the US South relied on armed trustees, prisoners
who acted as guards and were given free rein to abuse fellow inmates. Texas
was the last state to abolish the armed trustee system in the early 1980s.
All of this caused a momentary pause in the otherwise forward momentum of
the repressive buildup.
That pause was short-lived. The Reagan Administration soon relaunched the
federally subsidized drug war and the larger project of domestic repression
it helped produce.
However, this second stage of the buildup was not about suppressing
rebellion; that job was largely done. There were no more riots; the Panthers
had been crushed; and many once-radical community organizations had been
domesticated, their rank-and-file members demobilized, their leaders reduced
to begging for foundation grants.
The Reagan Revolution's radical economic restructuring had, however, created
new problems to which criminal justice offered solutions. Reagan's massive
upward redistribution of wealth had created vast swaths of impoverishment
and dramatic new levels of inequality. In this context the reinvigorated war
on crime served to physically contain and ideologically explain away, via
racist victim-blaming, the massive social dislocations of neoliberal,
free-market economic restructuring.
So then, why and how did economic policy move radically rightward in the
early 1980s?
Sabotage, at Home and Abroad
This transformation, the beginning of neoliberalism, begins with the
crucially important collapse of profit rates in the early 1970s. After
twenty years of continual expansion during the long postwar recovery,
profits began to sag in 1966 and continued to decline steadily until 1974,
when they reached an average of around 4.5 percent. The same pattern of a 20
to 30 percent plunge in profits was true across all advanced capitalist
countries.
This was, ultimately, a crisis of over-accumulation rooted in the end of the
postwar boom. By the late sixties, the long wave of post-World War II growth
had created a global glut. There was finally too much capital, too much
stuff, and not enough profitable outlets for investment, not enough
consumption to keep the colossus moving.
For the first time in American history the Phillips curve, which plotted an
inverse relationship between rising wages and rising unemployment, was out
of whack. Historically, when unemployment increased wages tended to go down.
But in the early 1970s, both unemployment and wages were increasing. This
was the infamous and anomalous "stagflation" - stagnant growth plus
inflation.
While the cause of the crisis was overproduction at a global scale, the
solution, in the eyes of the ruling class, was cost-cutting in the form of
deregulation, tax cuts, and reduced wages.
From the New Deal, through the War on Poverty, and into the Nixon era, the
state had played an increasingly prominent role in the economy. Between 1964
and 1979 the federal government enacted sixty-two health and safety laws,
plus thirty-two laws protecting the environment and regulating energy use.
Between 1970 and 1973, Nixon presided over the creation of the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the
Consumer Safety Administration, and the Mine Enforcement and Safety
Administration.
All this translated into higher costs and thus lower profits for business.
High taxes and restrictive regulation, once seen as merely the modern cost
of business, where now seen as profit killers.
To make matters worse, the 1970s saw a truly massive offensive by organized
labor. Truckers, farmworkers, longshore workers, gravediggers, postal clerks
and letter carriers, autoworkers, and assembly line workers of all sorts
struck during the 1970s.
And they usually won. The ratio of quits to layoffs reached two to one,
almost twice what it was in the late fifties. The share of the workforce
involved in some strike activity between 1967 and 1973 reached 40 percent -
even though in the same period the unemployment rate crept from 4 to 8
percent.
Restive workers also resorted to informal rebellion on the shop floor. Ford
claimed that absenteeism in its plants doubled and sometimes even tripled
during the sixties and early seventies. In one factory workers wrote
messages to management on their machinery, such as, "Treat me with respect
and I will give you top quality with less effort." Sabotage, slowdowns, and
wildcat strikes became the industrial equivalents of "fragging" officers in
Vietnam.
One account relays the plight of a Ford manager in a plant plagued with
absenteeism and sabotage. Among the plant's employees was a young man who
consistently skipped work on Friday or Monday. When the manager finally
demanded to know why the man worked a four-day week, the young worker
replied, "Because I can't make a living working three days a week."
He spoke for a generation; working-class power translated into an informal,
economy-wide slowdown, which meant a measured decline in productivity.
