Your book, like Elizabeth Hinton’s “America on Fire,” delves into a decades-long cycle that’s played out in many US cities: Police violence, followed by uprisings, followed by promises for reform and blue ribbon commissions that ultimately produce only “modest change and a photo op.” Did you come out of your reporting with a solid idea of what a better process would look like?
Ellis: I don’t know how you can look at Minneapolis today and say they are better for choosing reform over revolution. The mayor reorganized the public safety department, then there was turnover in the leadership there. The chief who was supposed to lead the transformation of the police force recently resigned in disgrace. Like most police departments in the country, the budget continues to balloon thanks to overtime costs. And at the moment the city is failing to even meet the basics of its court-mandated reforms. By definition this is insanity, right?
I think like anything in local government, having a process for the community to guide designs and offer feedback is important. But I think the starting point has to be a total tear down, not a rebuild. That sounds simplistic, but look at where making changes on the edges has gotten us? Revised training standards and use of force policies have amounted to departments that are effectively the same. The aim needs to be so much higher.
Organizing, showing up to government events, meeting with government officials, trying to verify government claims, demonstrating at key times if demands aren’t being met, trying to convince others why your cause is just, developing candidates and running them if an existing candidate isn’t worth it.
Uh… Isn’t that the thing you said is counter productive in your last comment? 🤨
As to the rest, I personally think getting deeply involved in electoral politics besides tossing in a vote on election day is a road to quick burnout, disappointment, and ultimately barely moving the needle on the issues that matter most.
It also leaves people with their pants down if fascists are able to negate the vote, as there are then no systems or community to fallback on.
But that’s just my 2 cents.
I said one without the other feels counterproductive. If you can mobilize a few percentage of the voting public who will vote for who you say, you are far more likely to get included within the political process to create legislation and policy to your looking, which is the point of organizing.
I don’t see why someone would throw away a tool to implement change they are pushing for.