Assault on America, Day 686: Democrats assault police, voters sentence them to irrelevance
You could see it from a mile away; Democrats would suffer for championing criminals
With the election still fresh in everyone’s brain and its outcome still very much in doubt, postmortems are nonetheless commencing to determine what went right or wrong for Democrat and Republican candidates. The as yet undetermined presidential contest occupies most people’s minds (probably because it involves the always fascinating Donald Trump), but down ballot elections offered a surprising if not refreshing result for conservatives. Simply put, Republicans did much better than anticipated. The polls were flawed! Big shock! The number of seats the GOP gained in the House will likely reach double digits and the party also maintained at least a tie in the Senate, pending two Georgia special elections where Republicans are favored. State legislative races went well for the traditional values party as well, which will make a measurable difference in redistricting next year. As is usually the case, Democrats and liberals drastically overestimated their appeal to America’s voters. It turns out that whining endlessly about the Chinese Communist Party (CCP, or Wuhan, if you prefer) virus wasn’t a big seller for them, and all those sob tales of post office mailboxes being removed by the Trump administration didn’t stick in people’s minds. It was all a farce. But perhaps the Democrats’ biggest miscalculation involved the idea that police departments should be defunded, severely scaled back or eliminated. And now some liberals are upset about it. Byron York wrote at The Washington Examiner, “Remember that on June 26, the Minneapolis City Council voted unanimously to abolish the city's Police Department and create something called the Department of Community Safety and Violence Prevention which would provide ‘public safety services prioritizing a holistic, public health-oriented approach.’ “It was absolutely insane, of course. But that's what the council did. Since that time, the effort has faltered and all but collapsed. But the police got the message. Officers began retiring in record numbers. While the city has budgeted for 888 officers, more than 100 have retired this year -- according to the Post, more than double the normal rate. More are in the process of leaving. The number of officers available to patrol the streets has decreased dramatically. And that means less response to reports of crime. And that means more crime... “The Minneapolis council is a case study of progressive Democratic governance in action. President Trump spent part of his campaign warning against it. He lost. Republican congressional candidates also warned against it and did better, although not well enough to win control of the House. Now an incoming Democratic administration will include the same variety of progressives who have done so much damage in Minneapolis and elsewhere. That will be the new reality of the Biden administration.” Yes. As Rush Limbaugh is fond of saying, “See, I told you so.” It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that performing a largely thankless job -- like being a police officer -- becomes intolerable when it devolves into an ultra-dangerous as well as an unrewarding situation. Why would anyone willingly commit to putting their lives and fortunes on the line to protect people, many of whom don’t even want it? It’s a liberal pipedream to think consequences wouldn’t follow from bashing on these brave men and women for doing their job the way it’s supposed to be done. Liberalism’s main problem is it’s all based on a lie. While it might be noble to dream of a society where police aren’t necessary, there’s no practical way to get around the fact that laws -- and law enforcement -- is essential. Father of the Constitution James Madison famously wrote, “If Men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and the next place, oblige it to control itself.” Human beings aren’t angels. Most are law abiding and accepting of legitimate authority, but there are devils, too. Some may believe that they could safely drive over a hundred miles an hour in traffic, but most folks simply refrain from doing it because it’s against the law. The highway patrol would pull over the perpetrator and issue a citation -- or maybe even haul him or her away as reckless drivers. Society can’t have order without laws -- and police. Still, there is resistance to police. Decades ago, I had a conversation with a law school friend about the concept of police and brutality and the power of the state. This was around the time of the Rodney King trial and verdict (which, of course, inspired the Los Angeles riots which practically wiped out the end of our first year of law school), so the topic was quite fresh in all of our minds. She relayed stories of how she’d had run-ins with cops in Mexico that didn’t go well. Knowing her as I did, I was inclined to take her side of the story -- she wasn’t exactly a rabble rouser. I then posed the question, “If someone is breaking into your apartment, would you call the police or the criminal gang down the street?” I’m not sure the point stuck, as she was a stubborn person, but therein lies the dilemma for the “defund the police” crowd. None of us want a policeman permanently stationed on our front doorstep, but we’re glad that their cars patrol the streets and respond when summoned. It's human nature to want to believe in goodness -- the “angels” in everyone’s nature -- but reality reveals that people are flawed. When you see a couple hundred college students standing at an intersection holding “Black Women’s Lives Matter” signs, you want to sympathize with them. Yes, it’s true, after all, black women’s lives do matter. But is that it? Does it end there? After someone admits that they’re right -- do the complainants simply go home? Last summer’s protests highlighted the concept of racial inequality. Judging by the size of the “gatherings” in cities across the country, there are a good number of African-Americans who believe that racism exists, and a lot of non-black people who seem to think this way too, though I bet if you asked them to provide specific examples of racism, they’d be hard pressed to name any. “Oh, I was downtown once and there were skinheads in front of a building shouting the n-word and bashing homosexuals and, and, and… And CNN had this special report about the growing influence of the KKK, which is truly scary to me.” “I also saw the movie ‘American History X’ and it was based on real experiences. Lots of sick people out there, man. Or how about that Tom Berenger flick ‘Betrayed’ where they hunted human beings like animals.” The average person instinctively reacts -- yeah, racism is bad and the disgruntled have a right to assemble and speak and petition the government for redress of grievances. But I am not a racist. My family and friends aren’t racists. So, who are they talking about? Chances are we’ve all known police or criminal justice personnel. They don’t talk about turning firehoses on demonstrators as some of their forbears did last century. The nation grows and evolves; the old ways are long gone, having died out through congressional action or natural attrition. Most Americans revere or respect the police as they would a soldier or sailor
Some policemen I’ve known are former military service members. If the nation revered them and thanked them for their service in supermarkets and shoe stores when on active duty, why would these individuals be any less worthy when they’ve returned from the streets of Fallujah or mountains of Afghanistan to patrol crime ridden local neighborhoods? There are incidents every now and then, but the bad apples will be weeded out.
