Changes to the police might tip the future of America

Summary: The role of the police might be a fulcrum on which the future of America turns. Their role and situation is poorly understood by Americans, taken for granted by most, and despised by a large and increasing number. Radical changes in policing is one of the many large social engineering experiments in which the Left has enrolled us – as lab rats. The outcome will teach humanity much, and might determine the future of America.

Soon there will be no exit from the path we are on.

There is no exit. By luzitanija, AdobeStock - 87536846.
By luzitanija, AdobeStock – 87536846.

Police in our inner cities have a difficult job. The job is dangerous. The oft-quoted occupational fatality rate of 13.3 officers per 100,000 (vs. the national average of 3.5) is high but misleading. It combines those officers working at desks with those on the street, and those patrolling violent inner cities with posh suburbs. Their suicide rate is higher than their occupational fatality rate.

We expect much of them, beyond the responsibility of carrying arms and putting their lives at risk. The regulations governing their actions are vast, contradictory, ever-changing – with (on the books, at least) often severe consequences for violations by officers engaged in potentially violent engagements on the street. Many of the situations they face would challenge even Harvard social scientists, such facing violent “domestic disputes”, violent mentally disabled people, a hostile crowd while arresting a criminal, or standing on a dark street facing a giant mob while pelted with rocks and bottles. For those with neither experience nor empathy, sitting a comfortable office, these transform from pants-wetting terrifying to childishly simple exercises.

For all this, we pay them little. Starting salaries are $36,000 at the Detroit PD and $42,500 for the NYPD, rising to $85k after 5.5 years. An important intangible traditional benefit was the public’s respect for the “thin blue line.” Wikipedia describes this as “a term for the police that is used to assert that they are the line which keeps society from descending into violent chaos.” America’s Left will test this theory (this “assertion”), with us as their lab rats.

An equilibrium developed, as usual. Inner city police were recruited and retained in adequate numbers to keep crime at tolerable levels, at a tolerable cost. They were often brutal and corrupt. The system survived the mysterious 1970 – 1991 rise in crime, surviving until it receded. In scores of posts I documented how this system provided little justice and put violent offenders in often third-world-like prisons. Guilt was determined by prosecutors, punishment by plea bargains. As a result, US crime stats are fiction – since plea bargains reduce offense in exchange for lighter sentences (i.e., actual crime rates are higher). This is why homicide rates are one of the few reliable indicators (dead is dead).

With high US crime rates (relative to our peer nations), a better system would have required vastly more money. A triple or quadruple of funding for the entire system, from street cops to parole officers. Neither Left or Right cares to do that. Accused felons demanding jury trials would collapse the system immediately.

Complicating all this is the fantastically high crime rate by African-Americans (details here). With deep causes in the collapse of Black families and Black communities beginning in the 1960s, I doubt anyone has a clue how to fix it – and now few dare to even discuss it. Few of our elites, Black or white, care about the resulting flood of African-American blood daily shed (mostly by their peers). The Left discovered this only when they realized its political utility (their recommendations are irrelevant to its causes).

The revolution begins

“The worse, the better.”
— One of the most powerful revolutionary insights, ever. Attributed to the Russian revolutionary socialist, Nikolay Chernyshevsky (1928 – 1889).

Now the situation has changed. The African-American community has evolved during the past generation to esteem its criminals (although they are their usual victims). Many of the “victims” they lionize are career violent criminals. In a better world, their mothers would want them removed from society. This delegitimizes the police. Black Lives Matter and the broader Left are only completing this long process.

This makes law enforcement, or even maintaining public order, impossible in our inner cities. America is founded on some degree of consent by the governed. Our institutions are not equipped to be occupying forces. As such, we see them shattering a little more every day on TV. The situation has radically changed – it is a revolution – and police officials are responding irrationally. But what would a rational response look like? Should we hope or fear their rational response?