Even more disturbing from the point of view of the capitalists was that
government, or at least its recently expanded social safety net, was
actually subsidizing the working-class rebellion.
A nationwide strike against GE in 1969 helped crystallize the issue.
Strikers were not only receiving strike funds from their union - tens of
thousands of them were also drawing welfare checks.
"It's a mind-boggling situation," declared Thomas Litwiler, a GE executive
in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. "The strikers are living reasonably well on
welfare, and nobody knows what to do or what it really means any more."
Working-class power was being institutionalized within the state, and the
state in turn was being transformed. But from the point of view of
employers, welfare for strikers meant government-subsidized class war.
The Cold Bath Recession
The solution, for business, arrived in the form of what Francis Fox Piven
called The New Class War. Restoring the Phillips curve and getting the price
of labor to respond to rising unemployment meant stripping away the supports
of the safety net produced by America's New Deal and Great Society.
The counterattack began in 1979, when President Jimmy Carter appointed Paul
Volcker as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Volcker dramatically
boosted interest rates, thus cutting off borrowing and buying power. Reagan
accelerated this "monetarist" squeeze, and interest rates reached 16.4
percent in 1981. The United States (and thus much of the world) was plunged
into what was then the most severe recession since the thirties.
Referred to as a "cold bath" recession, it was designed to punish the uppity
working class. As Volcker told the New York Times: "The standard of living
of the average American has to decline . . . I don't think you can escape
that."
At the same time Reagan cut taxes for the rich and began gutting welfare, he
pushed forward on deregulating health, safety, and environmental standards.
In 1982 alone Reagan cut the real value of welfare by 24 percent, slashed
the budget for child nutrition by 34 percent, reduced funding for school
milk programs by 78 percent, trimmed urban development action grants by 35
percent, and cut educational block grants by 38 percent.
The medicine worked. Poverty increased and with that labor militancy and the
cost of wages decreased. From World War II on, wages had been rising more or
less consistently.
In 1980 not a single new union contract included a pay cut, or even a
freeze. But in 1982, only one year into the Reagan Revolution, 44 percent of
new contracts included wage cuts or freezes. As the official unemployment
rate, always an under-estimate, reached 10 percent, working-class living
standards began to collapse.
Alan Budd, chief economic adviser to Margaret Thatcher, described the new
economic dynamic as follows: "Rising unemployment was a very desirable way
of reducing the strength of the working classes . . . What was engineered -
in Marxist terms - was a crisis in capitalism which re-created a reserve
army of labor, and has allowed the capitalists to make high profits ever
since."
How was this new social landscape of deindustrialization and increased
poverty next to new extremes of wealth to be managed and explained away?
Reengaging the criminal justice buildup provided the answer.
Launching the Drug War
Reagan's criminal justice offensive began quietly at first. His
administration doubled FBI funding, loosened wiretap laws, gave more money
to the US Bureau of Prisons, appointed a generation of new right-wing
federal judges, and urged changes in the criminal code that increased the
power of prosecutors. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court handed down decisions
that rolled back defendant rights.Gates v. Illinois made it easier for
police to obtain search warrants based on anonymous tips; United States v.
Leon allowed police to use defective and partially false warrants.
Then came the Federal Crime Bill of 1984, which created the assets
forfeiture laws enabling police to keep as much as 90 percent of any
"drug-tainted" property seized. This massively incentivized state and local
officials to get on board with the drug war.
Next came the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which imposed twenty-nine new
mandatory minimum sentences, among them the notoriously racist disparity
between crack and powder cocaine sentencing.
The escalating repression hit poor people of color hardest, and black people
hardest of all. In 1980, African Americans made up 12 percent of the
nation's population and over 23 percent of all those arrested on drug
charges. Ten years later, African Americans were still 12 percent of the
population, but made up more than 40 percent of all those arrested on
narcotics charges. Still more remarkable, over 60 percent of all narcotics
convictions were of African Americans.
Overall, drug arrests almost doubled in the late eighties: 1985 saw roughly
800,000 people taken down on drug charges; by 1989 that number had shot up
to almost 1.4 million.
