It's Time For Conservatives To Stop Defending Police

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And Goldwater, the father of modern conservatism, said that someone needed to kick Jerry Falwell's ass. The Religious Right and Tea Party are more reactionary than conservative.

Now you're just limiting conservatism to pure economics. Modern conservatism is interventionist and socially conservative, regardless of what Goldwater was.

I think that you're defining it too narrowly, and not allowing for the different schools of thought within modern conservatism.

[The New Sea Territory]

Now you're just limiting conservatism to pure economics. Modern conservatism is interventionist and socially conservative, regardless of what Goldwater was.

I think that you're defining it too narrowly, and not allowing for the different schools of thought within modern conservatism.

I'm thinking of modern American conservatism, as that's who the thread is addressing. I'm not denying there are different schools of thought, but the American political scene is nearly devoid of anything besides Religious Right and the Neocons. The only other somewhat big group is the "libertarian" movement. Fiscal Conservatives are not as common anymore.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I think that you're defining it too narrowly, and not allowing for the different schools of thought within modern conservatism.

I'm thinking of modern American conservatism, as that's who the thread is addressing. I'm not denying there are different schools of thought, but the American political scene is nearly devoid of anything besides Religious Right and the Neocons. The only other somewhat big group is the "libertarian" movement. Fiscal Conservatives are not as common anymore.

Modern American Conservatism varies wildly though.

One of my professors is a conservative, but he is a fiscal conservative; they're alive and doing well, just not as heard often because the reactionaries and neo-conservatives have taken over.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I think that you're defining it too narrowly, and not allowing for the different schools of thought within modern conservatism.

I'm thinking of modern American conservatism, as that's who the thread is addressing. I'm not denying there are different schools of thought, but the American political scene is nearly devoid of anything besides Religious Right and the Neocons. The only other somewhat big group is the "libertarian" movement. Fiscal Conservatives are not as common anymore.

And New Democrats are in charge of the Democratic Party, but we still see Bernard Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. This essay is simply arguing why knee-jerk defense of agents of the state could be seen as going against conservative ideals.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm thinking of modern American conservatism, as that's who the thread is addressing. I'm not denying there are different schools of thought, but the American political scene is nearly devoid of anything besides Religious Right and the Neocons. The only other somewhat big group is the "libertarian" movement. Fiscal Conservatives are not as common anymore.

And New Democrats are in charge of the Democratic Party, but we still see Bernard Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. This essay is simply arguing why knee-jerk defense of agents of the state could be seen as going against conservative ideals.

Is it just me or before this there were people in the media who actually knew what they were talking about and it wasn't just about polarizing people?

[The New Sea Territory]

I'm thinking of modern American conservatism, as that's who the thread is addressing. I'm not denying there are different schools of thought, but the American political scene is nearly devoid of anything besides Religious Right and the Neocons. The only other somewhat big group is the "libertarian" movement. Fiscal Conservatives are not as common anymore.

Modern American Conservatism varies wildly though.

One of my professors is a conservative, but he is a fiscal conservative; they're alive and doing well, just not as heard often because the reactionaries and neo-conservatives have taken over.

I guess they don't make their presence known because they don't have devotion to the Jehovah of War/American Jesus and the St. Ronald Gipper Reagan (for Neocons and Religious Right respectively).

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And New Democrats are in charge of the Democratic Party, but we still see Bernard Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. This essay is simply arguing why knee-jerk defense of agents of the state could be seen as going against conservative ideals.

Is it just me or before this there were people in the media who actually knew what they were talking about and it wasn't just about polarizing people?

Through the 90s, if memory serves, yes.

[The New Sea Territory]

Is it just me or before this there were people in the media who actually knew what they were talking about and it wasn't just about polarizing people?

Through the 90s, if memory serves, yes.

*quickly rewrites history*

NOPE! Libruls wur alweeze godless commie batstruds!

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Modern American Conservatism varies wildly though.

One of my professors is a conservative, but he is a fiscal conservative; they're alive and doing well, just not as heard often because the reactionaries and neo-conservatives have taken over.

I guess they don't make their presence known because they don't have devotion to the Jehovah of War/American Jesus and the St. Ronald Gipper Reagan (for Neocons and Religious Right respectively).

They don't have the organization that they once did, much like the Social Democrats and Civil Libertarians in the Democrats lost their focus decades ago.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Through the 90s, if memory serves, yes.

*quickly rewrites history*

NOPE! Libruls wur alweeze godless commie batstruds!

Foiled again!

[The Ben Boys]

She should say the same about liberals and school teachers.

I love how people who are conservative (not saying you are but I'm guessing) assume anyone who opposes them is a liberal, as if NO OTHER IDEOLOGY EXISTS besides conservatism (which has the American Jesus) and liberalism (godless commies).

Ok... not sure why I'm quoted.

