Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Only the GOP Can Stop the Left’s Radical Agenda
What we are seeing around the nation today is the opportunistic exploitation, by Black Lives Matter and Antifa, of a specific tragedy in order to push a radical agenda. The specific tragedy is an act of criminal police misconduct (alleged, but almost universally assumed, and for good reason) that led to the death of George Floyd. The radical agenda includes calls for an end to capitalism, an end to policing, an end to incarceration, and various other similarly preposterous “woke” nostrums.
What makes this situation unusual is the efficiency with which these radical organizations have leveraged a single outrage into a semi-coordinated national campaign. What makes this situation depressing and somewhat terrifying is the degree to which otherwise sensible-seeming people have rushed to embrace the self-destructive idiocy of these radical movements.
It is hard to look at the nation and not conclude that we are in a precarious place from which a return to normalcy is essential but by no means assured. We’ve experienced similar social convulsions before, most recently in the late 1960s. We survived that in part because the electorate chose to reject the more radical path in favor of what was perceived as a conservative administration. This prevented at least the worst of the progressive agenda from gaining a foothold in law.
If Democrats win the White House and both houses of the Congress in November, it is entirely believable that they will enact portions of the radical agenda that is currently animating the left and capturing surprising popular support. This would include novel assaults on the free market and law enforcement, as well as a renewed emphasis on gender identity radicalism. In the current climate it could also include steps toward imposing reparations for past racism, a national guaranteed minimum income, nationally mandated voting reforms that make elections wildly unreliable, and further regulation of health care. All of these are things that would flow naturally from the current virus and race relations crises.
What stands in the way of that? Realistically, only one thing: control of the House, the Senate, or the executive branch by the Republican Party. In this extremely volatile and deeply irrational moment — which blue state governors may yet be able to prolong for several months through misuse of their currently exaggerated powers — it is essential that the unchecked ability to implement federal law not be handed over to a Democratic Party unwilling or unable to resist its most radical factions.
I think the Republican Party, as imperfect and often frustrating as it is, is the bulwark, the wall, between the civil society we still enjoy and a swelling tide of increasingly unhinged radicalism. We must hold on to something, anything, in November.
Published in Elections
I do not think we should rush to judgement, but wait for the investigation and any trial to complete.
On all of the questions that have been decided and presented in the media/BLM/Antifa narrative, I have seen plausible evidence not just for their narrative, but for an alternate one in which the officers were not guilty of any wrongful action or intent.
What was the situation when the officers arrived?
How did the officers respond and what was their motive?
Did the officer follow proper procedure by placing his knee on the neck of the perp?
Is the procedure he used dangerous and inappropriate?
Did the officer cause the death of the perp?
Let’s wait until we get the whole story, not just the media’s recreation of the events.
Mark, while you and I are of differing opinions on this, we agree that the criminal misconduct is alleged, and not yet proven. That’s good.
But I’m not interested in prosecuting this particular case here, as whether or not the officer behaved improperly truly is irrelevant to my point.
Henry,
I understand. I am saying that, that being the case, you should remove your claim that he did (emphasis mine.):
Not gonna do it (he says, in his best George Bush voice), because I do think there are good reasons to assume criminal negligence on the part of the officer. So, while I’m acknowledging that it remains an unproven allegation, I’ll continue to assert that the majority is justified in assuming the allegation is true.
Was anyone else looking forward to another good bashing of The Bulwark and the participants therein?
Color me disappointed.
Oh, but that was exactly the point. I thought it was obvious.
Henry,
The evidence on both sides that I gave above does not seem to favor your assertion. Every point in favor of it seems to be countered by damning testimony to the contrary. You can only discredit that testimony (the autopsy, for example–perhaps the coroner was a liar or incompetent); if you don’t, then your whole argument disintegrates. If the counter-narrative is factually correct, it not only gives reason to doubt their guilt, it gives positive reason to believe that they were innocent.
But we’ll see. I can’t make you remove what seems to be, even based on the conflicting evidence in the largely discredited, largely left-wing media, a shaky assertion that you admit is irrelevant to your point. I can only try to persuade you that taking out a shaky, irrelevant argument would make your argument for your point better, by removing a distraction.
Mark
Henry,
They preen about their higher vision but really they are just gutless wonders looking to opportunistically aggrandize themselves at the expense of party and country. A few, admittedly, are just so out of touch they haven’t the slightest idea what is going on. Those ones are even more frightening.
Regards,
Jim
Mark,
Again, I don’t want to prosecute this case here. However, since you invite me to, I’ll simply opine as follows:
Once a suspect has been handcuffed and restrained, with four officers present, the security of that suspect is the responsibility of the officers. When the suspect is complaining that he can’t breathe, it seems to me that the officers should make some effort to assure that he is in a safe and comfortable position. I can think of no reasonable explanation for the length of time the subject was held down once he was subdued and handcuffed. That alone calls the judgment of the officers into question; the death of the subject, once under their management, strongly suggests culpability on their part, given that they apparently made no efforts to relieve his distress.
I will of course wait for the courts to work it out.
Hank
I agree with Mark’s assertions but he leaves one thing out. Floyd was ignored to death while held in a position that was known to be deadly, and the police ignored any call to check his well-being, from by standers and from his coworkers, until he was dead. something is terribly wrong with this.
