 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the run up to November’s elections, thousands of police supervisors will be asked this question by countless officers. How do you answer? More fundamentally, should you answer? For those who wear stripes on their sleeves, dealing with this seemingly simple question can be like tap dancing through a minefield wearing snowshoes. Before you turn your necktie into a noose, let’s look at some of the pitfalls.
If you answer by naming your candidate of choice, there’s a 50-50 chance you’re endorsing a loser — and that tag sticks to you. Sometimes, being stuck with a winner can be just as bad. Second, in the eyes of your troops, you will be forever tied to that politician’s coattails, no matter how altruistic or reprehensible their subsequent performance in office. And we all know, or should know, how politicians tend to take off their campaign masks and reveal their warts and horns once they’re ensconced in power, right?
If you personally endorse a proposition on a ballot, the same dynamics apply, and you’re not just on record as having supported it, but wedded to how it works or doesn’t work and the effect on your officers and their families. Every seemingly wonderful project, once turned over to bureaucrats, can become a long-running nightmare of unanticipated costs, collateral damage and poisonous fallout. Not the image you want to be associated with, is it?
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Two Doors, Both Leading To Political Hell
If you give a “choice” answer, you can give the short version or the long. If short, like, “I’m voting for NumbNutz and Yes on Proposition 4,” you’re making a clear endorsement — bad enough — yet failing to provide any indication that you’ve examined the candidate or the issue in depth. Given the political naiveté of many young officers, you may have also contributed to the neo-American tendency to vote on potentially momentous issues by “bumper-sticker rhetoric.”
If you deliver the long version, complete with history, background, your own analysis and consideration of options, you’ve now established it’s okay to engage in what amounts to partisan political advocacy on company time — after all, the boss does it — and you’ve given it an official, organizational blessing. That’s just not professional, folks, and is a precedent you’ll later regret. As long as you wear stripes or bars, nothing you say is ever purely personal, no matter how you intend it to be taken.
Being politically informed, aware and opinionated is a good thing — and rare today. But lending your position, your badge and uniform to a partisan political campaign is improper for any cop whose mission is not cocktailing and ring kissing. Yes, it happens, and it’s understood to be an integral duty of the suits and gasbags occupying higher elevations — but you’re different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Professional’s Response
So how could you respond and preserve your professionalism? Try something like this:
“It is my personal policy not to discuss politics, and especially not to endorse candidates on duty, in uniform and on company time — and I don’t condone it, either. It’s not about freedom of speech; it’s about professionalism. I don’t tell people who to vote for or how to vote. What I would advise you to do is study the candidates; look beyond all the hot air and jaw-jackin’ and learn what they’ve done versus what they’re saying now.
“Ask yourself if anything about this candidate indicates they would have any understanding of or empathy for you and things that are important to you. Have they ever worked for a living? Gotten their hands dirty? At any point in their lives have they undertaken grave risk or sacrifice on behalf of someone else?
“Look beyond and below that candidate too, at the party platform they’re standing on. During campaigns those platforms are covered with so much BS and bunting you can’t see the planks, and they’ll tell you not what that candidate is going to do for you, but what their machine is going to do to you while they’re in office.
“Who owns that candidate? Can you name their five biggest campaign funds contributors? You know, if you gathered a single notebook page of data on a candidate, you’d be better informed than most voters. Try it.”
Few may follow your advice, but you’ll have acquitted yourself honorably on a tough issue. And believe me, I didn’t arrive at this position spontaneously or intuitively — I made all the mistakes first.
Every supervisor should be as politically informed — and as apolitical — as possible. When you’re moved to public pronouncement or activism, do so out of uniform and make it clear that while your police experience certainly bears on your opinions, you’re expressing them as an individual, a free citizen, not as an officer. Few, perhaps, will understand the difference, but those who do will respect you for it.
Police associations and unions should represent officers and advocate on public safety issues. Just make sure you’re aware of your association’s positions and endorsements and if you disagree with them, jump into the fight in earnest — don’t let your badge be co-opted by wannabe politicians. |
|
|
|
|
|
John Morrison served in combat as a Marine sergeant, and retired as a senior lieutenant from the San Diego Police Department, having served there as Director of Training, Commanding Officer of SWAT and division executive officer. He has taught, written and lectured widely on training, tactics and leadership. Contact him at StreetLevelOne@yahoo.com.
First published in the Sept/Oct 2008 issue of American COP. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
