Resist the Militarization of Civil Society

In 2018, in the United States, large scale acts of violence in places like schools, shopping malls, and nightclubs are more or less commonplace. In the wake of attacks like these the outpourings of thoughts, prayers, and ultimately useless calls for meaningful change are predictable, choreographed affairs that tend to run their course in a week or two (except, of course, for people personally affected by the violence, who will live with it for the rest of their lives).

But in the aftermath of the most recent school shooting things feel somehow different. It’s unclear whether this attack resonates because of the response of the surviving victims, who have organized to hold elected representatives accountable, or whether it is that the concept of a person walking into a school and shooting 32 people is no longer a vague, hypothetical bogeyman for a majority of parents, families, etc.

Even so, the fact remains that the Parkland shooting was a whole two weeks ago and we’re still talking about gun violence and reform. Holy cow. Even with the Olympics on we’ve managed to stay focused. This may truly be a new day.

Of course the arguments and solutions for attacks like this are forming generally (but not entirely) along party lines: the left tends to get worked up about pistol grips and magazine capacity, and the right reverts to empty platitudes about “mental health” (which as far as I can tell means incarceration), and meticulously rehearsed daydreams in which they shoot a bad guy with the .380 hidden in their ass. No mainstream narrative really seems to capture the essence of the issue: that gun violence only correlates with gun ownership per capita, and does so strongly.

In classic American fashion, we neglect the evidence in favor of the narrative, and so our conversations gravitate toward dramatic, horrifying events like Parkland, Orlando, Las Vegas, et cetera, ad nauseum.

But in spite of a tidy, mostly partisan divide on how best to address these attacks, the actual policy responses have been much more consensus based. As a society confronted with adversity we lean toward militarizing our civil establishments.

Fallout of the Ferguson, MO protests shone a spotlight on the military’s 1033 Program, which allowed/compelled the pentagon to funnel surplus equipment to local law enforcement agencies. When you saw photos of unarmed demonstrators facing local police officers clad in body armor and brandishing assault weapons from armored vehicles, you saw the effects of the 1033 Program.

The 1033 Program was limited by President Obama and expanded under the current administration. However, it was established in its current form by President Clinton in 1997, and enjoyed relative obscurity until recent displays of authoritarianism.

Now, some parties seem to be seriously suggesting that filling schools with guns is a solution for violence in those schools. Unfortunately, this premise has been in play for decades, as colleges and school districts have taken advantage of Pentagon incentives to equip tactical response units. As early as 2001, school districts in California have used the 1033 Program to purchase mine-resistant armored vehicles, assault rifles, and grenade launchers. A school district in Texas funds its own SWAT team. The unapologetically abusive Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency is currently pursuing access to unaccountable, warrantless surveillance programs.

Repeatedly, when confronted with a narrative of danger, we respond with an appeal to militarize our civil institutions.

From our borders, to our local police, to our colleges, to our elementary schools, we have seen a bipartisan effort to place military weapons and tactics in our communities. We have seen a willingness deploy those weapons and tactics in the face of dissent. In order to maintain the civil society that we apparently take for granted, it is essential that we resist this instinctive draw toward military control.