A recent school shooting has led to activism from affected high school students in support of legislation restricting civilian access to high-powered weaponry, sparking anew the question of why this type of event has become so normal in the United States. In regard to gun legislation, domestic policy favored by what is strangely and inaccurately known as the left in American politics consists of decreased access to guns, whereas the right in American politics supports increasing domestic access to guns. While this tug of war continues on the home front, both sides unequivocally support the continuation of the state’s forced militarization of the world. The three prongs of fear-mongering politicians, corporate-welfare-driven war profiteers, and the growing gap between ‘developed’ nations and ‘developing’ nations altogether create a self-engorging feedback system that preys on the goodwill its war hawk propaganda pretends is a service.

Why do politicians support war?

In his book National Security and Double Government, Michael J. Glennon articulates the trend towards an increasingly militarized state in which (under the guise of ‘national defense’) a “fourth branch” of government seeks to undermine the traditions of limited checks and balances set in place by constitutional republicanism. Glennon argues that our American political system creates a scenario where politicians and the people they represent are led to believe they must bend to the will of these defense ‘experts’ and yield their complete loyalty to this fourth branch. As they shroud their decisions and the logic behind them under a blanket of security clearances and need-to-know committees and tribunals, each new player is constantly vetted for their loyalty to this extralegal branch and the defense contractors they enrich. The bolshevism of this national security vanguard makes it impossible to even question the status-quo without opening oneself up to being labeled a traitor who cares more about political grandstanding than the safety of Americans—of course, what goes unsaid is that this is really only for the safety of Americans who own property. Regardless of some enthusiasm over de-arming the civilian populace, the question of reigning in this hidden wing of government remains a taboo that only conspiracy theorists and third party quacks may acknowledge.

What happened to the Anti-War movement?

At one point, there was a thriving anti-war movement in America, and it has since then won many struggles that should be upheld as examples of the power that we hold over a looming police state. Actress and activist Jane Fonda’s memoir My Life so Far chronicles the work of Resistance Inside the Army (RITA) groups of soldiers actively defecting during the Vietnam War and her work in helping some of these soldiers hide and smuggle themselves to safety. RITA was able to successfully spread antiwar sentiment within the ranks of those who had been drafted or volunteered to fight in the war. This movement presented a logistical nightmare for the Army in its operations, and Fonda, as a result of her activism with RITA, was harassed by the FBI for the rest of her life. RITA and other antiwar movements at home, many of which were led by powerful nationwide student groups, made it clear that regardless of how many bombs were dropped in Southeast Asia, the Americans had lost the war on the home front.

Image from Julia Ryan

A small group that had an astounding impact was the Citizens Commission to Investigate the FBI. This group of activists is mostly known for their work breaking into an FBI office in Pennsylvania in 1971 and acquiring documents which revealed the FBI’s surveillance operations of political groups known as COINTELPRO. Some of these activists later went on to join “The Camden 28,” which broke into a Camden, New Jersey draft board and burned documents that would have compelled certain draftees to go to war in Vietnam or face reprisal.

One of the targets of the FBI’s COINTEL program was the Black Panther Party (BPP). The BPP had made substantial progress in California in setting up a before-school breakfast program for children, providing protection for the elderly members of the community, educating the locals of the community, and “Policing the Police” (an anti-police-brutality program). While the BPP was quick to point out that they were well within their rights to open carry weapons in public as long as they did not point these weapons at anyone or use them for harm, then California Governor Ronald Reagan appealed to the fear of this citizen police force to stir sentiment in support of the Mulford Act, described as one of the countries most strict gun regulations, which effectively banned open carry for civilians.

Image by William P. Strater AP

How Come our Police State has No Security?

Former prosecutor Paul Butler’s book Chokehold: Policing Black Men is a thought-provoking work on the classism and racism inherent to policing. As he chronicles how his own unjust arrest led him to contemplate the years he spent prosecuting those who looked like him but did not live like him as not a matter of personal responsibility but as a matter of the role play that is inherent to power structures and the bureaucratic psychosis they induce, it is clear that the tactics that policing requires, and the system that allows for and necessitates the existence of policing, creates a class of people that is below--the people-- and one that is above--the law and its agents. The reality of this class system is that the police state does little to protect people and everything to protect the police and the state. Everything that the police state can point to as some example of what is done to protect ‘the people’ is rather just another instance of protecting ‘the people who have property’, that is to say, those who hold the purse strings of the police state. (The class conscious policeperson may well point out that the holdings of property they personally claim are much closer to that held by the working class than that held by the capitalists, but alas, even the mercenary who holds the chains is, themselves, in chains.)

Ben Franklin is quoted as saying “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” But somehow we have ended up at the position of giving up liberty without having gained any safety! The reality of a system that views the people as the enemy and charge of the police state, and not its benefactor, will be an oppressed people and trigger-happy police afraid to meet their community. When we start from this position, how can we even contemplate disarming the people? The only reason for the people to be less capable than the police is but a pretext for the police to have power over the people. When this system has not worked, how can we think that accelerating the gap will bring us benefits?

Image from Equal Justice Initiative

An Alternative to Acceleration

Well, if there’s no peace in sight, then how do we get there? As the old saying goes, “if we don’t change the direction we’re headed, we’re going to end up where we’re going.” The only way forward is the transfer of power away from the military police state and into the hands of the people. It is utter hypocrisy to expect peace at home while selling war everywhere we go. We must disarm the military and police and we must do it now, otherwise we will reap the seeds of the destruction we sow.

“For every time your gun goes off, a new rebel is born,” sings Mischief Brew in the ironic single “Thanks, Bastards!” Unless we keep a handle on the brand of violence we promote, we’ll soon find ourselves on the receiving end of it.

Acknowledgements

This post was edited by yourfriendlypromulgator (yfp).