Now the Left moves in for the kill. Without effective opposition, the pursuit phase of battle begins as they chase down their dispirited foes. Their information dominance in the media allows them to shape the narrative (e.g., few see the videos disproving the “largely peaceful protestors” story). Their policies are unleashing chaos in the cities they run.

  • Easy bail, allowing criminals to quickly resume their careers.
  • Allowing convicted felons to vote – a new special interest group.
  • Increasing numbers of complex regulations for police on the street.
  • Defunding police.

Best of all – decriminalizing crime, such as California’s Proposition 47 (called in Orwellian fashion, the “Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act”) which made theft of under $950 a misdemeanor (i.e., ignored by police in our high crime society). Other states have followed suit. People have slowly adjusted to this new jubilee. Stores quickly reported dramatic increases in shoplifting; (see here, here, and here). Grab some goods, jump into a car idling outside – it is shopping in the New America. The rest of us pay higher prices. Expect more increases in theft but with less press coverage (who dares oppose the narrative?). How much of this misdemeanor theft is reported? Why bother?

What next?

What is the part of our society most sensitive to these changes? My guess (guess!) is the police. There are already reports of police being dispirited. Good news for donut shops, bad for those on the street needing protections.

Perhaps more significant factors are recruitment and retention of inner-city police forces. How many people with good alternative careers – the people police want to recruit – will join urban police forces in the high-crime cities run by the Democratic Party? At the other end, how many people with good alternatives will want to stay? Especially once they qualify for full retirement – with the lure of a lower-stress (perhaps higher-income) second career.

These effects probably will appear in the next year or so (people only slowly change their life plans). But some evidence of increased retirements has already begun. Like the retirement of NYPD Deputy Inspector Richard Brea. The NYPD has responded to the flood of retirement applications by putting restrictions on them – probably creating a corps of people pulling paychecks but doing as little as possible (with as little risk as possible). Also, see similar news from Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

The effect of these things could be immense. Every organization relies on a small fraction of its people who are their best leaders and a cadre of exceptionally competent performers. Losing many of these quickly can hollow it out.

{Assistant Chief Regina Howard said}”Every single day, there are resignation and retirement letters coming up to the chief’s office from members we wouldn’t have expected.” “These are lieutenants, captains, that play integral roles as it relates to this department,” Assistant Chief Michael Brunson said. “They had dates they were planning on retiring. Because of the environment, because of what’s going on in the zeitgeist, they are deciding to push those retirements up because of this.” {Source.}

As for the effect on crime rates, they are already rising in the cities being used as Leftist experiments in social engineering. While future generations will welcome the data from this test of deliberate destabilization of society, the poor and vulnerable will suffer the most. This likely outcome does not bother the Left, as it seems likely to bring to unprecedented power in America. Some eggs get broken to make an omelet. Soon many cities will have screens like this for Chicago (from the aptly named “Hey Jackass” website). Of the total of 429 homicides, police killed 3 (probably most or all of them justified).

2020 Year To Date Totals

30 Day Stupidity Trend

Another inevitable result that will surprise people!

Private security has been a growth industry, growing faster than government law enforcement workers (1.6 to 1.2 million). While the Left can defund the poor of police protection, the urban rich and upper-middle class hire their own (as they have done in education, replacing broken city schools with private ones). No need to guess at how this will play out.

South Africa and Brazil Show What Defunding the Police Means.
“Get ready for private security forces – for the middle class.”
By Emma Freire at Human Events, 16 July, 2020.

Adding yet another burden on the middle class will just further shrink their numbers. This is a feature, not a bug, to our elites. The independence of the middle class has long been an annoying limitation to the power of our rulers.

When we have lost hope for a better future, we have lost everything.

Blonde woman reads "boycott fear" written on the white wall
By Pincio, AdobeStock – 321199144.

For More Information

Ideas! See my recommended books and films at Amazon. For something different, see “The Swallow – a story of the WWII Night Witches.”

