If most Democrats truly believe the proper response to the George Floyd case — and that of others killed during interactions with law enforcement — is to “defund the police,” they are dangerously out of touch with reality.

The vast majority of North Carolinians, like their counterparts around the country, were sickened and upset by the death of George Floyd. They’ll support reasonable steps to enhance police procedures and training. They’ll support efforts to hold police departments and their employees accountable for egregious errors. In a recent national poll, for example, some three-quarters of respondents support reforms that make it easier for “victims of police misconduct to sue police departments for damages.”

But defund the police? The public will never support such an absurd proposal.

Now, I know many who say they support “defunding the police” don’t actually mean it. They don’t mean getting rid of taxpayer-funded police and sheriff departments altogether. They know that government’s most-important role, its primary reason for existence, is to use physical force to protect the lives, liberties and property of its citizens. Trying to replace law-enforcement officers with some motley crew of aging hippies, unemployed grad students, unarmed social workers and armed hooligans is a formula for fiasco, or for Seattle, but I repeat myself.

When ABC/Ipsos asked a nationwide polling sample if they favored the movement to “defund the police,” 64% of respondents said no. Then the respondents were asked, more specifically, about “reducing the budget of the police department in your community, even if that means fewer police officers, if the money is shifted to programs related to mental health, housing, and education?” Opposition fell, yes, but to 60%, with 39% in support. Most people seem to intuit what my John Locke Foundation colleague Jon Guze recently described with empirical evidence: fewer cops on the street will likely produce more crime and disorder.

This observation is hardly inconsistent with support for criminal-justice reform. Indeed, Guze points to fascinating evidence suggesting there is a tradeoff between police presence and imprisonment. The United States has 154% more correction officers than the international average but 35% fewer police officers. While American states and European countries are roughly comparable when it comes to overall spending on public safety, the money is distributed quite differently: Europeans spend more at the “front end,” on police and other law enforcement, while American spend more at the “back end,” on punishment.

Some years ago, I compiled every peer-reviewed study of how state and local policies affect economic growth. Most of the studies showed that government was a net drag, not a net boost — in other words, the taxes required to fund public programs had a higher economic cost than any economic benefits those programs conferred.

No, these findings didn’t suggest we should abolish the government! What they suggested was that, on the aggregate, government expenditures had grown to a counterproductive level. Many public services confer value. But after a certain point, additional dollars spent don’t produce comparable gains in public benefits.

There was an exception to the rule, however: public safety. While there weren’t as many studies examining police and fire protection as there were examining other government functions, most of the published research concluded that states and localities would actually see their economies grow faster if they spend more on public safety.

The same ABC/Ipsos poll that showed general public opposition to “defunding the police” found a small majority of Democrats in favor of it. If Democratic candidates follow their base on this, they’ll pay an electoral price.

Recommended for you

By John Hood (@JohnHoodNC), chairman of the John Locke Foundation and appears on “NC SPIN.”

(3) comments


If, in a hurry to move on to other stories, you read only the first and last paragraphs of this op-ed you would assume Hood is claiming Democrats want to defund the police and these Democrats are "dangerously out of touch with reality." The final paragraph warns Democratic candidates to not "follow their base" or risk losing their election.

But the bulk of the article argues that Democrats do support their police force. Hood writes that, of course, Democrats do not literally want to eliminate police forces. At best, they are open to some unspecified reform. He cites a recent poll taken after the George Floyd tragedy showing overwhelming support by respondents in both parties for police departments. A Pew Research poll taken just before the tragedy shows similar support for the police. Support for the police is about the same before and after George Floyd's death, according to these polls.

So then, what was the point of this article? Hood's article opens and closes with statements he undermines in the body of the very same piece. To write in such a way hints at sloppiness or disdain for his readers who he might assume would be too dim or distracted to notice the contradictions.

The newspaper should not have published such a poorly constructed op-ed.


The previous commenter is right to question John Hood's intentions. Because Hood's contributions are so frequently published by the Watauga Democrat, I have read quite a few of them. Hood's trademark seems to be the following formula: create a sensationalist headline, put forth weak arguments dripping with condescension, and then immediately walk back those arguments. He rarely says anything at all. Is it disdain for his readers? A consistent failing of nerve? Perhaps Hood simply knows that his own points are too weak - and often factually wrong - to be defensible.


Branch is absolutely correct. At the very least his opening paragraphs mislead the reader. At worst, he is baiting the reader to elicit an emotional response. Red meat thrown to his most conservative readers.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.