By the late eighties, politicians and the media were locked in a symbiotic
hysteria, a classic mutually reinforcing "moral panic." The zenith of this
was the Hill & Knowlton-produced TV ads featuring the scowling mug shot of a
black convict named Willie Horton, imprisoned for rape and murder. Horton
escaped prison while Michael Dukakis was governor of Massachusetts.
During this time the 1988 crime bill was introduced, which created a "drug
czar" - cheerleader-in-chief for the drug war - and pumped yet more federal
money down to local police and state prison construction. The bill also
created a "one-strike" policy for public housing tenants.
The Clinton presidency brought more of the same. After the Los Angeles riots
came the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Local cops got
another $30.2 billion in federal cash. (It is worth recalling that no matter
how much the Clinton's play up their supposed solidarity with African
Americans, Bill Clinton's actual presidency was tyrannical in the extreme
for millions of poor and working-class black people caught up in his
law-and-order agenda.)
Two years later, with another election on the way, Clinton signed the
Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, massively expanding the use
of the death penalty and eviscerating federal habeas corpus. Right behind
that came the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which barred many prisoners from
access to the civil courts, helped eliminate prison law libraries, kept
judges from imposing meaningful penalties on abusive prison administrators,
and stripped lawyers of their ability to receive legal fees when handling
prison civil rights suits.
In election year 1996 Clinton, on a roll of utter brutality and right-wing
pandering, delivered the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act, which among other things eliminated an undocumented
person's right to due process while lavishing cash on the Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
Throughout the eighties and nineties, state legislatures imitated and
matched cues coming from the federal government. California alone made over
a thousand changes to its criminal code during these years.
Regulate, Absorb, Terrorize, Disorganize
Looking back we can see clearly the effects of this generalized project of
repression: mask the real causes of poverty with racist fearmongering and
victim-blaming. Keep once-rebellious communities in America's cities
fragmented and tied up in the criminal justice system. Secure central cities
for gentrification and redevelopment. Keep labor cheap by hounding
immigrants. And, in a pork-barrel strategy, build new local support via
publicly funded prison construction, service contracts, and employment as
guards.
In other words, among the important things criminal justice does is
regulate, absorb, terrorize, and disorganize the poor. At the same time it
promulgates politically useful racism. Criminal justice discourse is the
racism circus; from courts to reality TV it is the primary ideological site
for producing the false consciousness that is American racism.
Why is racism false consciousness? Because it divides the working class and
causes people of all races to misunderstand their real material conditions.
It creates, via racialized scapegoats, pseudo-explanations for poverty and
exploitation, deluding and frightening downwardly mobile voters.
Most important, the criminal justice crackdown and overuse of incarceration
allows capitalism to have the positive effects of mass unemployment (lower
wages due to an economically frightened workforce) without the political
destabilization that mass poverty can bring. Unlike a robust social safety
net, incarceration and militarized policing absorb the poor and working
class without empowering them or subsidizing their rebellion, as was the
case during the sixties and seventies.
Unlike the soft forms of social control - meaning the ameliorative and
redistributive welfare programs of the Great Society - the new model of
social control does not come with dangerous notions of "equality" and
"social inclusion."
Today, the poor are thoroughly locked down, as is our political imagination
about what poverty means. Law enforcement has moved to the center of
domestic politics; state violence is perhaps more than ever a constant,
regular, and normal feature of poor people's lives.
Simply stated, capitalism needs poverty and creates poverty, but is
simultaneously always threatened by poverty. The poor keep wages down, but
they also create trouble in three ways.
First, their presence calls into question capitalism's moral claims (the
system can't work for "everyone" when beggars are in the street). Second,
the poor threaten and menace the moneyed classes aesthetically and
personally simply by being in the wrong spaces. Gourmet dining isn't quite
the same when done in the presence of mendicant paupers. And finally, the
poor threaten to rebel in organized and unorganized ways as they did in the
sixties and seventies.
Capitalism will never escape these contradictions. The best it can do is
manage them with criminal justice, the ideological racialization of poverty,
and the geographic segregation of the poor.
