No system can go on forever without some type of change. Whether your a company, a government entity, or even a person we all must grow and change. When we fail to change and we are harming people in the process, we run risks of low institutional support, we will run out of track because the train kept going at full speed when the most effective path has long ago changed. I believe we are coming to a place where change will be an important part of the ability of institutions to maintain long term public support (Remember that rapid changes in technology and interconnectivity will influence institutions that are not aligned to the goals of that generation.).
There is an interesting piece provided by the World Bank and how institutions are likely going to be a big part of growth. World Bank Institutional Strength and Support. Developing strong institutions will lead to easing of transitional tension as people trust those institutions to have their best interests in mind. While some of our institutions are functioning well (not include the politics that are put on them) we do have problems in others that are left unrectified.
I do recognize that when we think about this from an ethnocentric political perspective the first thing is to condemn with great harshness any criticism of any kind (Its also why we now have this problem in the first place. Even intellectuals have to wonder if they should provide constructive advice or not. it can be risky sometimes. 🤷). That leads to intentional barriers that insulate against reasonable and just opinions that change is a helpful criteria of the long term health of the entire justice system (or any system for that matter. See Harvard article on Trust as the Secret to Adaptable Organizations and sort of compare that with Public Perceptions Justice and 45% Trust Rate some ideas U.S. Courts Preserving Trust and how big data is going to sort of create a potentially embarrassing situation for courts across the land. White House Police Accountability. This is also why I encourage proactivity in governance problems versus waiting until its a bigger problem.).
While this study is related to companies we find that short term thinking limits our growth in many ways. This why we should encourage longer term approach (over the horizon thinking) to problems versus short term power over approaches that have crept into our conversations and in turn stifled the probabilities of stronger future performance and resolution of looming issues. See Short and Long Termism Outcomes.
I'm a 100% supporter of police because we have no real viable and practical options at this time. Even if we were transitioning I would still have support for good officers because they acted nobly. In that support, I say we need to revamp the system so that it is not insulated from correcting its mistakes and holding to account corrupt and immoral behaviors. This is necessary because while the vast majority 75-80% (might be less) of officers are honorable people, there is still a huge percentage who have no/little respect for the law (or anyone else).
Who speaks for those who have no voice and those who have few rights? We can't just keep talking about the constitution, patriotism and other things if we are struggling to live a full version of that within society. We have work to do to ensure that our American ideals apply across the board to all Americans. We cannot have different applied laws for different people. Our nation is built off of the belief that free men/women determine their own fate and have inherent value (Corruption is a different type of unAmerican belief that enriches self/clan at the expense of society. I have seen this lack of accountability for giving free passes to potentially criminal behavior because of social, ideological, racial, and religious oriented associations. While these behaviors are likely nationally and internationally illegal within the context in which they were committed, they might be seen by some as "acceptable" because of misalignment of values. I wish I could say something different here or say that isn't at least partly true. I'm not sure what the end result is but I'm doing it in honor of two people who were victims of that behavior. I'm saddened it occurred, we allowed it to occur and then struggled with justice afterward. It changes ones perspective on the need for institutional change. No amount of parked cars, following home, false allegations or targeting will now change that for me until there is meaningful adjustment. I drew my line to protect my kids. I will continue to support my community and the good officers within it but I will not sugar coat the behaviors of well connected homogeneous individuals. My oaths preclude to not do this, and I have an obligation to the victims as well as the next generation.)
Its hard to explain the economic impact of not living and fulfilling our institutional missions and oaths. While to some the moral conscious violations alone might be enough (internally motivated people) most others want the financial cost (externally motivated people) to make any changes. In other words, "What's in it for them to change?" Let us move forward and think about some of the incentives of waiting to long to adjust to the needs of the general population.
The immediate answer is "not much". They are temporarily insulated from the consequences and failures of forthright thinking. However, that is a relatively short time. World pressures are going to force the U.S. to make major changes to maintain its competitive position. Failure to maximize on Human Capital is part of that necessary adjustment (Remember that belated late interest at the ballot box). While the super connected and "elite" of society will try to dominate the conversation by pushing their somewhat insulated perspective they will not be able to effectively do that because everyone else has a bigger steak in the game now (I think intellectuals, scientists and others will have a bigger influence in decision making to balance out magical thinking with occasional alternatives. They can be wrong too so its an informal negotiation between evidence, salability, and practicality).
Consider a few articles that indicate there are members within those institutions that recognize the need for change and have been working toward our national and/or humanity oriented goals. DOJ Police Integrity (lack of accountability within the U.S. system), UN International Police Corruption (notice difficulties in recruitment, training, accountability) and White House Approach to Corruption (Its helpful but without action its more or less just something posted for PR purposes. That doesn't neglect the times, hopefully many, that good things happened from having the policy as guide.) (Let me add we can change this for the better but it takes leadership commitment in protecting our fellow Americans; especially those with no voice and quickly sidelined.)
Todays young people have lots of education, tech knowledge, opinions, and are willing to challenge. They also lack opportunities their grandparents had, ideas/concepts bubble forward, and concerns spread quickly within their networks. Justice is central to our ability to maintain shared values and perspectives and our current generation has failed to fully update the system to ensure it fulfills its most important missions. It has goal confusion (Some want justice and a few want their clans, groups, friends, race, religion, etc. to have preferential treatment.)
Here is my suggestion. We should start making reasonable and positive bi-partisan changes that ensure the system has a basic standard of integrity (Most officers and departments have the right skills but some have been compromised). Once that is established, we can then think about methods that improve the effectiveness of policing along with increasing public support and transparency (In the modern world we use formally trained police but from a species standpoint we need enforcement of certain rules and values. Thus getting people involved means better ensuring the outcomes are in alignment with the needs of the people by requiring incremental adjustments that it works for society and not other way around.)
So the criticism can be something positive and a chance to diversify and enhance our policing (As long as we stay away from brow beating answers and daylight acts of intimidation.). This is why we need people to join our police, get involved in helping their communities, and make the changes necessary for it to function well. We can do that from within the system by encouraging the young to take service as important avenue to their development (Just remember that Code Blue is less important than the codes of Red, White & Blue). That will also create some pressure so the external and entrenched stakeholders must consider the needs of the officers and not an agenda or their reelection (You should try the dishwasher integrity training program I think I'm going to a good try. It doesn't pay well but you can at least hold your head high! Freedom of Speech comes with lots of unfree stuff but it is those who stand up for right that make changes. At least that is what we read in our history books. I wonder if its true in real life? 🤔). It is also an opportunity to adjust the system to address the most important concerns of the American people (Not only those who work within or benefit financially or politically from it.)
I'm a supporter of the police and the population. I do not see the same differences between races and religions that many other see and use as anchor points in their decisions. To me, our American youth are important eagle eggs that when groomed can be a contributing factors to American redevelopment and reemergence (Others may not agree but they also make short term choices so there is some misalignment between words and behaviors. I think this more or less is a political problem and the need to say things to get support but then not really worry about whether they have improved the total system in some way). To some, they are more worried about the color and which luxury nest those eggs are placed than the inherent value/worth of each of those eggs. That is just my minority opinion, there are probably others who disagree and will ensure only their narrative counts (Reread again to understand the dangers of narrow insight and decision making anchors. Restart from beginning if confused.). We have more responsibility to the next generation at this important juncture in America's competitive positional history then any other social or financial considerations. I mean hypothetically if we want to build/re-build/maintain a great nation.
Let us turn the page in our shared American history.....
