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.
Where’s the GOP Law-and-Order Candidate?
Where’s the GOP law-and-order candidate?
Is there a GOP law-and-order candidate? Murders in Atlanta are up 32% since mid-May. Murders in Chicago are up 17%, and shootings 24%. In St. Louis, in the aftermath of Ferguson, shootings are up 39%, robberies 43%, and murders 25%. In Baltimore, scene of the worst urban riots in two generations, law and order is in extended meltdown, with 32 shootings over the Memorial Day weekend alone. As Heather Mac Donald’s disturbing column in last weekend’s Wall Street Journal makes clear:
The most plausible explanation of the current surge in lawlessness is the intense agitation against American police departments over the past nine months. Since last summer, the airwaves have been dominated by suggestions that the police are the biggest threat facing young black males today. A handful of highly publicized deaths of unarmed black men, often following a resisted arrest—including Eric Garner in Staten Island, N.Y., in July 2014, Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., in August 2014 and Freddie Gray in Baltimore last month—have led to riots, violent protests and attacks on the police. Murders of officers jumped 89% in 2014, to 51 from 27.
Left-wing politicians have been waging a war on cops that’s left civil society imploding in many major cities.
America is now waiting for the one member of the burgeoning field of Republican presidential candidates who will speak up for our embattled men and women in blue—and for the fundamental principles of law and order.
The president, the past and present attorneys general, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton have been accusing the criminal justice system of systematic racism and blaming cops — not the rioters or shooters — for the growing violence. In effect, they’re putting a bullseye around our law enforcement officers’ necks.
In short, Democrat politicians aren’t just foes of the “broken windows” approach to law enforcement; they’re now cheering on those breaking the windows.
This is a case crying out for a Republican counterattack. It’s time for one of those White House aspirants to take the fight to the enemy, namely progressive liberalism’s perverted social vision in which it’s the police who are the problem, and even violent felons are merely victims of an “unfair” socio-economic order.
So where is the candidate who is going to speak to police associations to tell them they are our nation’s heroes, not our disgrace?
Where’s the candidate doing a press conference with Sheriff David Clarke of Milwaukee to point out that homicides in that city are up 180% from last year and that the real victims of the collapse of law and order are the poor and the working class?
Where’s the candidate standing with Rudy Giuliani and former Police Commissioner Ray Kelly to blast Bill de Blasio’s abandonment of “stop and frisk” and the state attorney general’s plan to appoint a state prosecutor whose only job will be to prosecute cops who dare to use deadly force against perpetrators?
Where’s the candidate taking it to Hillary for endorsing the Al Sharpton line that the police act out of racial bias, not out of a desire to protect life and property? Who’s going to call her to account for fomenting racial tension in hopes of getting votes?
Where’s the candidate who’s going to inner cities and barrios to talk to ordinary people for whom the drunks, prostitutes, pimps, drug dealers, and muggers that liberals embrace actually pose an existential threat? Where’s the candidate that knows that an effective police force is the thin blue line standing between civilization and chaos—and between life and death?
For any Republican candidate looking for an issue that will appeal to black and Hispanic working families, this is it. Being the candidate advocating for law and order is an electoral strategy that works. It’s also the right thing to do.
So, where’s the GOP law-and-order candidate for 2016?
Published in Policing
Seawriter, I don’t the time to go through that. Some quick points. Classical Liberalism developed after the American Revolution. Perhaps Jefferson would be sympathetic to it, but I’m skeptical Franklyn and most assuredly Washington would not be. And I’m pretty sure Madison, Hamilton, and Adams would also have been skeptical. As I said above, the revolution was not faught over liberty but over legislative representation. And the constitution is a document on the process of generating laws, laws which usually limit freedom. Traditional conservativism does not come from classical liberalism. Liberalism and Libertarianism do.
That is another Libertarian red herring, that government is there as a malevelent force. Our government is run and operated by and for the American people. It is our constitution in action. It enacts our cultural norms, though I probably disagree with many of them. We elect legislators. You may not like what they legislate, (Lord knows I don’t always) but it is not there to hurt you or I. It may do foolish things, but it is not there to do malice. Conservatism used to be the adult philosophy. A bunch of childish impulses has entered it in the past twenty years.