[Luziyca]

Or at least that's the title of an essay in National Review by A.J. Delgado, who calls into question much of the right's seemingly knee-jerk defense of police officers. Without denying that individual law enforcement officials do stellar and brave work, or denying the need for a police force, she points out what could be seen as an inherent contradiction in conservative philosophy and the tendency of conservatives to stand solely on the side of representatives of the law regardless of the facts of the case. In doing so, she touches on many of the stories we've discussed on this forum over the past few months.

A sample:

Imagine if I were to tell you there is a large group of government employees, with generous salaries and ridiculously cushy retirement pensions covered by the taxpayer, who enjoy incredible job security and are rarely held accountable even for activities that would almost certainly earn the rest of us prison time. When there is proven misconduct, these government employees are merely reassigned and are rarely dismissed. The bill for any legal settlements concerning their errors? It, too, is covered by the taxpayers. Their unions are among the strongest in the country.

No, I’m not talking about public-school teachers.

I’m talking about the police.

We conservatives recoil at the former; yet routinely defend the latter — even though, unlike teachers, police officers enjoy an utter monopoly on force and can ruin — or end — one’s life in a millisecond.

For decades, conservatives have served as stalwart defenders of police forces. There have been many good reasons for this, including long memories of the post-countercultural crime wave that devastated, and in some cases destroyed, many American cities; conservatives’ penchant for law and order; and Americans’ widely shared disdain for the cops’ usual opponents. (“Dirty hippies being arrested? Good!” is not an uncommon sentiment.) Although tough-on-crime appeals have never been limited to conservative politicians or voters, conservatives instinctively (and, it turned out, correctly) understood that the way to reduce crime is to have more cops making more arrests, not more sociologists identifying more root causes. Conservatives are rightly proud to have supported police officers doing their jobs at times when progressives were on the other side.

But it’s time for conservatives’ unconditional love affair with the police to end.

Let’s get the obligatory disclaimer out of the way: Yes, many police officers do heroic works and, yes, many are upstanding individuals who serve the community bravely and capably.

But respecting good police work means being willing to speak out against civil-liberties-breaking thugs who shrug their shoulders after brutalizing citizens.

On Thursday in Staten Island, an asthmatic 43-year-old father of six, Eric Garner, died after a group of policemen descended on him, placing him in a chokehold while attempting to arrest him for allegedly selling cigarettes. A bystander managed to capture video in which Garner clearly cries out, “I can’t breathe!” Even after releasing the chokehold (chokeholds, incidentally, are prohibited by NYPD protocol), the same officer then proceeds to shove and hold Garner’s face against the ground, applying his body weight and pressure on Garner, ignoring Garner’s pleas that he cannot breathe. Worse yet, new video shows at least eight officers standing around Garner’s lifeless, unconscious body.

Who can defend this?

And police-department Internal Affairs divisions are nearly as concerning as the cops themselves. Last week, a Miami police officer witnessed a car driving at high speeds in a pedestrian area. When he pulled the car over, the indignant driver stormed out. “Don’t you know the [expletive] I am?” the driver barked. It turns out that the driver was a police lieutenant within . . . Internal Affairs. The department in charge of ensuring proper police behavior consists of gents like this, whose first response is to assume that cops, like members of Congress, are above the law. What happened to the lieutenant? He has been transferred to “Special Investigations,” which, as a local NBC reporter points out, is more a promotion than a punishment.

You can find the entire essay here. For those who don't care to read the whole thing, here's the TL;DR: As people who value the rights of the individual over the rights of the state to control the individual, it seems ludicrous to automatically defend law enforcement officers in the face of convincing evidence that they have violated the constitutional rights of those who they are supposed to be protecting. Fourth amendment violations, police abuse resulting in injury and death, and other abuses of power are violations of the rights of the individual at the hands of agents of the state, and conservatives should constantly be on the lookout for overreach by the state, defending individual liberties against overzealous or otherwise inappropriate actions.

It's an interesting take, I believe, and one that actually makes some sense to me even as a leftist. However, I'm curious to know what conservatives on this site think of the article...not that the thread is limited to their input, of course.

I agree with the essay, and they should stop defending excessive brutality. However, because they (the American conservatives who support this) are Americans, police brutality will never decrease: only increase. Americans generally believe that they should be tough on crime, and thus ignore any results saying it is a bad idea.

[The Illuminati Overlords]

they should be given every benefit of the doubt. Every benefit of the doubt.

These guys are not randomly selected, they are essentially the modern day incarnation of the Knights Templar. Let's not get sidetracked by a few mistakes... Sworn brothers who uphold the law making life and death decisions and having to risk their lives on a daily basis to protect us from evil. These guys are chosen for their moral character as much as for their potential in combat...

State over rights of individual: there's millions of people, but one state. Ergo the state is the individual.
Right. Except that abuses do occur. While I do believe in the presumption of innocence for legal purposes, should they be given greater credence than the citizens accusing them, especially if the brutality or abuse of power is documented on video? And if so, aren't you favoring the state over the rights of the individual?