Something i love about this scene where mcnulty looks at stringer's books, is how it applies to the audience too. We know stringer's ambitions, we see him achieve some and fail most, we can speculate why he did it from the few pieces of information we get about his past, but we will never have the full perspective from his pov. Stringer stays a mystery even for us.
I've seen lots of people say the wire is copaganda, and I'm not really sure what I think but here's my thoughts
(huge ramble below so marked sections: the idea of the good cop, Kima/Bunk conformists vs McNulty revolutionaries, prez copaganda/white saviour trope, and limitations of the overall politics of the wire)
My knee jerk reaction as a stan is to say of course not, as the show is depicting the entire neoliberal system as inherently broken. In my view, it completely goes against the "just a few bad apples" pro police argument by showing how the policing system itself rewards and incentivizes apathy and brutality, that this is an inherent part of the system, and that well meaning "good guy" cops are either punished, leave, or forced to comply with the corrupt and incompetent status quo so much that their complicity makes it no longer possible to be a "good guy"- 'Bend too far, and you're already broken'.
Good cops:
The fact that the protagonist cops we come to like/root for are all shown as complicit or even actively partaking and revelling in the worst of policing (e.g. Kima's enthusiastic police brutality against Bodie, Daniels taking money and protecting cops who blinded a child, McNulty's.. everything), in my opinion this shows that even people who are otherwise ordinary or well meaning are unable to do this job without being complicit to violence and systemic abuse. I think it's important to show that working in the system is inherently corrupting rather than these acts being solely due to individual predisposition.
I also think it's important that the two cops who are largely portrayed as the most competent and most moral in the show, Lester Freamon and Bunny Colvin, are both punished and removed from the force. Attempting to rebel against the system to enact positive change, or even prioritising lives, public health, safety, and efficiency at the expense of the politics the system runs on is never abided.
I've seen people argue that the fact there are so many well meaning cops who are simply "held back" by the big bad bosses or system is what makes this copaganda, but I think showing that a) even the "good" cops still engage in brutality, violence and corruption or b) the very good cops who buck the system are punished, discredit that argument.
Kima & Bunk vs McNulty:
The only "good ones" still left in the system at the end are Kima, Bunk and (by the end of the show) Carver, none of whom make it to the end or advance their careers unscathed, each (none more so than Carver) having left a trail of violence and ruined lives and cases behind them. Kima and Bunk disapproving of a lie/rebellion against the system for the greater good, *because* it was such a rebellion. Bunk, in juxtaposition to someone like McNulty, grits his teeth and follows orders when told to prioritise a purely symbolic wild goose chase of finding a gun over solving a triple homicide, something we know McNulty would never go along with, but we see that this compliance is why Bunk remains a cop and Jimmy doesnt.
"Giving a fuck when it isn't your turn to give a fuck"- that entire attitude shows that whilst Bunk *is* good and capable at his job when given the chance, the reason he survives in this department is because he has adopted the culture of apathy propagated by the department, and ultimately prioritises compliance and following orders over true progress.
We don't think less of Bunk and Kima for this, you don't leave the show thinking that they are bad people, but we do leave the show knowing that, whilst better than most of their surviving colleagues, the biggest differences these cops will make are doing their work efficiently *when the system allows them to do so*, and looking the other way or sighing and going along with it when ordered to do the wrong thing.
Prez & copaganda/white saviour teacher:
Prez is introduced as a typical stupid, violent cop who brutalises and permanently maims a black child, and arguably the idea a character like this has a redemption at all to the audience over the next three seasons could be considered copaganda and I couldn't really disagree. He ends his police career with another incident of unnecessary racially motivated violence, this time fatal and too politically damning to brush aside. "How the fuck do you know if that's in your head or not?"
When he starts a new career as a teacher, I could see that cliché white saviour trope I'd seen in countless movies unfolding- a white teacher going to an inner city school, connecting with the kids, and transforming their lives, something no other teacher managed until this white guy shows up.. except ultimately this didn't happen. Yes, he ended up becoming a good teacher, and had some positive impact on the students, but the entire point of the season is that, barring extremely rare miracles (Bunny and Naymond), no one individual is capable of saving children from the chaos of the underfunded* school system, police system, poverty and crime as a whole.
The assistant principal warns him not to get attached to any one student, as there will be dozens more each year, and it's impossible to work in such an overstretched, underresourced system like theirs and give that much to so many children in need. I think this undercuts the white saviour teacher trope by showing that you aren't *able* to be a saviour- these kids weren't suffering because no one else cared hard enough, and if you just care more they'll be saved. Again, the individuals are powerless over the systemic issues, a thesis of the show.
Overall Wire politics:
Though a critique of neoliberalism and modern capitalism as a whole, and the way these shape the politics, criminal justice and education systems, and overall working class, poverty and crime, I don't think David Simon thinks policing is inherently bad, just that it's broken within the framework of neoliberalism. The positive look at Hamsterdam shows an underlying reformist ideal rather than a revolutionary one, that were the greater systems to change or drastically improve, perhaps the systems operating in that framework could improve too.
There is also a great sense of nostalgia, for the "good old days" of policing before the numbers games; Bunny (framed as a saviour, frequently shot with light upon him or crucifixes above him) fondly and wistfully talks of the days of smaller scale, neighbourhood policing, when a policeman would serve a smaller area and the people in that community would develop a trusting and mutually beneficial relationship with that police officer, as opposed to the violent soldiers of today who don't think of or care for their communities at all. Season 2 is painfully nostalgic for the golden era of unions, of an era with plentiful opportunity for the working classes, where one man could support a whole family on an honest wage.
I do understand and sympathise with this nostalgia, but for me this is where I can see the biggest political limitations for the wire (from a Leftist perspective anyway), and how I can understand the copaganda allegations. Even these golden eras were a) still filled with extreme violence and oppression, with police racism, violence and corruption even more rife and b) the ~golden age of capitalism~ heralded the reagan-thatcher modern neoliberal era we're all in now. This didn't happen by accident, and I'd be skeptical of nostalgia towards the time responsible for creating the current system. The boomers had it good, and then they made this- or just maybe this is all the inevitable evolution of capitalism.
End:
Ultimately, I'd say I think the wire isn't copaganda due to any positive portrayal of individual police officers, as the overall statement the show makes is that individuals are powerless against this system of individuals. No individual cog has the power to reform or improve this system meaningfully, and so whether or not the individuals are likeable or well-meaning has no actual importance and isn't the point. Seeing the numerous good apples in the school system, policing and justice system, politics, journalism and even within the world of crime all fail to actually materially improve their systems society and communities in my opinion is the biggest argument against the show being copaganda.
Instead of asking if it's possible to be a good person and a cop, the show asks: does it matter?
The greatest argument for the show being copaganda (or just overall politically limited) in my opinion is the repeated idea that the system is broken rather than being an inevitability, that policing and the justice system and the conditions of the working class are due to a modern neoliberal failing, and that more radical reforms (e.g. drug legalisation, introducing targeted school intervention programmes for at risk children- both of which contain the idea of separating the trouble makers from the rest of society so they are easier to target and reform, and everyone else can go about their lives unbothered) are a solution. I think there's an argument that reformation and harm reduction is simply putting a bandage on a gunshot, but also I guess I still agree with the idea that any moves to improve material conditions of the people, even if not addressing the underlying rot of capitalism, is still worthwhile.
Aka: ironically, as with everything else in the wire, maybe copaganda systemically but not individually in my opinion!
andulkaphoto
snowghoul
janainaart
yousharknotpass
