Nothing captures just how bizarre and unearthly Democrats have become than when they get to talking about police and law enforcement. (Their fixation with gender bending is a close second.)
It would honestly do them a lot of good to just stop discussing the issue altogether. You can see it on their faces how hard it is to articulate simple concepts like, “criminals should be in jail,” or, “police deserve respect.”
They would rather complicate the issue by talking about the history of slavery, “disadvantaged communities,” and — my favorite — systemic oppression.
All the data show that across the board, regardless of race, the overwhelming majority of police and civilian interactions are fine; that minorities call on cops for help at a far higher rate than whites; and that the chance of an unarmed black man being killed by police is next to nonexistent (and when such an incident does occur, it’s because he was resisting arrest or attempting to flee in a life-threatening, high-speed chase).
But liberals refuse to leave it alone, instead writhing in pain as they try to find some existential problem with our law enforcement.
To wit, New York Times columnist-in-training Charles Blow wrote Wednesday that former president Trump and his voters aren’t genuine supporters of the police—okay, whatever you say. But Blow couldn’t make the point without first offering a winding, tedious lecture on the theory of policing.
“In a system of accountability and consequences, there must be first points of contact, people who are charged with preventing and stopping the rule breaking,” he prattled. “In our society, those people are police officers. Their role, in the abstract, is essential. However, the way that we have constructed it is problematic.”
Recall Missouri Democrat Rep. Cori Bush, a champion of zeroing out police budgets, last year attempting to explain why she spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on private, armed security. “I have private security because my body is worth being on this planet right now,” she said, somehow, without laughing. “I have private security because they, the white supremacist, racist narrative that they drive into this country— the fact that they don’t care that this black woman that has put her life on the line— they can’t match my energy, first of all. This black woman who puts her life on the line. They don’t care that I could be taken out of here. They actually are probably okay with that. But this is the thing, I won’t let them get that off. You can’t get that off.”
That is a direct transcript of what she said on national television.
Listening to Democrats talk about law enforcement is like watching that “In Living Color” skit with the Oswald Bates character, a prisoner who confidently uses a slew of multisyllabic words that ultimately mean nothing, but he thinks he’s smart for using them anyway. (“First of all, we must internalize the flatulation of the matter by transmitting the effervescent of the Indonesian proximity in order to further segregate the crux of my venereal infection.”)
Free tip for Democrats: Really just shut up. You’ve turned all of our big cities into war zones where theft and vandalism continue with impunity in no small part because a fentanyl addict died in a freak accident. No matter how you cut it, no matter how complicated you try to make it, law enforcement is not your issue and you’re scaring everyone.
Originally Posted on: https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/30/the-creepy-weirdness-of-democrats-is-best-understood-when-they-talk-about-law-enforcement/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-creepy-weirdness-of-democrats-is-best-understood-when-they-talk-about-law-enforcement
[By: Eddie Scarry