Posted on 08/18/2014 4:45:30 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
One of the fascinating layers of the Ferguson riot story is how this tragedy has exposed what is a rapidly changing attitudinal climate towards law enforcement officers (LEOs). What was for years a stable predicate -- conservatives being reflexively ‘law and order’ and inherently giving cops the benefit of the doubt -- while liberals with the built in ACLU type disdain for cops tending to always assume the worst of those in power – is now a vortex of confusion, cross currents,and contradictions.
It’s not a total flip-flop of the convention, but it’s moving in that direction. After all, we’ve seen Rand Paul and Eric Holder agree on this in the past week. Did I mention confusing and contradictory?
Consider: many young liberals have of course discovered a love for big government, and take to Twitter and Facebook to support cops harassing Tea Party types and Nevada ranchers just as they cheer the IRS and Lois Lerner persecuting conservative business people and political groups. Meanwhile, liberal voters in Boston cheered their ‘Boston Strong’ reaction to the Marathon bombers, which to me looked a lot like an entire city cowering from a wounded young teen -- while LEOs with Seal Team Six fantasies trampled on every liberty they could for 48 hours -- brandishing Kevlar, automatic weapons, neo-Nazi style helmets and riding around neighborhoods in hummers and kicking down doors.
The media, long willing to challenge the cops and take the victim's point of view, have been silent, or even dismissive, of recent fears by the right of militarized police departments and massive ammo buys by the Feds. Worship of Obama and support for public sector unions has trumped their former concerns apparently.
The old model of “neighborhood cops” -- who walk a beat in their blues ....
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
On that, you and I agree. Especially on the idiotic race comments. Those were the worst. In fact, I did a little highlight reel of times in the past year where he should have kept his mouth shut on many issues.
As for this article, it is NOT about Ferguson per se. Says so about three times in the piece. It’s about the over all discussion of policing and militarization - that is one of the tangental issues.
We’d all love to go back to the days of Mayberry and cops like Barney Fife. But the world has changed. And the bad guys get more and more firepower, the police have to respond accordingly.
Maybe they just want their dogs to stay alive?
Officer Friendly went by the boards long ago. I see no reason to blindly trust the police any more that I would trust anyone else I didn't know. If I'm stopped by the police I have no reason to believe that they have my best interests in mind.
But as they say, a fish rots from the head.
And, unfortunately, it is the America voter who has initiated the rot through complacency, apathy and greed. Look who we've put in charge.
This is where it has to get turned around.
Just think of the outcome if all government employees were libs. I worked for a state government years ago and most of the folks I worked with were right of center. Sad to say it was along race lines where the divide occurred.
Good point in that I don’t think I’ve ever met a Liberal cop.
Most are solid Conservatives, with a few whacked-out dangerous nutjobs and blathering incompetents sprinkled in.
Yes it is complicated - which is very interesting with some of the Freepers on this and other threads. Those that want to make it simple, keep it absolute, are the ones who are throwing around the term “cop hater” and who seem to think all cops are good and all cop departments are good and who seem to ignore the reality that quite often departments are all about raw government and raw union thug power. They are often run by liberal politicians and liberal police chiefs who were hired out of middle management in NYC or LA or Chicago etc.
They also seem to divorce the idea of militarized cops from militarized bureaucrats with the IRS, EPA, Post Office, BLM, ATF, etc. To not see that tie is to be willfully ignorant.
Like you said: it is complicated. But the absolutists in the argument are all on one side.
I consider myself a Christian libertarian. I think government, especially the federal government should be severely limited in its scope and power. That would mean not advancing the liberal agenda as well as not advancing the so-called social conservative agenda. The federal government has no business regulating marriage, nor does it have any business telling a private businessman he has to bake a cake for a couple of perverts.
Cops and schools and many other things should be locally funded and controlled.
I must respectfully differ with anyone, including the esteemed Mr. Robinson, who thinks most cops, especially in larger urban areas, will not enforce unconstitutional laws at this point. And, by the way, in my sadly misspent youth, thirty years ago, I worked in law enforcement.
