Be professional, not righteous

In learning about Renee Good's death, I have mostly been surprised at Jonathan Ross, the ICE agent who killed her, and his colleague's lack of professionalism.  They are shouting curses, he is handling a phone in one hand and a gun in the other, they leave the scene before any other authorities arrived.  They, of course, are masked, too.  They are full of righteousness - the ends justify their means.

I tried to have a discussion with some friends online who were defending Ross.  What I remember now was how much of their argument laid on that righteousness.  Sometimes I'd make a point and I knew it clicked with them because they'd say "I'm not an expert and neither are you" or "you're making assumptions before we know all the facts."  But ultimately it was an avalanche of righteousness.

Righteousness is a popular way of talking about things online.  "I may lose followers over this..." "I've been defriended because I think..." etc.  It's bad and we should stop it.  An argument which is cathartic to make is probably not persuasive to hear.

I'm in favor of law and order but not in the sense law enforcement can do whatever they want.  Law and order is good because laws are written down and can be read by anybody.  There may be debate over the interpretation of the law, but that's not the free-for-all of righteousness.  The people aren't at the whim of whoever is in power.  Written law is the source (and limits) of their power.

ICE should act with more professionalism.  Their supporters should be calling for this, too.  The job of law-enforcement is dangerous.  But if the people believe you can shoot them and not be held accountable, it's going to become a more dangerous job.  If Jonathan Ross made the right decision in a difficult situation, an investigation or trial would methodically prove that.  If he didn't, ICE and their supporters should want him off the force and to show everyone else his behavior isn't endorsed and that they shouldn't expect it to be repeated.  When arguing with ICE supporters, this is the tactic I suggest taking - that being unaccountable makes their job more dangerous, not less.  It didn't pursuade my friend, but it sure got me a lot of "Well we're both fools arguing online," which is about as good as can be hoped I think.  Ultimately, arguing online is a waste of time.  We should really have arguments in person.

On the left, how we have handled illegal immigration similarly lacks professionalism.  Even the extreme view of "borders shouldn't exist" could be professionalized through a law that says "anyone can enter the US at any time."  Then it would be profesionally completed, and I assume we'd get some limits like "Well you can't bring a tank with you."

Stories of illegal immigrants being sent home are heart-breaking, but we can't make decisions about whose deportation to intervene on based on righteousness.  We are a nation of laws and we must make our pursuit within that constraint.  I did not mean to post this on MLK day, I've spent a lot of time editing this and was busy this weekend, but one of the reasons his tactics were so effective was because when he broke the law he went to jail.  Then, from jail, he made Americans look the consequences of their current laws in the face.  He wrote "Letter from Birmingham Jail" from jail.  That gave him a lot of moral authority, to say he was willing to follow the laws and that the laws were wrong.  If we think the laws are wrong we should change them.  But if we are allowed to ignore laws our conscience says are wrong, we give that permission to others.

Further, letting people who are not documented remain opens them up to labor abuse, human trafficking, and general extortion, because they won't be able to access the protections of citizens and legal residents/visitors.  Our righteousness guaruntees very little in the face of such dangers.  Written law will provide the source (and limits) of their security.

Professionals know they are right and are patient in their execution.  A surgeon doesn't rush, a teacher doesn't promise results by the end of the week, a lawyer knows when to push for a not-guilty verdict and when to push for a plea deal.  That last analogy is the most useful.  Some rounds of political fighting you lose and should strategically retreat to a better position.  Catharsis and self-care are inapprorpiate political motivations.  If it's difficult for you to avoid them, don't engage in politics directly.  You're hurting your side.  You can still donate or support your preferred political outcome in other ways.  I'm sure there were some who wanted to join King's marches but knew they wouldn't be able to restrain themselves from violence in the face of firehoses and dogs.  I don't know if I could have.  We should all be thankful those people knew their limits and provided support to the cause in other ways.  King elevated professionalism over righteouness, even though his cause was a righteous one.  Righteousness was the motivator, not the change agent.

Your passion convinces nobody.  I know it feels like it should be transferrable.  That if they just see how it drive you, they'll understand.  They won't, and in fact they will resent that assumption may begin to disagree just out of spite.  Imagine a pro-lifer shouting that abortion is murder with tears in their eyes, shouting until they collapse from exhaustion.  That's a passionate believer!  But it doesn't change my mind one bit.  A fanatic may inspire their own side.  That's a good use of passion.  But that's behind the lines, in the training and organizing step.  A people fueled by righteousness will march further remain committed longer.  But actually effecting change requires different tools.