We don’t have the same definitions for Constitutional, or libertarian. That you don’t agree with these results, yet you accept them as Constitutional, means that you consider yourself and everyone else a ward or a serf of the State, with no recourse or real rights. I’d be interested to hear from you how America is supposed to be different from any twobit dictatorship, and what your definition of freedom might be. Not sure we can have a real discussion we are so far apart.
Manny, you seem to be jumping at ghosts that I don’t think are there.
You’ll hardly find a more outspoken critic of what I see as the goofy sophomoric excesses found in libertarianism, but I think you’re barking up the wrong tree tree.
Meanwhile, you have somewhat more faith in the current execution of government than I do.
Sorry. That was flippant. Leaders need to have the right policy objectives. Many of the laws we now want the feds to back off from were passed as bipartisan efforts. Conservatives, or at any rate the GOP, needs to own their part in this mess.
And just turning things over to local law enforcement isn’t a panacea either. The King Prawn has a post on the member feed responding to a news report of decades of criminal malfeasance in the Orange County DA’s office.
Yes, but when the malfeasance is local, it might get solved.
Also spoken like the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Also, since when did conservatives ever expect any policy to be a panacea?
Serf of the state? This is a joke, right? It’s rhetoric like that that makes Libertarianism laughable. And I’m supposed to be the “feeble minded?”
Yes. You don’t understand the basics behind the Constitution. And you can’t spell either.
Serf city, here we come!
Manny, Franco delivered one of the most reasonable, most restrained responses (in his #63) you could have expected from somebody who disagreed.
You pooped on it. Don’t be surprised that the next message is not so restrained.
I didn’t have the time to answer fully before. My definition of freedom is per the constitution which allows (1) Civil liberties per the bill of rights, (2) equality before the law, and (3) the right to elect government officials, especially legislators who represent you and have the authority (per the process outlined) to pass laws of the land under which you have to live with. If you’re not happy with the laws the elected officials pass then you have the option to attempt to vote them out or leave. But laws the duly elected officials pass do not make you a serf. That is all the liberty the constitution guarantees. Libertarians in their echo chamber keep drifting into this “serf of the state” mentality. The American Revolution, I repeat, was fought over guarantee of representation not absolute liberty.
He also called me “feeble minded” though he’s gone back and now changed it. It was not the first ad hominem swipe he’s taken at me here on Ricochet.
Also his language of police having tanks and military equipment (comment #49), the president becoming a tyrant (also #49), the government is some malevolent force (#56), and that we citizens are wards or serfs of the state (#63). That is the language of Timothy McVeigh. I don’t know if Franco is a Libertarian or not (he claims he’s not) but it’s that Libertarian impulse that has entered the conservative side that (1) makes us appear foolish, (2) is a striking ignorance of what is constitutional, and (3) makes our right leaning elected officials dysfunctional. Bush or Boehner or McConnell or Ryan or whoever are always being accused of being Rhinos or traitors or whatever. The knock on elected Republicans is that they can’t govern because they are paralyzed because of their base. We never allow conservatives to legislate. And since our high watermark in 1994, it’s been a gradual decline because of this disfunctionality. It’s only because the electorate turned on Obama in both midterms that we have congress again.
Here’s post #49
Apparently Manny does not know that our police are getting military equipment, armored personnel carriers bayonets (bayonets??) and more. This is unprecedented. We have always had military equipment, unused, surplus, what have you. We have had riots in this country dating back to since its founding. So I stand by this comment.
Our the founders who wrote our Constitution are commonly known to have been wary of Executive power and the natural tendency of governments to acquire power, gradually or abruptly. They saw this in 1790 and we see see it everywhere today. The most recent high profile case of a large fairly prosperous semi-democratic country would be Venezuela. Of course any student of history can see the pattern that collectivism follows, be it called socialism, communism, fascism, whatever.