There are some Big L Libertarians who do fit your “liberaltarian” label. But I think social conservatives need to stop focusing on using the power of the federal government and federal legislation to enforce a “Christian” agenda. My copy of the Great Commission calls us to go into all the world and make disciples (of individuals) of all nations, teaching them to observe the commandments of Christ. If you want a Christian nation, as I do, you have to have Christian individuals.
As far as Ferguson goes, forgive me if I withhold judgment until the facts come out. After all, I think of the cops who shot up the wrong pickup in the Dorner case, of the cop who gunned down 13-year-old Andy Lopez because he was walking along the road with a toy gun and didn’t drop it fast enough, of the cops who shot a woman holding a cordless drill they mistook for an Uzi, of the dogs shot at the wrong house, of the no-knock warrants for non-violent criminals, of a baby burned and scarred by a flash-bang grenade thrown in its crib.
I think if this country is ever going to return to righteousness and freedom, small ‘l’ libertarians are going to have to be part of the conservative coalition. Right now, “conservatives” have nothing to conserve. The country I grew up in is gone, baby. Now it’s rollback and restoration, or you are merely “conserving” fascism and a budding police state.
Agreed on that cops are mostly conservative but like you said there is an element of the dangerous, clueless and power freaks .
I don't disagree with your facts, but I totally reject your argument. You just, see above, made this a choice between "Mayberry" and what we have today. I'm sorry, that's not the choice. That's not the question. It is true that we won't ever go back to Mayberry, but it's equally true that we are way off in the other direction now.
I would agree with you there. I think living in Texas might lead one to think that cops everywhere are like Texas LEOs. They are not. Any grouping, be it cops, politicians, bureaucrats, business men, etc…..are MORE CONSERVATIVE in Texas than the national average. To think most cops are good because most Texas cops are good is to miss what is going on in some areas that are not at all like Texas.
I wish the national average were more like the Texas average, for conservatism, among any group. It would be a better nation. But it's NOT.
It's not just whacked out dangerous nutjobs. I agree those are few and far between. It's the systematic militarization and co-opting into being an enforcement arm of intimidation and growing government that is rather widespread. Not universal, but too widespread.
There you go, using logic and human nature and history to make a point. Don't you understand, self righteousness and false straw arguments are the currency of your debate pal…….your reasoned argument will go nowhere…..with him or her.
Almost all of them are. What happened in Texas years ago has zip zero nada to do with how the rest of the country is today.
Sadly, I might add…..
“Christian” libertarian is impossible, libertarianism is about being a part of a movement at war against social conservatism.
So true. Which points out that the absolutists are on one side of this…the absolute trust in all cops. The reasoned approach is to NOT BLINDLY trust them, until they prove trustworthy. And if they have stopped you, they probably do NOT have your best interests in mind. They may get to that point, depending on how the stop goes, but when the blue lights are on, you are the adversary. Some of that is inherent in police work to be sure….but this whole discussion should be about proportionality, and not absolutes.
That's true, but only to a point. That is one flavor of libertarianism, and one that is on the rise now. But that is not true libertarianism. And libertarians come in many flavors. You identified but one…….and it is the most dangerous flavor.
We all know that libertarianism is about being social liberals, we know what someone means when they tell us they are “more libertarian on some issues”.
This pretense that libertarians are not anti-conservative, is ridiculous, it is why they won’t call themselves conservative, because they aren’t.
The officer has a freaking k-bar tucked into his assault vest. He must be afraid of a drive-by bayoneting.
You don't know as much as you think you know. I said, readily, that you are correct about some libertarians. I even said you were correct about a lot of the more vocal libertarians today. But could you work on that common ground??? NOOOO - you had to show yourself an absolutist asshat.
I guess the bottom line is that libertarianism is a more complex, and sometimes contradictory, universe than you are able to process. There is a big focus on limited government regulation and lower taxes on the part of many libertarians. That is where libertarians and conservatives agree. If you don't want to see that, enjoy your self righteous blinders. Its still true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.