> So, let us perhaps say, instead: democracy is theory that the extremely-online elites and activists know what they want, and that the common people deserve to get it good and hard.
Holding a (small time) elected leadership position, this definitely matches my own observations. I have to deal with the opinions of those I represent on the matters I’m elected to handle quite frequently; the opinions of the few and the loud quite often do not match the opinions and priorities of the majority, but the few and loud do stand out, and the pressure they create gives the illusion of majority opinion.
Does this make sense, or am I not expressing myself well?
Interesting. Are you aware of any blog/channel/whatever where I could read honest reports from elected officials on the nuts and bolts of their jobs?
By the time police are called in, it likely is a police issue: a crime has been committed or there is an imminent threat of violence. Having specially trained people to deal with those issues may marginally improve the situation, but they will end up being the police in all but name. The blame will be shifted away from the police and the burden will be put on the new organization.
What we need is a means of reducing the social ills that lead to mental health breakdowns and drug overdoses. That requires proactive involvement in the community rather than a response model.
Police are misused, imo, by society to clean up macro issues, one person at a time, that police have no ability to control outside criminal investigation.
Police are where "the rubber meets the road" for policy failure and unrecognized socioculturally trends. They are easy to blame for up-the-pyramid authority while being the only easily visible aspect of a ineffective, corrupt gvt.