There is a dangerous willingness among too many political, civil, and community leaders — and, anecdotally, far too many everyday citizens — to sacrifice civil and human rights on the altar of authoritarianism. It’s as if the mere mention of “crime” is enough to justify rolling back the very constitutional protections that are supposed to keep us safe.
This is exactly what has happened with the rollout of the so-called Memphis Safe Task Force initiative. From the beginning, its justification has leaned more on anecdotes than on actual data, relying on propaganda released by law enforcement agencies designed to reassert law-and-order politics every time a semblance of progressive criminal justice reform begins to take root. And disturbingly, it’s working.
We don’t have to speculate about what over-policing looks like in Memphis. We have the receipts. The 2024 United States Department of Justice pattern and practice investigation of the Memphis Police Department laid it out in black and white: MPD has engaged in unconstitutional policing tactics, including racial profiling and broken-windows policing, that disproportionately target Black communities. The DOJ made clear that these practices not only violate civil rights but also fail to reduce violent crime in any meaningful or sustained way.
In short, the report confirmed what many Memphians — especially Black Memphians — have long experienced: a system more invested in control than in safety. And now, instead of breaking with that harmful legacy, the Memphis Safe Task Force has doubled down on it by expanding the very practices the DOJ condemned.
Who should we support? Whichever trillionaire happens to control the most resources at the moment? Or more likely one of his candidates who does his bidding for him so he can always rely on diffusion of responsibility.
He uses his government connections to control people, eliminate competition in the market, and protect himself.
He wants to do all the things an authoritarian government would do, but since he’s not part of the government and calls himself a “libertarian,” it’s totally different.
I’m all for more choices on voting, but where is the 3rd party candidate that doesn’t just belong to some billionaire or Russia? I get that we’re not going to see one in a presidential election anytime soon, but if we ever expect to seriously move past a 2 party system, at least start at the local levels of government and prove it’s a feasible option.
If we just turn our backs on the few decent people left in politics because of their, label then we also risk eliminating people who really do care about making a difference.
Mamdani is running as a Democrat. AOC is a Democrat. They both had to fight like hell just to get where they are, would you suggest simply writing them off too?