One more point. When viewing this history and the present, it is important
to think in terms of concomitant and overlapping agendas. Police on the
street are not usually consciously pursuing the violent reproduction of
neoliberal capitalism. More often local cops in Staten Island; Albuquerque;
Ferguson; Waller, Texas; etc. are pursuing their own personal power trips,
which very often take on racist angles.
But regardless of what cops think they are doing, their work usually also
fits into local political agendas of segregation and real-estate
development. And both of those smaller projects fit into the larger national
project of social control in an increasingly unequal class society. In other
words, the macro, mezzo, and micro levels all line up but also all remain
somewhat autonomous.
Finally some good news. Incarceration rates have begun to plateau again, and
there are growing divisions among economic and policy elites about the
nation's grotesquely overgrown justice system. California, under court
order, has released more than forty thousand prisoners in recent years. This
indicates an opening that movements like Black Lives Matter can exploit to
force through meaningful policy changes.
And what is our side's policy prescription? Less. Not better, just less.
Fewer prisons, fewer SWAT teams, less surveillance. Not better-trained cops
with body cameras, but rather less gear, less money, and fewer cops.
The Making Of The AmericThe Making Of The American Police State |
PopularResistance.Org
pf-core frame
list of 3 items
Print
PDF
Email
list end
list of 3 items
100% Text Size
Remove Images Remove Images
Undo
list end
Close
The Making Of The American Police State | PopularResistance.Org frame
popularresistance.org
https://www.popularresistance.org/the-making-of-the-american-police-state/
The Making Of The American Police State
Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images
Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images
July 28, 2015 "Information Clearing House" - "Jacobin" - How did we get
here? The numbers are chilling: 2.2 million people behind bars, another 4.7
million on parole or probation. Even small-town cops are armed like
soldiers, with a thoroughly militarized southern border.
The common leftist explanation for this is "the prison-industrial complex,"
suggesting that the buildup is largely privatized and has been driven by
parasitic corporate lobbying. But the facts don't support an economistic
explanation. Private prisons only control 8 percent of prison beds. Nor do
for-profit corporations use much prison labor. Nor even are guards' unions,
though strong in a few important states, driving the buildup.
The vast majority of the American police state remains firmly within the
public sector. But this does not mean the criminal justice buildup has
nothing to do with capitalism. At its heart, the new American repression is
very much about the restoration and maintenance of ruling class power.
American society and economy have from the start evolved through forms of
racialized violence, but criminal justice was not always so politically
central. For the better part of a century after the end ofReconstruction in
the 1870s, the national incarceration rate hovered at around 100 to 110 per
100,000. But then, in the early 1970s, the incarceration rate began a
precipitous and continual climb upward.
The great criminal justice expansion began as a federal government reaction
to the society-wide rebellion of the late 1960s. It was a crucible in which
white supremacy, corporate power, capitalism, and the legitimacy of the US
government, at home and abroad, all faced profound crisis. The Civil Rights
Movement had transmogrified into the Black Power movement.
"Third World" Marxist and nationalist groups like the Black Panthers and the
Young Lords began arming. During riots in Newark, Watts, and Chicago, black
people shot back at cops and the National Guard; in Detroit, urban
"hillbillies" - poor white Southerners who had also been displaced by the
mechanization of agriculture - fought alongside their black neighbors.
Transwomen, drag queens, and gay men fought the cops who came to raid the
Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village. Women organized, filed successful
lawsuits, and staged large protests against discrimination.
Even the US Army was in rebellion. In Vietnam draftee insubordination took
the form of increasing drug use, combat refusals, and even "fragging" - the
murder of overly gung-ho officers.
Added to all this was the increasingly regular rioting that gripped
America's inner cities. Every summer from 1964 through the mid-1970s saw a
riot season, in which multiple major American cities were wracked by
massive, violent, fiery, spontaneous uprisings of mostly, but not
exclusively, unemployed and underemployed African-American youth. Cops were
shot, whole commercial districts were looted and burnt, and all of it was
captured on TV.
Importantly, these domestic social explosions hurt US imperialism abroad. In
the context of the Cold War, burning cities put the lie to official American
mythologies. If capitalism and liberal democracy were so much better than
socialism, why were black people in America so furious?
