Media Criticism, Political Commentary

The Ignorance Of The Left

34 Comments

This is just more validation of Jonathan Haidt’s research that indicates conservatives/libertarians understand leftists much more than vice versa. I was amused earlier today when someone issued a shocked tweet that National Review had criticized the militarization of police departments.

34 thoughts on “The Ignorance Of The Left”

  1. From the article:

    “It is a display of obliviousness to claim that all on the right who are concerned about the erosion of Americans’ constitutional liberties have been inconsistent on the issue of police militarization. ”

    The left is oblivious to a lot.

  2. It does fill me with a tiny amount of hope to see folks on both the left and the right condemn the militarization of police forces. I hope that kind of political convergence is a trend.

    I do find it a little ironic, though, that the author complains that “the left” paints “the right” with a broad brush — and he writes that complaint holding the broadest brush possible. Some “contributor” on CNN or a writer at the Washington Post hardly speak for me, or anyone I know.

      1. Personally, ever since it was proposed, I’ve called DHS “the Committee for State Security”.

        Or, in the original Russian; Komitet gosudarstvennoy bezopasnosti

      2. So did you know that we’ve been complaining about this for many years? And that many of us (including me) objected to the creation of DHS?

        I’m no expert on your writings on the subject, but I’ve read things you’ve written that make this no surprise. I objected to the DHS too, for the record.

        You may still conclude that “the left” is generally ignorant, but I’ll argue that it’s not monolithic in its viewpoints — even its views of the right.

        1. For the record, I thought the Office of Homeland Security was a silly idea. The function could have been served by following the template of the National Security Council, without creating a special agency to support it.

      3. Why object to DHS?

        I mean, it’s just a re-org of existing departments, to facilitate information sharing (one of the useful things the post-9/11 analysis revealed).

        That part’s always puzzled me; by all means, oppose specific DHS actions, and definitely oppose things like the TSA.

        But why should DHS inherently be any more objectionable than the individual agencies before they were re-organized under one parent?

        Did Customs and Immigration and the Coast Guard become terrible threats to individual liberty somehow by being moved under the same parent organization instead of separate departments?

        1. 1) You can’t “cut the middlemen for efficiency” by adding entire new layers. Particularly when none of the other layers had any cuts.
          2) The subsidiary agencies are targeted. The Coast Guard … guards the coast. They don’t serve warrants in Kansas.

          But with DHS (at least, the way it seems to work in practice), you’ve added a new set of badges and seals for everyone to memorize. Their mandate is “everything -any- of our subordinate agencies -could- do”, and their range is “anywhere any of our subordinate agencies could go”. Their weaponry and surveillance skills likewise.

          This means that once you’ve run across one ass, you’re stuck. They’re a “Trump Card”.

          It would be one thing if it were mostly “Inspectors General for all of the Intelligence Agencies” – that is, suits running around demanding details from operations.

          But instead they have field agents.

        2. Did Customs and Immigration and the Coast Guard become terrible threats to individual liberty somehow by being moved under the same parent organization instead of separate departments?

          I’d have to say “yes” because now they’re sharing data and mission creep with a lot of other federal agencies. It’d probably have happened anyway, even without 911.

  3. The Founding Fathers didn’t want large standing armies because those lead to tyranny, and the temptation to use large numbers of armed and loyal men to control the population was well understood to be a plague of the continental European powers. As was said, most states field an army, but Prussia is the only army that fields a state. Along with the potential for abuse comes the obvious temptation for abuse in the political class. Got a problem? Quell it! Peasants getting restless? Put a boot on their neck.

    Yet now we have college and medium-size city police departments that could slaughter the entire Continental Army in open combat. They are becoming a standing army.

  4. Wow. The dispatch audio recordings have been leaked from the night of the Brown shooting. Apparently the Ferguson police didn’t call in an officer involved shooting when it happened nor did they call for EMS, and the dispatcher learned of the shooting from a civilian calling it in based off a news report. Even if it was a justified shooting, that behavior is atrocious and shows an abominable depth of disrespect and malice towards the members of the community they are supposed to be serving.

    I really hope that this event catalyzes a movement towards reforming law enforcement across the country, it’s long past time.