That Manny seems not the least alarmed by Obama’s over-reach regarding his executive powers reveals a kind of naivete that I’d reserve for committed leftists here in this country. When I say to him “If you believe that no President will ever become a tyrant, then it all seems quite benign. If you believe as I do, that one could, (not Obama of course, noooo) then you might be more wary” He claims (see above) that this the “language of Timothy McVeigh”.
When I say in comment 56 “You seem to be of the opinion that our government is some benign positive force that can grow and have limitless powers all for our own good.”
He claims that means that I see government as a “malevolent force”.
Manny says:
I know for a fact that I did not go back and change anything I said. If I said that (and it doesn’t sound different than what I might happen to believe) then either an editor changed it, or you had a misreading of words on the screen.
I strongly believe it’s the latter considering all the other things you have misinterpreted from the black and white here.
Setting aside the tyranny angle for the moment, let’s look at the cost effectiveness. Why should someone living in Autaugaville, Alabama have some of their federal taxes go to pay for police in Boston or Minneapolis? The people in Boston and Minneapolis (or at furthest remove Massachusetts and Minnesota) should be paying for their police. When money comes from the federal government, people view it as free money. Who cares if it’s spent wastefully, it’s someone else’s money. If the citizens of a city or county are the ones paying for it, they may think twice about how big a police force they really need and how much it should cost.
I believe this kind of charge “the language of Timothy McVeigh” is incendiary, pardon the pun, and I take great issue with it. To construe my wariness of government power into a conflation of someone who has wantonly killed innocent people by the score, shows how utterly lacking in logic or nuance this man Manny is.
I have no problem with publicly shaming him.
Yes. This is precisely why we have States and what is confusingly called ‘federalism’. That is also how the Clinton administration with their 100,000 cops onthe street program duped law and order types on both sides, or rather, so-called Republicans (non- republicans) like Manny here into a temporary federal subsidy to get States more dependent on the Federal government. Getting their foot in the door as it were. Now they want more federal power, as usual.
This is so sad, stupid, insulting and inflammatory that I’m at a loss to respond. [Redacted for CoC] I may have to take insults from time to time, but I don’t have to pretend it isn’t happening.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” ― Samuel Adams
Excuse me? OK, this is just ad hominem and disgraceful. I see the nature of your characters. That was the language of Timothy McVeigh. I stand by it.
Perhaps you think your own comment was something noble, or intelligent, or not recklessly inflammatory.
BDB, and anyone else, if you haven’t yet, please read my comments on the previous page showing these charges to be false or otherwise completely fabricated by our friend Manny.
And yes, the reference to McVeigh in this context is beyond despicable.
I’ve been following the whole time. I agree with Arthur Herman that somebody should be banging the pot about law and order. Cowards. I also agree that much of our current government is acting against our interests, and the police power is where the rubber bullets hit the road. [Redacted for CoC]
Let’s watch the tone on this thread. No one on Ricochet has used the language of Tim McVeigh. I made a few mild redactions above, but let’s be sure to disagree in a civil way. Thank you very much.
This is funny. Some words are redacted. Others stand. If you ask me, Manny should be thrown out of the dinner party for the charges he’s making. But no. He also “stands by those words” The editor does nothing. That’s okay, I like a good fight [Redacted for CoC].
It looks like Manny ran to mommy, offended at being called exactly what he is. And Mommy came, now, now, no one is Tim Mc Viegh here, and you can’t use those words. Bad words they are. One thing is ad hominem the other is, what, bad tone?
Give us a break….
I flagged my own comment. Cited my own terrible ad hominems. My guess is this will surface again after some conversations behind the curtain.
This should be a great example to point to later on. Lucky me, I recall my own egregious ad hominems, for any who are curious.
Fire for effect.
I suppose I’m “mommy” in this comment, and yes, Franco, Manny was wrong to compare anyone to Tim McVeigh. I said that in defense of you, by the way.
Once again, ease up on the tone please. And thank you.
Mommies are good things, aren’t they?
okay. This is a fight I’ll reserve for tomorrow. Looking forward to it!