Yeah, I agree that the situation is far more ambiguous than the popular perception suggests. And let me add that I have a son who is a cop, and I’m extraordinarily pro-cop, pro-law enforcement. I know it’s a hard job and I worry every day that my kid will be put into an impossible position.
But once they’ve got a guy restrained, he’s their responsibility. That’s a big deal.
It really doesn’t matter. The police officer will not get a fair trial. Ellison will make sure of that. And everyone knows that if he is not convicted of murder, a second round of riots will ensue. The real question is – did Ellison overplay his hand by indicting on a first degree murder charge, or was that done on purpose to not get the conviction and continue the revolution?
Everyone seems to have a better crystal ball than I do.
Anyway, the officer’s guilt or innocence is beside the point of the post.
I would say that we are facing three national crises, (1) COVID-19, (2) the Recession, and (3) the death of George Floyd.
I was on a 535 mile trip today, and sighed, thinking that I would need to gird my loins to defend the honor of The Bulwark, which I appreciate and love as I do Ricochet. Color me relieved.
It goes both ways. It would be nice for Trump to support all Republicans, but he has his own unique personality, and he’s not a professional politician (thank goodness). If any Republican candidate speaks out against Trump, it makes sense not to support a candidate who is not going to support his agenda . . .
Exactly. And it is not always implied: Democrats regularly claim that Trump will cheat, or refuse to leave office when defeated. I have even seen a claim that he intends to make himself president for life (which sounds like boob bait for Daily Kos readers) although I don’t remember who made the claim. In every election the conservative is portrayed as a fascist, which not only whips up the base it also serves the long term purpose of slowly legitimizing the idea of outlawing conservative ideas.
I’ve researched this quite a bit. Republicans that are for this are idiots.
The officer’s body cam footage has not been released yet. The rumor is, it favors the officers.
The Minneapolis PD had a quite a bit looser policy on handling people that were cuffed, too.
It is a scary time. Having watched my fellow educators fold and, figuratively, take a knee at the feet of the coordinators of the various workshops we were forced to attend annually, I have little trust that real spine exists among the American people. We have seen the media and corporate giants fall into line very predictably over the last couple of weeks. The only place with the necessary skepticism seems to exist is in the alternative media of the right and places like Ricochet, although Ricochet is definitely a rare entity.
In the schools there were a few of us who held out against the tide, wouldn’t buy in or cave to the pressure. To a large extent , it had to be done somewhat passively. Active revolt against the system would have been met with negative evaluations which could then be used either to force us out or, as I saw with other teachers, harassment in the form of daily or weekly visits from an administrator, weekly lesson plans being evaluated, and other picayune annoyances more common with new teachers yet unproven.
This is one of my major objection to the ideas I have heard about how difficult it is to remove a lousy teacher. The problem is not so much the teacher as the person judging him/her. The teachers I have seen attacked by administrators, and attacked is the right word, have largely been very competent teachers who had somehow earned the animus of a particular administrator. Once this happened the teacher would be subjected to a series of schedule changes or subject reassignments. One particularly good language arts teacher I knew was scheduled to teach a home economics class for which she did have some training, but no experience. She was then expected to turn in a weekly plan for evaluation, and was subjected to frequent unannounced visits from one or more of the administrators. The principal was weeding out older teachers in order to create a staff totally obligated to him and compliant with his leftist agenda.
I am uncertain how effective these techniques will be in the general society, but they were very effective in Seattle Public Schools which from the inside felt more like the Soviet Union than the USA. The left has been practicing its techniques at least since the early 1970s in the education system. They are finely honed and may well be ready to let loose on the general society.
I was.
That will be the call to civil war.
But, Trump!
From the limited video released thus far, it looks like Mr. Floyd was struggling mightily even while cuffed. People seem to say the cops should have sat him upright. It appears that they tried quite hard to do this, in the back seat of the cop car, and Mr . Floyd wouldn’t do it.
I have heard that the with the current state of affairs, we are the “silenced majority”. But we can speak at the ballot box, and carefully in public where it does not threaten our jobs and livelihoods when we need to support our families. God bless those that are in a position to speak out in all instances, without fear of ruin.
Do you actually believe that a government made up of Democrats, loyal to Democrats, ran by Democrats, with a Democrat unions is going to return an accurate election if it does not favor Democrats? I suspect not. I suspect they will place their fingers on the scales and sway it Democrat anyway possible.
But since when has it mattered what actually happened? “Hands up, don’t shoot” proved to be completely false, Trayvon Martin wasn’t an innocent honor student, and on and on. Once the left seizes a narrative nothing will dissuade them from using it. Between the all police are barbaric racists trope and now Democrats only lose elections when their opponents cheat trope, we are doomed to half the country living In a fantasy world.
Henry, I changed the title of your post because it is not about the site named The Bulwark. And because “Let’s Talk About the Bulwark” tells the reader nothing about what your post is about.
True. Besides, surrender to what–Uncle Joe?
I kind of assumed as much. I liked my title better, because the post really is, in a sense, about the Bulwark, since it was intended as a refutation for those people who think we can afford to lose to the Democrats so that the Republicans learn a lesson. And I thought it was cute.
But I wasn’t going to comment on the change, since I’m not an editor.