  5. Dave,

    Some of us started to worry about the militarization of the police (and other organizations) and Federal Government force when we heard this:

    “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.

    We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

    Barack Obama July 2008

    The words “civilian national security force” sent a chill up and down my spine and not a pleasant chill.

    There are good reasons why the CIA was not allowed, by law, to work on US soil (until the Patriot Act); good reasons for the Posse Comitatus Act.

  6. Police have always generated an ambivalence in me.

    On the one hand very few of us have to worry about getting shot while on duty; every traffic ticket stop could result in the officer getting shot in the face by some crack-head – and that’s it for the officer. Times like 9/11, or the Boston Bombing they run towards the danger. I’m inclined to cut them a break.

    But I also think they are sometimes unnesessarily gruff with civilians. And if you get bad apple cops, you can find yourself on the wrong end of endless cop hassling should you make a complaint about their behavior.

    Unlawful actions by cops as a result of being videotaped by civilians (a perfectly legal thing to do) is a serious problem.

    In short, there’s a strong urge to go a little power mad when people are put into positions of authority and/or positions where they can arrest people or apply deadly force. This is extremely well known human nature – so this needs to be actively curbed by the authorities. I live in a very small town. The local police got it into their heads to put one way film on their patrol cars so that you could not see inside the car from the outside. The town authorities (rightly) ordered them to remove it. It was unnecessarily “non-transparent” (no pun intended) and served to separate the police from the citizens which is a very bad thing.

    Police are being exposed to new (to them) circumstances and someare not reacting well. A prime example of this was the shootout in Watertown MA. between the Tsarnaev brothers and the Watertown police. Many other shootouts exhibit the same behavior:

    In this shootout it was night, the police did not have NVG, they had the brothers practically surrounded, and the videotape shows endless excessive shooting by the police at NO visible targets. They were merely emptying their magazines. You had to shovel the brass off the street when that was over. They were not providing suppression firepower for move and shoot tactics. They did not shoot out the tires of the SUV the brothers had – one got away in it. It is an effing miracle that the police didn’t shoot one another or a resident in their homes.

    In short, they behaved exactly like a green private behaves in his first battle.

    I believe this sort of shootout could become more prevalent in the not-so-distant future and the police need to be MUCH better trained in that sort of action. Or you bring in veteran Guard soldiers for that and the police walk the beat.

    Which they should be doing anyways.

    In short, police are less and less looked upon as friends to the citizens they are charged to protect. This is a very bad thing.

    The militarization of the police makes this vastly worse.

  7. I attended a small regional state university because that was the best I could afford. This week, I received an alumni magazine that featured an article about the campus police force. It was better armed than most squads when I was in the infantry. This absurdity needs to end.

    The militarization of police forces is cause for deep concern. The police are seeing the public they’re sworn to serve as the enemy, and the public is starting to return the sentiment. If current trends continue, this won’t end well.

    Likewise, the forming of paramilitary units within government agencies like the EPA and Department of Education is also cause for concern. If they have a law enforcement issue, they should call in the FBI. It seems this trend is part of what Obama called for in 2008, as Gregg noted above: “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

    No, you don’t have to have that unless you’re planning on implimenting a dictatorship.

    1. “The police are seeing the public they’re sworn to serve as the enemy, and the public is starting to return the sentiment. ”

      I don’t think taking away the camo pants and APCs will change this.

      1. No, but taking away their military toys will help. Eliminating police immunity will help. Breaking down the “Blue Wall of Silence” will help. Kicking off “bullies with badges” will help.

        No cop is any better than the worst cop he allows to remain on the force.

        1. Take away the camo, and the black tacticool gear. Make the new riot gear hot pink, maybe in a Hello Kitty theme. Might make for fewer wannabe power-trippin’ badasses in the police ranks, and less streat cred for rioters “standin’ up to The Man The Kitty.”

          1. Ya, they could apply some social science to choosing a soothing color for their riot gear but IMO, when it comes to cop’s behavior, it is the behavior that needs addressed not the kit that people find scary looking. Take away the toys and power trippers will still be tripping.

