It was late December 2015. While most people were winding down for the holidays, Ta-Nehisi Coates dropped a short, sharp essay in The Atlantic that basically set the internet on fire. It wasn't a long-form cover story like his famous reparations piece. Honestly, it was a blog post—but one with the weight of a sledgehammer. He titled it "The Paranoid Style of American Policing."
The piece was written in the immediate wake of a tragedy in Chicago. A 19-year-old named Quintonio LeGrier was having a mental health crisis. His father, scared and unsure what to do, called the police for help. When the officers arrived, they didn't just help. They shot and killed LeGrier. They also accidentally killed his 55-year-old neighbor, Bettie Jones, who had simply opened her door to let the officers in.
Coates used this horrific event to make a much larger point about why American policing feels so broken to so many people. He wasn't just talking about "bad apples." He was talking about a fundamental loss of legitimacy.
The Core Arguments of The Paranoid Style of American Policing Summary
The title itself is a play on a very famous 1964 essay by historian Richard Hofstadter called "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." Hofstadter argued that American political life has often been shaped by a "heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy." Coates took that framework and applied it to the guys with the badges and the guns.
His main point? Police in America have developed a "paranoid style" where they view the very citizens they are supposed to protect as an enemy force. It’s a siege mentality.
Coates points out that when a police officer kills a citizen because they were "afraid," it signals a massive failure of the social contract. Think about it. You pay taxes. You invest these people with the power to use force. In exchange, they are supposed to be the professionals who handle danger so you don't have to.
✨ Don't miss: Trump Declared War on Chicago: What Really Happened and Why It Matters
The Comparison to "Ordinary" People
One of the gut-punches in the essay is when Coates talks about his own father growing up in West Baltimore. He describes how his father—and other adults in the neighborhood—would have to de-escalate situations with "crazy" or violent young people all the time. They did it without guns. They did it because that was just what it meant to be an adult in that community.
Coates asks a piercing question: If a regular dad in Baltimore can handle a threatening teenager without killing him, why can’t a trained, armored, and paid professional?
"If officers cannot be expected to act any better than ordinary citizens, why call them in the first place? Why invest them with any more power?"
This gets to the heart of the The Paranoid Style of American Policing summary. When the police claim they "feared for their life" as a blanket justification for killing someone holding a bat or a cell phone, they are essentially saying they are no more capable than a terrified bystander. But they are given more power. That’s the paradox that breaks the system.
The Problem of Legitimacy
Coates argues that once a community stops trusting the police, the police are no longer "policing"—they are just "ruling." There’s a big difference. Policing requires the consent of the governed. Ruling just requires a bigger gun.
🔗 Read more: The Whip Inflation Now Button: Why This Odd 1974 Campaign Still Matters Today
In the case of Quintonio LeGrier, his mother, Janet Cooksey, famously said after the shooting: "He should have called me." She meant her son's father shouldn't have called the cops. That is a devastating indictment of a public service. When a parent decides that a violent, mentally ill relative is safer with no help than with the police, the police have lost their reason for existing in that neighborhood.
Why It Isn't Just About Race (But Also Is)
Interestingly, Coates doesn't lean as heavily on racial statistics in this specific piece as he does in others. He focuses more on the mechanics of the state. He argues that the state has allowed its agents to kill and beat people without "any real sanction."
When the government hides facts—like the Chicago PD did for a long time regarding various shootings—they aren't just being "mean." They are committing a "direct challenge to any usable definition of democracy."
What Most People Get Wrong About Coates's Argument
Some critics think Coates is just "anti-cop." That’s a bit of a lazy take. If you actually read the piece, he admits that policing is part of the solution to neighborhood violence. He isn't calling for total anarchy.
What he’s saying is that policing can’t work without trust. You can't solve a murder if no one will talk to you. You can't keep a street safe if the people on it see you as an occupying army rather than a neighbor. The "paranoid style" makes the police less effective at their actual jobs because it burns the bridges they need to do those jobs.
💡 You might also like: The Station Nightclub Fire and Great White: Why It’s Still the Hardest Lesson in Rock History
The Chicago Context
To really understand the The Paranoid Style of American Policing summary, you have to remember what Chicago was like in 2015. This was the same era as the Laquan McDonald video release—a video the city fought to keep secret for over a year. It was the era of the Homan Square "black site" allegations.
Coates was writing into a moment where the "paranoid style" wasn't just a theory; it was a visible, documented reality of how a major American city was being run.
Actionable Insights for Today
So, what do we do with this? If you're looking for a way to apply Coates's ideas to the current conversation about reform, here are a few starting points:
- Demand Professionalism over "Fear": We should stop accepting "I was afraid" as a legal get-out-of-jail-free card for trained professionals. If the job is too scary to perform without killing unarmed people, then the training or the person isn't fit for the job.
- Focus on De-escalation as a Metric: We should judge police departments not just by "crime rates" (which are influenced by many things), but by their ability to resolve high-tension conflicts without using lethal force.
- The "Call a Neighbor" Test: If a community is at a point where they'd rather call a relative than 911 during a crisis, the department needs to stop and ask why. Legitimacy is a two-way street.
- End the Siege Mentality: Training that teaches officers that every traffic stop could be their last—the "warrior" mindset—is the literal definition of the paranoid style. Transitioning to a "guardian" model is the only way to rebuild that lost trust.
The essay remains relevant because the underlying math hasn't changed. As long as the state protects its agents more than its citizens, that paranoia will continue to fester on both sides of the blue line.
To dig deeper into this, you should read the original piece in The Atlantic. It’s short, but it’ll stick with you. You might also want to look up Richard Hofstadter’s original essay to see how the "paranoid style" has shifted from political groups to the institutions of the state itself. Understanding the history of these ideas is the only way to keep from repeating the same mistakes every time a new tragedy hits the headlines.