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about racismabout crimeabout prison, about our criminal justice system, and especially these…

  1. Our prisons are a mirror showing the soul of America.  It’s not a pretty picture.
  2. More about the collapse of the American Criminal Justice System.
  3. Final thoughts about America’s Criminal Justice System.
  4. The Disgrace of Our Criminal {in}Justice System, and hints of reform in the air.
  5. Can We Fix Our Shameful Prisons? Why they should be, and why we might not do so.
  6. ImportantAmerica’s unspeakable problem: African-American’s crime rates.
  7. Harsh truths about mass incarceration in America.
  8. The Boomers see the ruin of their dreams.
  9. See America’s dark revolutionary future.
Evaluating Police Uses of Force.
Available at Amazon.

Answers to questions few ask about policing

Evaluating Police Uses of Force.

By Seth Stoughton, Assoc. Prof. at the University of South Carolina School of Law.

In a better America, this would be an influential book. See Robert VerBruggen’s review at National Review.

“The book is incredibly topical, clearly written, and at 352 pages relatively brief. …{It catalogues} statutes, policies, training practices, tactics, and court rulings from across the country. Cops’ use of force is subject to numerous standards at once …the federal Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court, state laws governing homicide and other crimes of violence, departmental policies on proper tactics, and even the community reactions to viral videos that shape the broader debate — and Stoughton et al. discuss the matter in depth from all of these angles.”

From the publisher …

“Police violence has historically played an important role in shaping public attitudes toward the government. Community trust and confidence in policing have been undermined by the perception that officers are using force unnecessarily, too frequently, or in problematic ways. The use of force, or harm suffered by a community as a result of such force, can also serve as a flashpoint, a spark that ignites long-simmering community hostility.

“In Evaluating Police Uses of Force, legal scholar Seth W. Stoughton, former deputy chief of police Jeffrey J. Noble, and distinguished criminologist Geoffrey P. Alpert explore a critical but largely overlooked facet of the difficult and controversial issues of police violence and accountability: how does society evaluate use-of-force incidents? By leading readers through answers to this question from four different perspectives – constitutional law, state law, administrative regulation, and community expectations – and by providing critical information about police tactics and force options that are implicated within those frameworks, Evaluating Police Uses of Force helps situate readers within broader conversations about governmental accountability, the role that police play in modern society, and how officers should go about fulfilling their duties.”

Other good books about this vital subject

Prison Break: Why Conservatives Turned Against Mass Incarceration by David Dagan and Steven Teles (2016). Dagan is a journalist with a PhD in political science. Teles is an Assc. Professor of Pol Science at Johns Hopkins.

The Collapse of American Criminal Justice by William J. Stuntz (2011). He was a Professor of Law at Harvard. See some excerpts here.

Locked In by John F. Pfaff (2017) – “The True Causes of Mass Incarceration and How to Achieve Real Reform.” He is a Law Professor at Fordham. See my review of this important book.

An essential book about our broken criminal injustice system: Locking Up Our Own: Crime and Punishment in Black America by James Forman Jr. (2017). See my review.

Locked In: The True Causes of Mass Incarceration and How to Achieve Real Reform
Available at Amazon.
Locking Up Our Own: Crime and Punishment in Black America
Available at Amazon.

 

35 thoughts on “Changes to the police might tip the future of America”

  1. As a South African I appreciated your reference to SA. What the article didn’t mention is that our police are criminals. Actively involved in extortion, protection rackets and the drug trade.
    Recently a friend was burgled and the police were called. They were caught on surveillance cameras cleaning out the jewelry that the thieves left behind.
    A good piece, well done. You need however to proof read it as it has some minor errors and one blinder: American Americans?

  2. You wrote of the “high crime rate by American-Americans.” I believe that this is a typo.

  3. After posing what seemed like a genuinely curious question about the possible futures of law enforcement, this piece disappointingly, but unsurprisingly, turned into what seems like just another jeremiad about ostensible “misguided” mad scientist “liberal” social engineers wearing what you “see” as blinders.

