2020 Drives Home the Need to Rein in Big Government
Racist law enforcement practices and state-imposed lockdowns are two sides of the same big government coin
In recent months, the COVID-19 pandemic and the renewed focus on systemic racism in law enforcement have given rise to long-overdue outrage over the government’s blatant disregard for civil liberties. Those opposed to the lockdowns implemented in response to the pandemic are rightly appalled by state governments arbitrarily forcing the closure of businesses, declaring which workers are and are not “essential”, and imposing restrictions on individuals’ freedom of movement. Those protesting for police reform are justifiably outraged by a law enforcement system that regularly enforces laws and uses excessive force in a racially biased manner. Unfortunately, the current hyperpartisan political environment has largely pitted supporters of these two respective causes against each other. Ultimately, however, both the anti-lockdown movement and the police reform movement share the rightful civil libertarian objectives of reining in government power and restoring individual liberty.
Racist law enforcement practices and state-imposed lockdowns are two sides of the same oppressive big government coin. Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies — the enforcement arm of government — have extraordinary discretionary power to use physical force, seize individuals’ property, conduct “no-knock” raids of homes, and make arrests for victimless offenses. In an environment in which systemic racism is sadly a reality, such broad powers are inherently ripe to be used and abused in a racially discriminatory manner. State governments also possess broad so-called “police powers” to enact emergency closures, curfews, and quarantines in the name of public health, enabling governors’ authoritarian responses to the pandemic. Both police brutality and public health lockdowns are symptoms of a government that has too much power to infringe on the very liberties that it is supposed to protect. “It’s for your own safety” — safety from crime, safety from a virus — is the usual purported justification. Almost always, however, more people are harmed — whether physically, economically, or by having their rights violated — than are protected by government’s misguided attempts to guarantee safety and security.
Neither the grievances of the anti-lockdown movement nor those of the police reform movement can be adequately addressed without significant limits on overall government power. Nonetheless, politically charged hypocrisy abounds among supporters of both causes. It defies credulity when those who recognize racial disparities in law enforcement ostensibly trust the government to unbiasedly enforce shelter-in-place orders and restrictions on gatherings. A ProPublica investigation of enforcement of Ohio’s stay-at-home and social distancing orders found that Black individuals were disproportionately arrested for violations of those orders. In Chicago, meanwhile, 100% of arrests and nearly 85% of citations for social distancing violations between March 20 and May 21 occurred in majority-Black and Latino neighborhoods. On the other hand, it is equally disingenuous to oppose restrictions on law enforcement powers and simultaneously become outraged when the full force of big government, via law enforcement agents, is used to enforce overreaching public health orders. “Liberty for me but not for thee” is an unsustainable proposition, regardless of the underlying policy issue.
Unsurprisingly, some of the worst hypocrites in this respect are government officials. Back in June, as the pandemic raged, Seattle mayor Jenny Durkan asserted, “There [are] times there can’t be gatherings, but this is a time there has to be gatherings” in reference to large protests in her city against racist police brutality. Such a statement is constitutionally repugnant; the First Amendment unequivocally prohibits the government from making content-based determinations as to what gatherings are permissible. Even the most ardent supporters of the police reform protests ought to be appalled by Durkan’s assertion. If local governments were permitted to impose content-based restrictions on public protests and gatherings, a mayor opposed to the anti-police brutality protests could declare, “This is a time there can’t be gatherings” in regard to such protests. Government exists to equally protect the rights of all people, not to discriminately choose when the exercise of these rights is allowed. State and local governments unconstitutionally assuming the power to selectively violate rights and liberties for reasons perceived as righteous is a dangerous precedent.
This unique moment in history demands that individuals across the ideological spectrum set aside policy differences and recognize their common interest in limiting the power of the state and restoring civil liberties. Supporting these principles only when they dovetail with a preferred policy outcome is not only glaringly hypocritical, but is bound to ultimately backfire by enabling future big government power grabs. The tumultuous events of this year have brought into sharp focus the crucial importance of a government that respects not some of our liberties some of the time, but all of our liberties all of the time.
