Review: Rise of the Warrior Cop
, by Radley Balko
As the United States tries, in fits and starts, to have a meaningful
discussion about long-standing police racism, brutality, overreach,
corruption, and murder, I've realized that my theoretical understanding of
the history of and alternative frameworks for law enforcement is woefully
lacking. Starting with a book by a conservative white guy is not the most
ideal of approaches, but it's what I already had on hand, and it won't be
the last book I read and review on this topic. (Most of my research so
far has been in podcast form. I don't review those here, but I can
recommend Ezra Klein's interviews with
, and, most strongly,
Rise of the Warrior Cop
is from 2013 and has had several moments of
fame, no doubt helped by Balko's connections to the conservative and
libertarian right. One of the frustrating facts of US politics is that
critiques of the justice system from the right (and from white men) get
more media attention than critiques from the left. That said, it's a
generally well-respected book on the factual history of the topic, and
police brutality and civil rights are among the points on which I have
stopped-clock agreements with US libertarians.
This book is very, very libertarian.
In my callow youth, I was an ardent libertarian, so I've read a lot of US
libertarian literature. It's a genre with its own conventions that become
obvious when you read enough of it, and Rise of the Warrior Cop
goes through them like a checklist. Use the Roman Republic (never the
Roman Empire) as the starting point for any political discussion, check.
Analyze the topic in the context of pre-revolutionary America, check.
Spend considerable effort on discerning the opinions of the US founders on
the topic since their opinions are always relevant to the modern world,
check. Locate some point in the past (preferably before 1960) where the
political issue was as good as it has ever been, check. Frame all changes
since then as an erosion of rights through government overreach, check.
Present your solution as a return to a previous era of respect for civil
rights, check. Once you start recognizing the genre conventions, their
prevalence in libertarian writing is almost comical.
The framing chapters therefore leave a bit to be desired, but the meat of
the book is a useful resource. Starting with the 1970s and its use as a
campaigning tool by Nixon, Balko traces a useful history of the war on
drugs. And starting with the 1980s, the number of cites to primary
sources and the evidence of Balko's own research increases considerably.
If you want to know how US police turned into military cosplayers with
body armor, heavy weapons, and armored vehicles, this book provides a lot
of context and history.
One of the reasons why I view libertarians as allies of convenience on
this specific issue is that drug legalization and disgust with the war on
drugs have been libertarian issues for decades. Ideologically honest
libertarians (and Balko appears to be one) are inherently skeptical of the
police, so when the police overreach in an area of libertarian interest,
they notice. Balko makes a solid argument, backed up with statistics,
specific programs, legislation, and court cases, that the drug war and its
accompanying lies about heavily-armed drug dealers and their supposed
threat to police officers was the fuel for the growth of SWAT teams,
no-knock search warrants, erosion of legal protections for criminal
defendants, and de facto license for the police to ignore the scope and
sometimes even the existence of warrants.
This book is useful support for the argument that fears for the safety of
officers underlying the militarization of police forces are imaginary.
One telling point that Balko makes repeatedly and backs with statistical
and anecdotal evidence is that the police generally do not use raid
tactics on dangerous criminals. On the contrary, aggressive raids are
more likely to be used on the least dangerous criminals because they're
faster, they're fun for the police (they provide an adrenaline high and
let them play with toys), and they're essentially risk-free. If the
police believe someone is truly dangerous, they're more likely to use
careful surveillance and to conduct a quiet arrest at an unexpected
moment. The middle-of-the-night armed break-ins with battering rams, tear
gas, and flash-bangs are, tellingly, used against the less dangerous
This is part of Balko's overall argument that police equipment and tactics
have become untethered from any realistic threat and have become cultural.
He traces an acceleration of that trend to 9/11 and the resulting
obsession with terrorism, which further opened the spigot of military
hardware and "special forces" training. This became a point of
competition between police departments, with small town forces that had
never seen a terrorist and had almost no chance of a terrorist incident
demanding their own armored vehicles. I've encountered this bizarre
terrorism justification personally; one of the reasons my local police
department gave in a public hearing for not having a policy against
shooting at moving vehicles was "but what if terrorism?" I don't believe
there has ever been a local terrorist attack.
SWAT in such places didn't involve the special training or dedicated
personnel of large city forces; instead, it was a part-time duty for
normal police officers, and frequently they were encouraged to practice
SWAT tactics by using them at random for some otherwise normal arrest or
search. Balko argues that those raids were more exciting than normal
police work, leading to a flood of volunteers for that duty and a tendency
to use them as much as possible. That in turn normalizes disconnecting
police tactics from the underlying crime or situational risk.
So far, so good. But despite the information I was able to extract from
it, I have mixed feelings about Rise of the Warrior Cop
as a whole.
At the least, it has substantial limitations.
First, I don't trust the historical survey of policing in this book.
Libertarian writing makes for bad history. The constraints of the genre
require overusing only a few points of reference, treating every opinion
of the US founders as holy writ, and tying forward progress to a return to
a previous era, all of which interfere with good analysis. Balko also
didn't do the research for the historical survey, as is clear from the
footnotes. The citations are all to other people's histories, not to
primary sources. He's summarizing other people's histories, and you'll
almost certainly get better history by finding well-respected historians
who cover the same ground. (That said, if you're not familiar with Peel's
policing principles, this is a good introduction.)
Second, and this too is unfortunately predictable in a libertarian
treatment, race rarely appears in this book. If Balko published the same
book today, I'm sure he would say more about race, but even in 2013 its
absence is strange. I was struck while reading by how many examples of
excessive police force were raids on west coast pot farms; yes, I'm sure
that was traumatic, but it's not the demographic I would name as the most
vulnerable to or affected by police brutality. West coast pot growers
are, however, mostly white.
I have no idea why Balko made that choice. Perhaps he thought his target
audience would be more persuaded by his argument if he focused on white
victims. Perhaps he thought it was an easier and less complicated story
to tell. Perhaps, like a lot of libertarians, he doesn't believe racism
has a significant impact on society because it would be a market failure.
Perhaps those were the people who more readily came to mind. But to talk
about police militarization, denial of civil rights, and police brutality
in the United States without putting race at the center of both the
history and the societal effects leaves a gaping hole in the analysis.
Given that lack of engagement, I also am dubious of Balko's policy
prescriptions. His reform suggestions aren't unreasonable, but they stay
firmly in the centrist and incrementalist camp and would benefit white
people more than black people. Transparency, accountability, and cultural
changes are all fine and good, but the cultural change Balko is focused on
is less aggressive arrest tactics, more use of mediation, and better
physical fitness. I would not object to those things (well, maybe the
last, which seemed odd), but we need to have a discussion about police
white supremacist organizations, the prevalence of spousal abuse, and the
police tendency to see themselves not as public servants but as embattled
warriors who are misunderstood by the naive sheep they are defending.
And, of course, you won't find in Rise of the Warrior Cop
thoughtful wrestling with whether there are alternative approaches to
community safety, whether punitive rather than restorative justice is
effective, or whether crime is a symptom of deeper societal problems we
could address but refuse to. The most radical suggestion Balko has is to
legalize drugs, which is both the predictable libertarian position and, as
we have seen from recent events in the United States, far from the only
problem of overcriminalization.
I understand why this book is so frequently mentioned on-line, and its
author's political views may make it more palatable to some people than a
more race-centered or radical perspective. But I don't think this is the
best or most useful book on police violence that one could read today. I
hope to find a better one in upcoming reviews.
Rating: 6 out of 10