    I suggest it may be you who has difficulty seeing the current and potential future forests due to being too focused on past and present trees. At the very least, it seems you choose? to ignore the dominant macro econ trends of the past 50 years, which I think are the primary causes of what you see as an incorrigible crime-ridden urban under-class, which has no one to blame but themselves for their plight, e.g.

    De-industrialization/Globalization
    De-unionization
    Deregulation
    Automation
    “Trickle-up” neoliberal “free market” fiscal policy
    Anti-trust laws enforced only if oligopolies result in consumer price increases rather than innovation-killing lack of competition.

    This has resulted in record levels of mortgage, student, auto, and consumer credit card debt, and shrinkage of the post-WW2 “golden age” of the American Dream–which primarily benefited the white suburban middle class–as well as vast increases in income and wealth inequality and concentration in ever fewer hands, and now a US housing market in which there is no county in the US where a full-time minimum-wage worker can afford a two-bedroom apartment.

    And those are just the ostensibly “UNintentional” ostensibly free-market forces that caused the perceived increase in crime, resulting in the ostensible war on drugs, followed by the ostensible war on crime largely CAUSED by the war on drugs, IMO.

    Not mentioned by you are all of the intentional forms of structural and systemic racism and discrimination that still exist today, even if some are now less “de jure” and more “de facto” now.

    So in addition to long overdue and truly serious consideration of many long-sought liberal reforms–that have never been fully adopted or not adopted at all–I would suggest we start with a new social safety net designed to be more flexible and resilient in a wider range of plausible 21st-century scenarios, based on a foundation of universal basic income and universal health care–

    based on citizenship instead of employment–

    especially in light of the very real possibility that future demand for jobs could gradually exceed the supply of jobs if and as the “creative destruction” of automation eliminates more jobs than it creates.

    I think this redesigned safety net alone will reduce many of what you might perceive as intrinsic social and econ underclass pathologies, including the need for too many to commit crime just to survive.

    I could add more details, including more specifics about possible ways to structure, fund, and implement these and other reforms, but will refrain for now because that seems too far beyond the question of the possible futures of law enforcement.

    1. Thomas,

      Wow. Missing the point, big-time.

      First, every large society has a list of problems like you provide. Every day in American history such a list – or a longer one – could be made.

      Second – and more important – the existence of problem does not mean that every radical change is a great idea. It is far easier to make things worse than better.

      I suggest taking off your blinkers and reading the post. You might learn something.

      1. Agree to disagree. I rarely learn anything new from you, especially since you seem to recycle the same ideas about the same topics with increasing frequency, but without shedding any new light and, instead, just generating more heat and/or skewed misinformation.

        And your simplistic dismissal of my “list” of macro econ trends–as if a new one could be made by anyone at anytime about any society ever–is just deflection and misdirection, IMO, aka denial or wilfull ignorance.

        So the problem is not that I don’t understand your argument, IMO. The problem is that your pov is insufficiently comprehensive, either by design or due to insufficient awareness of a more comprehensive set of data and perspectives on topics such as this.

        I don’t have time this moment to provide you and your readers with links to additional more comprehensive source material. But will do so asap–IF this rebuttal is published.

      2. Final comment: Your perception that I am “missing the point” reconfirms my impression that you are very linear reductionist thinker. That is not a criticism, but just an observation based on my perception of your cognitive style.

        While you cover a wide range of topics in your blog, I have long had the impression you don’t easily see actual and potential connections between seemingly discrete topics, whereas I tend to see everything through a more wide-angle and long-range inter-connected or interactive lens.

        It has also become more obvious that despite a patina of a “beyond left and right” pov–and recurrent references to the need to better contemplate the future impacts of this or that–your default pov is more stereotypically reactionary conservatism.

        In other words, I am more of a big picture systems thinker, and for nearly 40 years have been cultivating an ever deeper and broader understanding of the history, evolution, and potential futures of a wide range of STEEP issues and trends, i.e. threats and opportunities, as well as various ways these might interact to create a wide range of plausible future scenarios.