  8. The now ubiquitous ability to video police is a really hopeful development. No one should put up with attempts to suppress it, much as police would prefer it that way.

  9. One thing that contributes to the ignorance of the Left (and some who claiom to be on the Right) is that they do not grasp the fact they they do not fully understand the effect of complex laws – like Obamacare:

    How Obamacare makes my family less financially secure
    By Timothy P. Carney

    “But then my wife reminded me that some of the doctors or specialists who see us at the hospital might not be in network. And we have a totally separate (and higher) deductible for out-of-network care. We’d pay every penny for doctor out-of-network.

    My wife called the hospital. The hospital said that some specialists are in network, some are out. Can we request an in-network anesthesiologist? Nope. We get whoever is on duty at the moment the contractions get too painful.
    …………………….
    Now, thanks to narrower networks, narrowed further by Obamacare, we’re relying more and more on continued good luck.”

    Relying on luck is not a good plan.

  10. Picture this. A prosecutor is jailed for drunk driving at 3 times the legal limit. Said prosecutor won’t leave office. The highest elective official threatens and carries out witholding the funds for that prosecutor’s office until that person leaves. That elective official has just been indicted for doing this.

    What country did this just take place in?

      1. Sadly, Texas.

        Rick Perry was just indicted for withholding funding that had been earmarked for the 3x DUI prosecutor’s office.

      3. Only if you consider Texas a banana republic, Rand: Paul’s talking about Rick Perry, who was indicted for “abuse of power” for zeroing out the Austin “Public Integrity Unit” which was headed by a DA who was arrested for drunk driving. A blood test revealed a .238 BAC; she pled guilty, and received a 45-day jail sentence, but refused to resign. Perry threatened to–and did–kill her office’s budget.

        http://www.wfaa.com/news/texas-news/Grand-jury-indicts-Perry-over-integrity-unit-veto-271457551.html

          1. I didn’t know about the hit-and-run, but I remember when her DUI happened. I’m pleased to find out she spent time in jail, not pleased to find out she got out early, and disgusted that she’s still DA…but that’s exactly what I’ve come to expect from a Democrat: no matter how much of a scumbag one is, the rest will rally around him or her.

            I’m sure one of the resident trolls will dispute that, so I’ll just call out Alcee Hastings and the Massachusetts state senator who was sent to jail for beating his girlfriend. When the senate considered stripping him of his seniority and committee rankings, the Congressional Black Caucus tried to convince them not to do it.

          2. I used to donate to MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) but I fell away from being paid up in my dues. I got the vibe that in their “get tough” stand, there wasn’t a sanction against drunk driving they didn’t like, and I started to have civil liberty concerns.

            In the aftermath of the Rodney King arrest and the conviction of at least one LAPD officer to hard prison time, this after “two bites of the apple”, with tongue-in-cheek I had suggested that MADD support the officers. The reason for this “incident” leading to a chain of events to burn down half of LA was that a drunk-as-all-getout Mr. King led police in a high speed chase down the freeway. I was wondering why MADD had no comment on the rough justice of being battered by police battons as appropriate sanction for DUI/OWI.

            I just contacted both Texas MADD (tx.state.madd) and Wisconsin (wi.state.madd — we had an Attorney General who hung on to office after an OWI arrest) to ask for their positions on the Rick Perry indictment.

            If they come out swinging on this, I am tempted to send them some money. If we could support a goo-goo (good government) organization to fight this as being against drunk driving, this would be more effective than through a partisan-political group.

            I see on the Web that Rick Perry uses his good name and influence to support MADD. If they leave him “hung out to dry”, “Uh Rick babe, thanks for your support, but you are on your own on this one”, this tells us one thing. If they defend him, this would speak to their integrity and I could offer support through them.

  12. I finally read something by Victor Davis Hanson that didn’t make me utterly exasperated, so I thought I would mention it, in case anyone here overlooked an article I think they would find interesting.

    I thought this was rather good:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/385347/cyprus-world-silent-victor-davis-hanson
    and the comments, arguing over the origins of the Cyprus dispute, and arguing over the validity of Hanson’s comparison, are rather good too.

Comments are closed.