The Ferguson Report Reminds Me Why I Became a Conservative

National Review Online: The Corner ^ | March 16, 2015 | David Fre\nch

[Sherman Logan]

I grew up in a small town in Kentucky, the son of — at that time — McGovern Democrats. My dad was a math professor at the local college, my mom was a public-school teacher, and neither one of them had voted for a Republican in their lives — and had no intention to.

Me? As soon as I started learning about politics, I turned towards conservatism — dramatically — and started hectoring my parents. (Just after she pulled the lever for Mondale in 1984, I remember telling my mother that the moment she voted I’d felt a disturbance in the Force akin to that felt by Obi-Wan Kenobi at the destruction of Alderaan. She was not amused.) The change had nothing to do with youthful rebellion — after all, if it was standard for professors’ kids to tack right, then Cambridge Massachusetts would be practically overrun with young Ted Cruz supporters — but rather two realities that were intruding upon my young mind.

The first, of course, was the Cold War and the Soviet threat. Without going into too many details, I thought détente was simply another word for appeasement, and found it incredible that some people actually argued that the right response to an expansionist totalitarian power was timidity and disarmament.

The second reason for the change was my experience with small-town government. It pushed me in a libertarian direction before I even knew what a libertarian was.

The public schools were dreadful. Focused on patronage more than education, the school system was a public jobs program that was better at promoting the athletic and social interests of the town’s elite than prepping kids for work or college. I remember a brief run at starting a laughable “underground paper” at my high school, and the title of my first op-ed was “Who’s Your Dad?” — focusing on the single-most important factor for making school teams or winning local scholarships. We trashed the paper before we even printed it, but the sentiment (and anger) was real. I certainly benefited from individual teachers going above and beyond the call of duty — taking an interest in a geeky kid who really, really liked to read — but the system itself was largely malignant.

And that malignancy has spread throughout the public institutions. Our local government’s core mission was dispensing favors. If you were part of the local elite, the normal rules of life simply didn’t apply. Speeding tickets? No problem. You need a conditional use permit? You got it! To this day one of the most satisfying events of my professional life was defeating the local zoning board in the first constitutional case of my career — winning the case after a local leader haughtily told my church client, “We can and will dictate how you worship.”

In my town, if you were poor or lacked connections, “the rules” applied to you with a vengeance. After all, someone had to pay the city’s bills. There was no escaping speeding tickets, zoning officials were ruthless, and each interaction with the unyielding authorities carried with it the threat of immediate escalation, sometimes without justification. A friend of mine was once beaten senseless by a local police officer after a traffic stop — all because he was dating the cop’s ex-girlfriend.

Because of this experience, I often shudder when I hear conservatives extolling the virtues of “local control” or “local authorities” — as if local officials are somehow inherently more virtuous than the feds. Government is prone to corruption at all levels — especially when under the hammerlock of one-party rule (the Democrats ruled my town). Make no mistake, I love my hometown, and I love the people in it, but that love has nothing to do with its government.

Reading the DOJ’s Ferguson report took me back to the bad old days. It is the story of a small class of the local power brokers creating two sets of rules, one for the connected and another for the mass of people who are forced — often at gunpoint — to pay for the “privilege” of being governed. This is a very old story, and if the poor of Ferguson are overwhelmingly black, then it’s inevitable that a government built on exploitation will disproportionately exploit black citizens. I have no doubt that there are some racists in Ferguson’s leadership, but we also know that even black leaders will exploit black citizens in the cities they lead — setting up de facto rules that benefit the governing class at the expense of the poor. See, for example, Detroit.

It is entirely possible to believe (as I do) that the evidence indicates that “hands up, don’t shoot” is a fiction, even a malicious fiction, while also believing that the evidence indicates that Ferguson’s government was corrupt in exactly the way that government is typically corrupt.