        This has become so second-nature to me now I tend to forget that this is not the normal or default cognitive style of most people, including many highly educated ones.

        Perhaps that better explains why you think I miss your linear reductionist points, while I think you can’t see the forest for the trees.

        That also likely explains your frequent petulant responses whenever anyone challenges your pedantic self-perceived superior erudition.

  4. Meh. If you import the Third World, you import Third World problems especially if you encourage everyone to keep their culture.

    While I’d rather live in the free America that is on the way out, I at least can enjoy a little schadenfreude that the progressive fools pushing for open borders and less policing will get a bitter lesson in reality in the coming years. Many of them are my neighbors, friends and relatives.

  5. “Adding yet another burden on the middle class will just further shrink their numbers. This is a feature, not a bug, to our elites. The independence of the middle class has long been an annoying limitation to the power of our rulers.”

    The above quotation diminishes your otherwise very good work. You do it quite frequently, and should discontinue the practice. While conspiracies do happen, the bigger the the more likely it exists only in the imagination. Society-wide ones seldom exist other than in the minds of simpletons or the gullible.

    A more credible explanation of our current predicament is people pursuing their own selfish agendas at the expense of the greater good: businesses maximizing profits, progressives implementing ill-considered utopias, etc.

    It seems odd to me that in a website trying to get average Americans to take responsibility for their country you would hint at conspiracies. People who accept conspiracy theories are the kind of people who are probably less capable of self government in the first place.

    1. RJ,

      “While conspiracies do happen”

      In the real world, groups act in common self-interest without what you regard as “conspiracies” (a meaningless term). Whether in what Marx called “class interest” or John Robb calls an “open source insurgency” – people routinely and easily work together for common goals.

      1. OK then …. what solid proof do you have that the elites are deliberately destroying the middle class: “Adding yet another burden on the middle class will just further shrink their numbers. This is a feature, not a bug, to our elites.”

        Who specifically is doing it? What proof do you have that their primary intent it to destroy the middle class rather (as opposed to tolerated collateral damage)? Let’s see documents, names, etc.

      2. RJ,

        “what solid proof”

        Very seldom in life is there “solid proof” of anything. Life is not like TV crime shows.

        The decades of public policies which have hammered the middle class are proof sufficient for operational purposes. Their effect has long been obvious, but not only have large-scale corrective measures not been applied (by either party), new measures continue to appear with each new season.

        By the time people like you get your “solid proof” it will all be over.

      3. “Adding yet another burden on the middle class will just further shrink their numbers. This is a feature, not a bug, to our elites.”

        OK then … you seem to imply that the elites are deliberately destroying the middle class. What proof do you offer that the shrinkage of the middle class is a deliberate design of the elites rather than collateral damage? Documents? Transcripts of speeches? Congressional testimony?

      4. Follow-up to RJ,

        “While conspiracies do happen”

        Before Marx wrote about class interest – allowing groups to act together with much or any coordination (let alone secret meetings in basements as a “conspiracy”) – there was Adam Smith’s “invisible hand.” Elites acting in their own individual (but common) interests act together as if coordinated. It is easy to grasp. They want lower taxes, less government interference in their lives and enterprises, weak or non-existent unions, etc. Casual meetings over golf about their common goals are more than sufficient to produce similar actions.

        And before that, there are flocks of birds flying south. No conspiracies or planning needed. They sort themselves out and off they go.

  6. That term “African Americans” is used incorrectly. It was coined by an American named Jesse Jackson who did not arrive here from Africa. An immigrant from Africa on becoming an American Citizen is American.

    “African American” is Newspeak just like “Immigrant” has been conflated from Illegal Immigrant.

    I’m so sick of that crap! Teddy Roosevelt is too!

    1. Long trail,

      Interesting background on the term.

      Until the Left issues their Newspeak dictionary, with daily updates, all writing will be problematic.

