Tom Keane

The Boston Police Commissioner Seems To Misunderstand The Role Of The ACLU

Boston Police Commissioner William Gross needs to dial it back. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is not his enemy. Criticism is not disloyalty. He’s not just a cop anymore. Rather than acting defensively, he needs to step up and become the leader he’s supposed to be.

In mid-November, the Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU filed suit against the department, seeking information about a supposed secretive database that labeled some kids as gang members. That database, in turn, was allegedly being shared with U.S. immigration officials, leading to deportations. The whole thing, the ACLU argued, was at odds with Boston’s self-declaration as a “sanctuary city.”

The ACLU wasn’t alone in filing suit; it was joined by 13 other civil rights organizations such as the Children’s Law Center and Greater Boston Legal Services. But it was the ACLU that earned the commissioner’s wrath. Writing on his Facebook page, Gross derided the  organization’s members as “paper warriors.”

He then went on a rant:

NO ACLU when Officers are shot, No ACLU when we help citizens, no ACLU present when we have to explain to a mother that her son or daughter was horribly murdered by gang violence.

Hmm. Inappropriate capitalization. Demonize those who question. Avoid the underlying issue. Where have we seen this before?

Oh, yeah. Donald Trump.

Not exactly a role model to emulate, commissioner.

In Trump’s case, it’s the media that get him going. The media never talk about the good news. They never tell the country how he’s energized the economy. They never tell the world how he’s making America great again.

But you know what? That’s not the media’s job. Newspapers and TV aren’t supposed to be cheerleaders for the president. They’re supposed to hold him accountable.

Nor is it the ACLU’s job to be cheerleaders for the cops. Their brief is individual liberties, and especially individual liberties against the power of government. And the power of government is, most obviously and at its greatest, vested in the hands of those with the ability to arrest and imprison.

I have no idea if the ACLU is correct in its concerns (and FYI, over a decade ago I was on its board; I’m not involved with the organization now). But surely it’s more than reasonable to ask questions — especially in light of the spate of cases nationwide involving racial profiling and police abuse. Nor does asking questions mean one is challenging all of the good the department does — and for the record, Boston’s ability to bring down crime rates while building community trust has been a national marvel.

But that hardly means the department is perfect. And that hardly exempts it from scrutiny.

Right now, a number of folks are trying to give Gross a pass on this one. He’s just defending the force. He’s standing up for his officers. Every cop knows the ACLU is a pain in the butt.

But the problem is, Gross is no longer just a supervisor trying to bolster morale of those in his charge. He’s a leader, accountable not only to the police department, but also to a host of constituencies: rich and poor neighborhoods spread across the city. His thoughtless post — and his continued defense of that post — suggest he just doesn’t understand that his new role is far different from his old.

In the wake of publicity about his Facebook post, Gross went on another capitalization-laden tear: “I hope I have the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to comment on my private FB page where you have to be invited into as friends only.”

To be sure commissioner, you do have the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. No one’s jailing you for trashing the ACLU. But what you say has consequences. And when it comes to social media, there’s no such thing as “private.” Moreover, your “friends” on Facebook are not really and truly your friends.

So perhaps, commissioner, in your new, far more political role, you might want to heed the wisdom of innumerable pols from the past:

Never write if you can speak;

never speak if you can nod;

never nod if you can wink.

And for heaven’s sake, never, never, never post.

This column was first published by Cognoscenti on November 29, 2018.

The Bluest State? More Like The Most Practical

Leave the confines of the Bay State and get ready for the mockery and gibes. We’re Taxachusetts, the hyper-liberal, Kennedy-loving, tax-and-spend home of left-wing crazies. But the results from the 2018 midterm elections paint a far more nuanced picture.

In truth, we’re a pragmatic bunch: fans of personal liberty, suspicious of overreaching economic regulation, averse to extreme partisanship and inclined towards solutions.

Two of the November ballot questions drive home the point. Question 1 asked voters to mandate nurse staffing ratios at hospitals. It was a naked piece of pro-union feather-bedding, interfering not only with health care administrators’ judgments but also elevating nurses at the expense of other health care professionals, such as social workers. It was overwhelmingly defeated — 70 percent to 30 percent — a sign that voters would prefer markets rather than politics dictate how businesses run.

On the other hand, Question 3 had to do with individual rights and specifically with the rights of transgender folks. The “yes” position also passed by strong margins (in this case, “yes” was a vote to uphold a two-year-old state law that protects transgender people in public accommodations).

The message from the two questions seems clear: The electorate is socially liberal but economically more conservative.

And that, of course, is what they got in the governor’s race. Charlie “Don’t call me a Republican” Baker spent his first four years in office making friends with Democrats in the state House and Senate, supporting same-sex marriage and abortion rights, and reveling in opportunities to play Mr. Fix-It so that government would work efficiently and effectively. He easily bested Democratic challenger Jay Gonzalez, whose efforts to paint the race in partisan terms never caught fire.

Meanwhile, the most partisan politician in the commonwealth — Elizabeth Warren — also won re-election, yet her margin was not what it should have been. Running against weak and underfunded Trump-enthusiast Geoff Diehl, she should have won resoundingly, yet only managed a 61 percent — well less than Baker’s own results. I read that as a message from the ballot box. Warren is an anti-Trump lightning rod. But perhaps voters would like to see her start spending a bit more time at home working on issues of concern to Massachusetts.

The socially liberal-economically conservative politics of the midterms is not new. Stereotypes aside, the Bay State has been pragmatic at least since the days of Gov. Bill Weld. And that pragmatism has remained in place for one simple reason: It works.

Just consider the political climate here: No state is more anti-Trump than Massachusetts, but when it comes to local politics, the degree of comity is striking. Politicians collaborate together on common ends. And when they disagree, they don’t demonize and hate on one another. Instead, they just…disagree.

How refreshing.

But there’s more than just being pleasant to one another. By almost any measure of public good, Massachusetts is doing well. It consistently ranks in the top fifth of all states. Our economy is third best in the nation (and tops for “innovation potential” — meaning we’re on the cutting edge), unemployment is low and incomes are high. The state’s educational system is the best in the country and we’re tops in terms of health. Even some of our failures (long commute times, for instance) are a reflection of success (people have jobs). Moreover, the state has managed this without excessive taxation; the “Taxachusetts” moniker notwithstanding, compared to other states our tax burden is about average.

Yep, it’s easy to make fun of Massachusetts. Yet our politics get results. Jokes aside, other states may want to pay heed.

This column was first published by Cognoscenti on November 8, 2018.