We often take for granted the rule of law. If you are blessed to live in a town where the officials are relatively clean, or if you’re among the class of people that officials fear to cross, then public institutions seem benign — helpful, even. But there are millions of our fellow citizens who live a different reality, under the authority of different kinds of public officials — officials who view them as virtual ATMs, regardless of their ability to pay. And when the government imposes that mindset on police officers, forcing men and women who are trained to respond to (and anticipate) the most violent incidents to essentially become the armed tax collectors of a corrupt system, then that government is unjust, and its officials must be made to feel the bite of the Constitution that they’ve willfully and continually abused.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

[rlmorel]

"...I do not believe that local politicians are intrinsically more virtuous than Washington-based politicians..."

They aren't. They are just easier to get your hands on.

And at the heart of conservatism is a healthy awareness that people are flawed, and are susceptible to temptation, corruption and power, and you allow yourself to be governed while knowing man is imperfect. Liberals don't see it that way, hence people like Obama in government. The founders surely saw it that way, and it is why the Constitution was created as it was. A wonderful document when followed, a great cover for people to wrap themselves in for protection when they deliberately flaunt it, and profess to abide by it. And aren't called out on it.

[kearnyirish2]

Not only is your vote more meaningful locally, but you want your taxes spent locally; here in NJ our urban welfare hatcheries are cutting costs because the money ran out - they don’t have the option of simply dipping into a neighboring municipality’s coffers.

[Sherman Logan]

You have ably refuted an argument neither Mr. French not I have made.

The article has very little to do with racism at all. It addresses problems that have little or nothing to do with race and everything to do with corruption of government at the local level.

The Justice Department and you both want to make it about racism, in opposite ways, but that’s not the real issue.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

While it is true that the local governments can be just as corrupt as the federal governments, the author overlooks one important point, the local governments are more directly accountable to the people. When the mayor or city officials are corrupt, it is far easier to organize, protest, attend local counsel meetings etc.. In other words, on the local level it is far easier to get your voice heard and make changes. The local governments are more directly accountable to the people that they serve. That’s the difference and why it’s good to devolve power down to it’s most local level IMO.

[nathanbedford]

And at the heart of conservatism is a healthy awareness that people are flawed, and are susceptible to temptation, corruption and power, and you allow yourself to be governed while knowing man is imperfect. Liberals don't see it that way, hence people like Obama in government.

An important insight that and one which explains at least in part why the left is always whoring after the new Messiah. As Dennis Prager says in so many words, one's political convictions are determined by whether one sees man as inherently evil or inherently good.

We conservatives acknowledge the flawed nature of man and yet by virtue of some miracle I do not fully understand it is conservatives who vest in man the dignity of liberty while liberals despise the individual and would deprive him of choice (outside of the bedroom) and consequences.

Anyway, a flawed man as local politician is at least under closer scrutiny than a phony Messiah in a bubble.

[HereInTheHeartland]

LESS government is always the better solution, lovcal or national.

[HereInTheHeartland]

LESS government is always the better solution, local or national.

[ladyjane]

So the take home message here is that Ferguson is corrupt and the authorities disproportionately targeted those with no connections.

The evidence: a high percentage of blacks have been accused of and arrested for breaking the law.

Ergo - Ferguson is corrupt.

[Yosemitest]

Check this out.

What's really happening in Ferguson? John Cardillo explains: ( 8:55 )
Published on Mar 16, 2015
George Soros funneling money into Ferguson Riots $33 Million has been found so far.

Here's something to consider about liberals, and conservatives.

The liberal's problem is psychological projection.

Liberals do this all the time.
Here's a definition.
Freudian Projection

The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox psychology texts.
In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto an opponent is called Freudian Projection.

• "A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept.
  It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."
  
  
• "The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or emotions on to other people.
  So, for example, someone who feels subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to suspect others of being homosexual."
  
  
• "Attributing one's own undesirable traits to other people or agencies, e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile."
  
  
• "The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself.
  Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest.
  The would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity."
  
  
• "People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others.
  An individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies may then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way."
  
  
• "Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification.
  We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have."

And here's a problem with honest people.