      We’ll all cope as best we can.

      IMO, the language wars are no longer a high priority. It’s like complaining about the reign of PC at universities. Or rising water covering my ankles when the dam above the city is cracking.

  7. “Now the Left moves in for the kill. Without effective opposition the pursuit phase of the battle begins…”

    I hope your wrong–but nicely put.

    Michael Lind has recently updated his perspective of the American Class structure and it is worth pondering in light of our present situation and our search for a way out.

    He states that American politics is “…little more than the internal politics of what he calls the overclass made up primarily of a managerial elite(both public and private and extremely well-credentialed) along with old money rentiers of various sorts and what he calls the Professional bourgeoisie and the Small business bourgeoisie.

    He argues that presently the working class majority has lost its grassroots, mass-membership institutions that once gave it collective bargaining power–private sector trade unions, influential religious organizations and local party politics. He maintains that members of the working-class majority now play no role except as occasional voters. They tend to be ignored except during the election seasons, when they are targeted by manipulative appeals based on race and gender in the case of Democrats and religion and patriotism in the case of Republicans. He adds that the professionals fear that they will not be able to secure high status jobs with their educational credentials and the small proprietors fear they will lose the businesses and be be compelled to work for others.

    He then argues that a primary goal of the so-called progressives in 2020s America will be to expand employment opportunities for college-educated, center-left professionals like themselves, while adding new wings to the welfare state that are tailed to their personal needs.

    For example, Lind maintains that the slogan “Defund the Police” is interpreted by the bourgeoisie professional left to mean transferring tax revenues from police officers, who are mostly unionized but not college-educated to social service and nonprofit professionals who are mostly college educated but not unionized. Furthermore, Lind believes, that the enactment of free college education and college debt forgiveness would also primarily benefit this professional bourgeoisie, not the working class majority who education tends to end with high school. And in a similar way the calls for public funding for universal day-care allows both parties in a two-earner professional couple to maximize their individual income and individual career achievements by outsourcing the care of their children to a mostly-female, less well paid workforce at taxpayer expense.

    1. Lind and Taibbi and Sullivan and Yglesias are obsolete, bypassed by the Left. And slowly realizing it.

      They can’t adjust to the reality that nobody significant on either side cares about them. They’re not invited to speak at BLM rallies or to advise their leaders.

      They’re like medieval scholastics after the Reformation begins,giving answers to questions nobody is asking.

      1. I believe you mean Renaissance began.

        Matt Talibbi maybe ignored by the sjw left, but that doesn’t stop him reporting on there stupidity to a growing audience.
        Well, he got my 3 dollars anyway.

        There is a socially conservative left in America, it’s a great untapped resource, also there are the large numbers of socially conservative immigrants, they not the sjw left who are the future of America. We are seeing the far left at there culminating point, from here things begin to ebb, they have served there purpose for now. Once the election is won the democratic party will withdraw cover, the security services will start briefing against them. They will be rolled up once there function has been served.
        The tide has started to turn in the media,
        I’ve been in meetings where cancel and sjw culture have been mocked and greeted with eye rolls, unthinkable a year ago. People are tired of the bullshit and drama, the msm as usual is way behind the curve.

      2. Gerard,

        No, I meant the Reformation -as I said.

        As for your forecast -I think you’re dreaming. As always in revolutions, people confidently expect the establishment to win. Much as people expected the French to win in Spring 1940.

        Times change. I suggest that you read Zweig’s The World of Yesterday to see how such periods feel.

        This is the third wave of Left’s advance in the past century. Each different, but each deeper change than the previous one. Now the very legitimacy of the regime is washing away.

      3. Call me naive and old-fashioned but when push comes to shove, I believe that BLM does not advocate policies that are truly beneficial to the black community and consequently will not survive and prosper. They do however offer support to the politics of what Lind labels the professional bourgeoise (primarily based in the public sector, universities and nonprofits) which indeed is an extremely powerful faction in contemporary American politics and is actively involved in the current power push from the Left.