In 1967 the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, known as the
Kerner Commission,found that in every single case the precipitating cause of
the riots was police brutality. Furthermore, the commission found that
police tactical incompetence usually made things worse.
It was in response to this panorama of formal and informal rebellion - and
law enforcement's apparent inability to stop it - that the massive criminal
justice crackdown began. The opening move was President Johnson's Omnibus
Crime and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
Congress passed the bill literally in the shadow of smoke from yet another
riot - this one in outrage at the murder of Dr Martin Luther King. From the
passage of the Omnibus Crime and Safe Streets Act of 1968 emerged a new
super agency, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA), which
over the next ten years spent a billion dollars annually rationalizing and
retooling state and local law enforcement.
It was thanks to the LEAA that American police forces first obtained
computers, helicopters, body armor, military-grade weapons, SWAT teams,
shoulder radios, and paramilitary training, and started new militaristic
forms of interagency cooperation. The LEAA also pushed literacy requirements
and basic competency tests for police officers. In other words, the LEAA was
simultaneously an attempt to modernize American policing and to intensify
and expand it.
If Johnson laid the groundwork for the crackdown, Sunbelt Republicans
perfected the rhetoric. Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona linked the
redistributive efforts of the New Deal and War on Poverty to criminal
violence: "If it is entirely proper for the government to take away from
some to give to others, then won't some be led to believe that they can
rightfully take from anyone who has more than they? No wonder law and order
has broken down, mob violence has engulfed great American cities, and our
wives feel unsafe in the streets."
Here were the old demonizing tropes of white racism. Black people were cast
as dangerous, ignorant, unworthy of full citizenship, and thus in need of
state repression. As Nixon's chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, put it in his
diary: "[The President] emphasized that you have to face that the whole
problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes
this while not appearing to." A federal war on heroin followed and with it
came new laws like the RICO Act that empowered prosecutors. At the same time
Nixon began his appeal to "the silent majority," a group not named as white
but understood as such.
Meanwhile, as part of police modernization, counterinsurgency became the
framework. One law enforcement journal, describing what would become the
locked-down ghetto of the near future, advised: "Techniques to control the
people include individual and family identification, curfews, travel
permits, static and mobile checkpoint operations, and the prevention of
assemblies or rallies."
The article went on to describe rising crime rates as a precursor to
revolution, and lauded the "value of an effective police organization - both
civil and military - in maintaining law and order, whether in California,
Pennsylvania, Mississippi, or the rice paddies and jungles of Viet-Nam."
Upward Redistribution
Eventually this first phase of the criminal justice buildup began to
plateau. By the late seventies, a series of major scandals had revealed the
nasty side of policing and government spying. First among these was the
Nixon administration's burglary of Democratic Party headquarters in the
Watergate Hotel. Then the Knapp Commission hearings exposed the New York
Police Department's appalling corruption, while the Senate's Church
Committee revealed rampant domestic spying and began reining in the CIA.
From other quarters came revelations about the brutality in Southern
prisons. Many lockups in the US South relied on armed trustees, prisoners
who acted as guards and were given free rein to abuse fellow inmates. Texas
was the last state to abolish the armed trustee system in the early 1980s.
All of this caused a momentary pause in the otherwise forward momentum of
the repressive buildup.
That pause was short-lived. The Reagan Administration soon relaunched the
federally subsidized drug war and the larger project of domestic repression
it helped produce.
However, this second stage of the buildup was not about suppressing
rebellion; that job was largely done. There were no more riots; the Panthers
had been crushed; and many once-radical community organizations had been
domesticated, their rank-and-file members demobilized, their leaders reduced
to begging for foundation grants.
The Reagan Revolution's radical economic restructuring had, however, created
new problems to which criminal justice offered solutions. Reagan's massive
upward redistribution of wealth had created vast swaths of impoverishment
and dramatic new levels of inequality. In this context the reinvigorated war
on crime served to physically contain and ideologically explain away, via
racist victim-blaming, the massive social dislocations of neoliberal,
free-market economic restructuring.
So then, why and how did economic policy move radically rightward in the
early 1980s?