(General) Projection

Here projection is assuming that others act or perceive similarly – according to this definition it is not necessary for a projected trait to be undesirable or unconscious.
Projection is probably inherent in social animals and the single most important psychological mechanism.
The following are given as examples:

1. Individual A assumes that B sees the colour red as he does, until informed that B is colour-blind;
   
   
2. Someone who never lies is easy to deceive because he projects his truthfulness onto others, assuming that others are honest also;
   
   
3. ‘It takes one to know one’;
   
   
4. An inept con-man fears that others are trying to cheat him, signals his fear and alerts others;
   
   
5. (Freudian) An individual who possesses malicious characteristics, but who is unwilling to perceive himself as a protagonist, convinces himself that his opponent feels and would act the same way.

Liberals constantly project their own vile values onto conservatives, intentionally or unintentionally,
and they need to called on it, shamed on it, and laughed at to scorn, when they do it.

We MUST get rid of these evil people.

[nathanbedford]

I think the corollary is also worth considering, conservatives tend to project their own ingenuousness onto political figures and assume they possess a virtue which they do not deserve.

One can see this so blatantly in the 2008 election of Barack Obama. They simply would not see the deviousness reflected in the man's biography. Not incidentally, we have just read minutes ago that Obama has abandoned the application of freedom of information to his administration, at last openly dispensing with the charade.

As we project good intentions on the evildoers we get what we don't deserve.

[Yosemitest]

I could go into many different directions on your words.
The LAWLESS ONE is a Biblical Curse.
On another subject, do you listen to Glenn Beck?

Glenn Beck US And Russia Are On The Verge Of World War III ( 33:12 )
Published on Mar 16, 2015
Glenn Beck - US And Russia Are On The Verge Of World War
Great Economic Collapse & Currency Meltdown Is Coming Says Financier Robert Kiyosaki .




Glenn believes that this building will be targeted by ISIS
Article by Wilson, Monday, Mar 16, 2015.

[Sherman Logan]

Not really. The better solution is always OPTIMAL government, as those who have tried to survive in situations with insufficient government would be glad to explain to you.

However, I will agree that in our present situation, not having enough government is not really a problem.

[HereInTheHeartland]

” The better solution is always OPTIMAL government,”

I don’t see ever a time in our nation’s history; when we have had too little government.

[MosesKnows]

Unless you’d care to describe a preferable method?

Article 4. Section. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

The Federalist Papers delineates the reason it was important to guarantee a Republican form of Government.

You will not find a single occurrence of the word, democracy, in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. In addition, none of the Constitutions of the fifty states contains that word.

The Founders recognized the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God and that means, they wrote the founding documents knowing that man is flawed.

[ohioman]

Concerning this subject, I knew you would have the most liberal opinion on FR.

The problem is not Ferguson. The problem is the racist Justice Department.

[hosepipe]

Democracy (big D) is just dandy......as long as you’re not the fat guy in the lifeboat. :0)

---

AND don’t fall asleep..

[hosepipe]

The Federalist Papers delineates the reason it was important to guarantee a Republican form of Government.
------------------------------------------------------------

The MEANINGS of the words republican AND democrat have been lost to posterity.. -OR- stolen..

Republicans are BLIND to this or don't really CARE...
Democrats are blind because of who they are..

Libertarians know there is an elephant in the room..
They can smell "IT"... but are as blind as bats..

[hosepipe]

Oh.... OR high.. on something..

[rlmorel]

I would disagree. I read the passage: "...It is entirely possible to believe (as I do) that the evidence indicates that “hands up, don’t shoot” is a fiction, even a malicious fiction, while also believing that the evidence indicates that Ferguson’s government was corrupt in exactly the way that government is typically corrupt..."

When I read this, I saw it as an explanation, and he gives a degree of moral equivalence to government corruption as to a "malicious fiction" to explain what is going on in Ferguson.

Contrary to what you or the author think, it isn't people like ME who want to make it about racism.

It IS about racism, not "government corruption". THAT is precisely what the race-mongers and race-baiters are trying to pin it on to legitimize it.

And sadly, there are lots of people who buy into that. I think it is shameful.

[rlmorel]

It is puzzling, I agree. Conservatives SHOULD be the ones who think that there are people who are incapable of success, and should be coddled.

But we aren’t. We believe that ANYONE can be successful if they work hard enough and find the suitable path for them in life.

Instead, it it the liberals who want to impute the worst negativity to human nature, the very people who think all people are inherently good, and that some societal situation has caused them to go bad.