        For example, BLM was founded in 2013 by 3 black lesbian, college educated women (Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza and Opal Tometi). Cullors was a performance artist who studied religion and philosophy at UCLA and Alicia Garza studied anthropology and sociology at the University of California at San Diego. In addition, one of the original founding BLM chapters chapters was in L.A. and it was led by Melissa Abdullah, who was then a fully tenured Professor and chairmen of the Pan-African Studies Department at Cal State L.A.

        Many of these original players were deeply committed to Queer theory and what they labeled as gender non-conforming people.

      4. As always in revolutions, people confidently expect the establishment to win. Much as people expected the French to win in Spring 1940.

        Yes. You could also have chosen as another comparison, much as the aristocracy in France in 1780 confidently expected that the basic structure of the country was solid, robust and immune to any movements of violent change.

        This sense, that the thing is rock solid, allows people to indulge and ally with really dangerous groups whose aim is total destruction. The aristocracy meanwhile see it as a jockeying for power between various traditional factions. It also allows them to talk wildly, not realizing there are other elements who take what they say quite literally and act on it.

        The breakdown of order, what you call the ‘decriminalization of crime’ is a very grave symptom. Another grave symptom is this loss of faith on the part of the nomenklatura which I think underlies many of the other symptoms. This seems to be happening so universally and so completely that its like the air they breathe, they don’t even see it happening to them, let alone understand its significance.

        I don’t know what is coming but suspect its not going to be nice.

  8. The Man Who Laughs

    There’s lots of reasons why the Police have become a target of the Left. Partly it’s because State and local law enforcement is one of the few power centers the Left doesn’t control. (They more or less own the FBI, as Russiagate proved.) Also, one the characteristic features of the modern Left is the hate hoax, and while the media routine falls for and enables these, the police are not so easily taken in. Most hate hoaxes collapse quickly under even cursory police investigation. Police under the political control of the Left would enable the Left to wield enormous power by using bogus claims of “hate crimes” to destroy victims at will.

    1. I would like to second the point made by Gerad that there is a significant socially conservative Left in the U.S. (For example, see the writings of Christopher Lasch in the 1980s and early 1990s)–such a faction may become extremely relevant in future coalition building to stop or at least help to paralyze the professional bourgeoisie and their move for power.

      Again to quote Lind:

      “While the professional bourgeoisie based in the public sector, universities and nonprofits is the social basis of progressivism the social basis of conservatism is the small business bourgeoise, particularly those who are native, white and suburban or exurban. When the professional bourgeoisie aligns itself with the Managerial elite you get Clinton-Obama-Biden left neoliberalism. When the small business bourgeoisie aligns with the Managerial elite you get George W. Bush-Paul Ryan-Nikki Haley right neo-liberalism.”

      A future blocking coalition might consist of a strong social conservative cultural message (everything is not permitted) which as chaos accelerates, becomes more and more persuasive to broad sections of the working and middle class including the black and brown communities, along with a redistribution of wealth strategy which gives a priority consideration to the expansion of property ownership.

  9. Hi fabius,

    This was my understanding.
    Martian Luther, and Calvin we’re onboard with the scholastic philosophical method. They rejected reason as a way to find god, which the Catholics considered vital, however the rejection of scholastism was skin deep. They kept the method, but reject some conculsions. It was humanism that provided the real alternative.

    Why hom in on france 1940?
    I think my point stands, there is a large socially conservative working class in the US, with mass immigration, this stands to increase.
    It beggers belief that the Republican party is ignoring this. Why have they left the field to democratic party? My only conclusion is that the Republican party is intellectually dead, it stumbles on in the grip dead ideologies, this was why Trump was able to hermit crab the party so easily. The Republican party no longer represents it’s voters. The only thing that binds to the party is the fear of the alternative.

    1. Gerard,

      The Reformation and counter-reformation pretty well trashed the scholastic works, making them pretty much dead letters.