So what gives with the “defund the police” movement? It never made sense, including for those who sympathized with the “peaceful” demonstrators. Even if the judicial process finds the Minneapolis police officers (at least a couple of which aren’t even white) guilty of some sort of hate crime in the death of George Floyd, it doesn’t mean all policemen and women are like them. There’s inevitably more to the story.
When common experience clashes with the demands of the radicals, people react. Democrats didn’t respond quickly enough to denounce the “protests”, riots, looting, mayhem, murders, assaults and general disorder. Tucker Carlson used to say Democrats wouldn’t do it because it’s their voters out on the street. Don’t offend them! We need them! Donald Trump walked across from the White House and held up a Bible. The media said he teargassed innocent people to clear the way! And he hid in the White House bunker like a coward when the peaceful protestors were just there to “raise awareness” and exercise free speech!
All of this was going on while people at home shook their heads and felt sympathy for the police. There were many videos of burning businesses and vehicles, vandals running about with booty lifted from broken storefront windows. Innocent people being beaten up. It goes on and on.
What did Democrats hope to gain by siding with the miscreants instead of the police? Not much. The party still managed to hold onto Minnesota, but that’s a (poor) reflection on the state’s inner cities being much farther gone than anyone even knew. It’s not because the Black Lives Matter cause was correct or Americans suddenly developed an affinity for Antifa. The farther Democrats push themselves to the radical side, the more they’ll suffer at the ballot box. No one likes an apologist.
All eyes still on Trump as election resolution hangs in the balance
Anyone who’s familiar with Donald Trump’s celebrity and career recognizes that the man has always left himself many avenues to pursue in all aspects of his business and personal life. Such is the case in a potential post-presidency as well.
W. James Antle, III wrote at The Washington Examiner, “[Trump] could start a media company to rival Fox News, a network that has displeased him with its coverage of the election. ‘Trump TV’ rumors have been persistent for the last five years. He could launch a super PAC to promote Republican candidates who share his views on foreign policy, trade, and immigration. Or he could continue his campaign for the presidency because he is still eligible to serve another term under the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution...
“A Washington Examiner/YouGov poll found that 48% of voters wanted Trump to leave politics entirely if he lost, but 38% of Republicans said he should run again, and 34% believed he should back like-minded candidates. Just 9% of Republicans thought he should abandon politics completely...
“Many Republicans are hoping to succeed Trump in 2024. This likely includes Vice President Mike Pence, former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley, and Sens. Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, and Josh Hawley, who have all in different ways attempted to channel Trump’s populism.”
Like with practically everything else, Trump’s “retirement” should set himself apart from all other presidents. Most chief executives are content to hit the golf course and plan out their presidential libraries upon exiting the swamp, but not Trump. If the New Yorker worked 20-hour days while leading the country, he’ll work just as hard -- if not harder -- on his upcoming legacy pursuits.
“Make America Great Again” was not just a slogan that sounded good on a flimsy campaign sign. Trump was and is serious about returning the country to a level of greatness that patriotic Americans expect. He’s gone a long way towards achieving the goal in four short years, but there’s still much work to be done.
If Biden wins, he’ll be hamstrung by the immovable ways of Washington. Trump won’t have to worry about Robert Mueller-type witch hunts (though of course vindictive Democrats will keep up the lawsuits). He can choose any path he desires. Should he want to stay in politics, who’s to say he couldn’t wage a years-long campaign against Biden and the Democrats?
Even if some Republicans remain ambivalent about Trump’s leadership style, few question his ability to advance the conservative/populist agenda. And there’s 100 percent trust (from his backers) that he’ll do what he says he’s going to do. Is there another politician in the country with similar credibility?
I personally feel Trump will toss out very public hints that he’s running again in 2024. He’ll devote some time to the family businesses, watch Barron grow up and do whatever is necessary to ensure his brand retains its stellar reputation. And most importantly, he’ll be the biggest thorn in Joe Biden’s side from day one.
defund the police