Sabotage, at Home and Abroad
This transformation, the beginning of neoliberalism, begins with the
crucially important collapse of profit rates in the early 1970s. After
twenty years of continual expansion during the long postwar recovery,
profits began to sag in 1966 and continued to decline steadily until 1974,
when they reached an average of around 4.5 percent. The same pattern of a 20
to 30 percent plunge in profits was true across all advanced capitalist
countries.
This was, ultimately, a crisis of over-accumulation rooted in the end of the
postwar boom. By the late sixties, the long wave of post-World War II growth
had created a global glut. There was finally too much capital, too much
stuff, and not enough profitable outlets for investment, not enough
consumption to keep the colossus moving.
For the first time in American history the Phillips curve, which plotted an
inverse relationship between rising wages and rising unemployment, was out
of whack. Historically, when unemployment increased wages tended to go down.
But in the early 1970s, both unemployment and wages were increasing. This
was the infamous and anomalous "stagflation" - stagnant growth plus
inflation.
While the cause of the crisis was overproduction at a global scale, the
solution, in the eyes of the ruling class, was cost-cutting in the form of
deregulation, tax cuts, and reduced wages.
From the New Deal, through the War on Poverty, and into the Nixon era, the
state had played an increasingly prominent role in the economy. Between 1964
and 1979 the federal government enacted sixty-two health and safety laws,
plus thirty-two laws protecting the environment and regulating energy use.
Between 1970 and 1973, Nixon presided over the creation of the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the
Consumer Safety Administration, and the Mine Enforcement and Safety
Administration.
All this translated into higher costs and thus lower profits for business.
High taxes and restrictive regulation, once seen as merely the modern cost
of business, where now seen as profit killers.
To make matters worse, the 1970s saw a truly massive offensive by organized
labor. Truckers, farmworkers, longshore workers, gravediggers, postal clerks
and letter carriers, autoworkers, and assembly line workers of all sorts
struck during the 1970s.
And they usually won. The ratio of quits to layoffs reached two to one,
almost twice what it was in the late fifties. The share of the workforce
involved in some strike activity between 1967 and 1973 reached 40 percent -
even though in the same period the unemployment rate crept from 4 to 8
percent.
Restive workers also resorted to informal rebellion on the shop floor. Ford
claimed that absenteeism in its plants doubled and sometimes even tripled
during the sixties and early seventies. In one factory workers wrote
messages to management on their machinery, such as, "Treat me with respect
and I will give you top quality with less effort." Sabotage, slowdowns, and
wildcat strikes became the industrial equivalents of "fragging" officers in
Vietnam.
One account relays the plight of a Ford manager in a plant plagued with
absenteeism and sabotage. Among the plant's employees was a young man who
consistently skipped work on Friday or Monday. When the manager finally
demanded to know why the man worked a four-day week, the young worker
replied, "Because I can't make a living working three days a week."
He spoke for a generation; working-class power translated into an informal,
economy-wide slowdown, which meant a measured decline in productivity.
Even more disturbing from the point of view of the capitalists was that
government, or at least its recently expanded social safety net, was
actually subsidizing the working-class rebellion.
A nationwide strike against GE in 1969 helped crystallize the issue.
Strikers were not only receiving strike funds from their union - tens of
thousands of them were also drawing welfare checks.
"It's a mind-boggling situation," declared Thomas Litwiler, a GE executive
in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. "The strikers are living reasonably well on
welfare, and nobody knows what to do or what it really means any more."
Working-class power was being institutionalized within the state, and the
state in turn was being transformed. But from the point of view of
employers, welfare for strikers meant government-subsidized class war.
The Cold Bath Recession
The solution, for business, arrived in the form of what Francis Fox Piven
called The New Class War. Restoring the Phillips curve and getting the price
of labor to respond to rising unemployment meant stripping away the supports
of the safety net produced by America's New Deal and Great Society.
The counterattack began in 1979, when President Jimmy Carter appointed Paul
Volcker as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Volcker dramatically
boosted interest rates, thus cutting off borrowing and buying power. Reagan
accelerated this "monetarist" squeeze, and interest rates reached 16.4
percent in 1981. The United States (and thus much of the world) was plunged
into what was then the most severe recession since the thirties.
Referred to as a "cold bath" recession, it was designed to punish the uppity
working class. As Volcker told the New York Times: "The standard of living
of the average American has to decline . . . I don't think you can escape
that."
At the same time Reagan cut taxes for the rich and began gutting welfare, he
pushed forward on deregulating health, safety, and environmental standards.
In 1982 alone Reagan cut the real value of welfare by 24 percent, slashed
the budget for child nutrition by 34 percent, reduced funding for school
milk programs by 78 percent, trimmed urban development action grants by 35
percent, and cut educational block grants by 38 percent.
The medicine worked. Poverty increased and with that labor militancy and the
cost of wages decreased. From World War II on, wages had been rising more or
less consistently.
In 1980 not a single new union contract included a pay cut, or even a
freeze. But in 1982, only one year into the Reagan Revolution, 44 percent of
new contracts included wage cuts or freezes. As the official unemployment
rate, always an under-estimate, reached 10 percent, working-class living
standards began to collapse.
Alan Budd, chief economic adviser to Margaret Thatcher, described the new
economic dynamic as follows: "Rising unemployment was a very desirable way
of reducing the strength of the working classes . . . What was engineered -
in Marxist terms - was a crisis in capitalism which re-created a reserve
army of labor, and has allowed the capitalists to make high profits ever
since."
How was this new social landscape of deindustrialization and increased
poverty next to new extremes of wealth to be managed and explained away?
Reengaging the criminal justice buildup provided the answer.
Launching the Drug War
Reagan's criminal justice offensive began quietly at first. His
administration doubled FBI funding, loosened wiretap laws, gave more money
to the US Bureau of Prisons, appointed a generation of new right-wing
federal judges, and urged changes in the criminal code that increased the
power of prosecutors. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court handed down decisions
that rolled back defendant rights.Gates v. Illinois made it easier for
police to obtain search warrants based on anonymous tips; United States v.
Leon allowed police to use defective and partially false warrants.
Then came the Federal Crime Bill of 1984, which created the assets
forfeiture laws enabling police to keep as much as 90 percent of any
"drug-tainted" property seized. This massively incentivized state and local
officials to get on board with the drug war.
Next came the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which imposed twenty-nine new
mandatory minimum sentences, among them the notoriously racist disparity
between crack and powder cocaine sentencing.
The escalating repression hit poor people of color hardest, and black people
hardest of all. In 1980, African Americans made up 12 percent of the
nation's population and over 23 percent of all those arrested on drug
charges. Ten years later, African Americans were still 12 percent of the
population, but made up more than 40 percent of all those arrested on
narcotics charges. Still more remarkable, over 60 percent of all narcotics
convictions were of African Americans.
Overall, drug arrests almost doubled in the late eighties: 1985 saw roughly
800,000 people taken down on drug charges; by 1989 that number had shot up
to almost 1.4 million.
By the late eighties, politicians and the media were locked in a symbiotic
hysteria, a classic mutually reinforcing "moral panic." The zenith of this
was the Hill & Knowlton-produced TV ads featuring the scowling mug shot of a
black convict named Willie Horton, imprisoned for rape and murder. Horton
escaped prison while Michael Dukakis was governor of Massachusetts.
During this time the 1988 crime bill was introduced, which created a "drug
czar" - cheerleader-in-chief for the drug war - and pumped yet more federal
money down to local police and state prison construction. The bill also
created a "one-strike" policy for public housing tenants.
The Clinton presidency brought more of the same. After the Los Angeles riots
came the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Local cops got
another $30.2 billion in federal cash. (It is worth recalling that no matter
how much the Clinton's play up their supposed solidarity with African
Americans, Bill Clinton's actual presidency was tyrannical in the extreme
for millions of poor and working-class black people caught up in his
law-and-order agenda.)
Two years later, with another election on the way, Clinton signed the
Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, massively expanding the use
of the death penalty and eviscerating federal habeas corpus. Right behind
that came the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which barred many prisoners from
access to the civil courts, helped eliminate prison law libraries, kept
judges from imposing meaningful penalties on abusive prison administrators,
and stripped lawyers of their ability to receive legal fees when handling
prison civil rights suits.
In election year 1996 Clinton, on a roll of utter brutality and right-wing
pandering, delivered the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act, which among other things eliminated an undocumented
person's right to due process while lavishing cash on the Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
Throughout the eighties and nineties, state legislatures imitated and
matched cues coming from the federal government. California alone made over
a thousand changes to its criminal code during these years.
Regulate, Absorb, Terrorize, Disorganize
Looking back we can see clearly the effects of this generalized project of
repression: mask the real causes of poverty with racist fearmongering and
victim-blaming. Keep once-rebellious communities in America's cities
fragmented and tied up in the criminal justice system. Secure central cities
for gentrification and redevelopment. Keep labor cheap by hounding
immigrants. And, in a pork-barrel strategy, build new local support via
publicly funded prison construction, service contracts, and employment as
guards.
In other words, among the important things criminal justice does is
regulate, absorb, terrorize, and disorganize the poor. At the same time it
promulgates politically useful racism. Criminal justice discourse is the
racism circus; from courts to reality TV it is the primary ideological site
for producing the false consciousness that is American racism.
Why is racism false consciousness? Because it divides the working class and
causes people of all races to misunderstand their real material conditions.
It creates, via racialized scapegoats, pseudo-explanations for poverty and
exploitation, deluding and frightening downwardly mobile voters.
Most important, the criminal justice crackdown and overuse of incarceration
allows capitalism to have the positive effects of mass unemployment (lower
wages due to an economically frightened workforce) without the political
destabilization that mass poverty can bring. Unlike a robust social safety
net, incarceration and militarized policing absorb the poor and working
class without empowering them or subsidizing their rebellion, as was the
case during the sixties and seventies.
Unlike the soft forms of social control - meaning the ameliorative and
redistributive welfare programs of the Great Society - the new model of
social control does not come with dangerous notions of "equality" and
"social inclusion."
Today, the poor are thoroughly locked down, as is our political imagination
about what poverty means. Law enforcement has moved to the center of
domestic politics; state violence is perhaps more than ever a constant,
regular, and normal feature of poor people's lives.
Simply stated, capitalism needs poverty and creates poverty, but is
simultaneously always threatened by poverty. The poor keep wages down, but
they also create trouble in three ways.
First, their presence calls into question capitalism's moral claims (the
system can't work for "everyone" when beggars are in the street). Second,
the poor threaten and menace the moneyed classes aesthetically and
personally simply by being in the wrong spaces. Gourmet dining isn't quite
the same when done in the presence of mendicant paupers. And finally, the
poor threaten to rebel in organized and unorganized ways as they did in the
sixties and seventies.
Capitalism will never escape these contradictions. The best it can do is
manage them with criminal justice, the ideological racialization of poverty,
and the geographic segregation of the poor.
One more point. When viewing this history and the present, it is important
to think in terms of concomitant and overlapping agendas. Police on the
street are not usually consciously pursuing the violent reproduction of
neoliberal capitalism. More often local cops in Staten Island; Albuquerque;
Ferguson; Waller, Texas; etc. are pursuing their own personal power trips,
which very often take on racist angles.
But regardless of what cops think they are doing, their work usually also
fits into local political agendas of segregation and real-estate
development. And both of those smaller projects fit into the larger national
project of social control in an increasingly unequal class society. In other
words, the macro, mezzo, and micro levels all line up but also all remain
somewhat autonomous.
Finally some good news. Incarceration rates have begun to plateau again, and
there are growing divisions among economic and policy elites about the
nation's grotesquely overgrown justice system. California, under court
order, has released more than forty thousand prisoners in recent years. This
indicates an opening that movements like Black Lives Matter can exploit to
force through meaningful policy changes.
And what is our side's policy prescription? Less. Not better, just less.
Fewer prisons, fewer SWAT teams, less surveillance. Not better-trained cops
with body cameras, but rather less gear, less money, and fewer cops.
The Making Of The Americ