      “Why hom in on france 1940?”

      The French -English were expected to win in 1940. They had almost every advantage. Numbers of men and tanks, fighting on the defensive, the Maginot Line, readiness (no surprise).

      Yet they were quickly crushed. There was little effective defense.

      So it is today. The Left is on a roll, with little effective resistance. Major corporations, celebrities, government agencies bow before them.

      At so point their attacks will exhaust themselves, but they will have made fantastic advances by then. Perhaps a counter-force can organize then.

      “there is a large socially conservative working class in the US, with mass immigration, this stands to increase.”

      Can’t fault you for dreaming. Conservatives have been saying that since the 1970s. Hasn’t been true yet.

      “It beggers belief that the Republican party is ignoring this.”

      Political parties in the US are loose coalitions of special interest groups with a collection of overlapping ideologies. They are not the corporate-like entities you appear to imagine them as.

      The current movement of the Left isn’t the Democratic Party in action. In fact, it probably will absorb the DP and replace its leaders – as I explained in my previous post.

      1. Back in the tough on crime 90s I predicted that by this time period we would be soft on crime. I predicted jails and prisons would release dangerous criminals out on the streets and a society that cheered this on. I based this on the fact that I noticed a trend where women were attracted to and were choosing bad boy types over decent men. Of course criminals are the ultimate bad boys, they aren’t just posing they are truly bad.

        So now the soft on crime trend is happening but it’s all based on race, black lives matter, social inequality, police bashing etc. Nothing at all about women feeling attraction towards the criminal element and wanting them available as sex partners. I guess I was wrong. Or was I? Although it isn’t being talked about out loud I can’t help but wonder if women’s preference for bad boys isn’t a hidden reason we are in a soft on crime cycle right now?

      2. Jay,

        “I can’t help but wonder if women’s preference for bad boys isn’t a hidden reason we are in a soft on crime cycle right now?”

        That’s out of the box thinking! BLM has a largely female leadership. I’ve read that the daylight protests are disproportionately female (both Black and white). Also, your comment reminds me of the fan mail and marriage proposals that serial killers receive in jail.

        See this post about women’s love of Dark Triad traits.

        Interesting times.

  10. I think that going from $42,500 to $85000 in 5.5 years is pretty damn good pay, especially with the sweet retirement benefits that NYPD provides. Also, the police rarely prevent any crimes.

    1. D,

      “think that going from $42,500 to $85000 in 5.5 years is pretty damn good pay”

      The average income in NYC is $75 thousand. So $85k is not “damm good” for a job with far higher than average rates of injury (up to death) and suicide.

      “the police rarely prevent any crimes.”

      The Left is determined to test your mad belief by defunding police in our high crime cites and putting on bales of additional complex regulations.

      That most people believe your belief is mad does not deter them, any more than it has stooped their many previous disastrous experiments in social engineering.

  11. An excellent, and I’m certain, unintended consequence of this talk of defunding the police is the near elimination of anti-2A actions, publicly anyway.

    Sadly, the same places that want to defund the police generally also have the most restrictive gun laws, both in regards to access and use in self defense. Even in places where concepts of Castle Doctrine are legally protected, leftist politicians want to use socio-political pressure to bypass those protections, such as the ideologically motivated prosecution of the McCloskey’s in St. Louis.

    On a completely different tack, I wonder if defunding the police might actually have a positive result. Not as advocates for such expect, but as a result of removing the “enemy” from which those communities protect the criminal element. The “snitches get stitches” mentality might go out the window, when there is nobody to whom to snitch. Not to mention that the people in those communities will become reliant on themselves for justice, which will likely result in the reversal of the culture of celebrating criminality.

  12. Canadian police are anti-male, regardless of race. White men with jobs and assets lose everything because of a lie from an ex-wife. Toronto Police turns a blind eye on female teachers stripping naked for sexual education classes, but arrest elementary students for offending that teacher.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top
%d bloggers like this: