• A Crucial Dichotomy

         I find it strange that I can’t remember ever reading about, or even hearing any public discussions about, an obvious dichotomy, which exists between many communities and their police officers. Perhaps it’s so plainly there as to go virtually unnoticed. Let’s take my own community for example. Seattle is known as a politically left-leaning community with a one-party—Democrat—Mayor and City Council form of government, and an off-the-charts “leftie” U.S. Representative. For anyone who thinks this analysis is arguable, it seems logical that any community that chronically elects liberal Democrats to office would correctly be labeled, liberal. This is one half of the dichotomy.

         Now let me set up the other half of this societal split-personality. It won’t surprise anyone if I assert that a majority of police officers, I’m talking street cops and detectives, consider themselves politically conservative—especially with regard to law and order issues. In fact, if anyone questions this assertion, they need only spend five minutes, or less, with an average group of cops to corroborate my observation. Or they can speak to one of those rare, frustrated, and politically lonely, liberal officers—they’ll tell you.  

         This means a situation where, essentially, conservatives protect liberals. This despite the fact that Seattle liberals often have some pretty harsh words for the threatened species known as the rare Seattle conservative, and, for that matter, conservatives in general.

         So why do conservatives continue to work for leftwing leaders and to protect liberal communities? Because, most cops have a special sense of duty, which affords them the capacity to protect and serve people with whom they disagree, and more over, even folks who blatantly dislike police. Cops do it because it’s good for our communities, and for our country.

         Local governments don’t seem to acknowledge the conundrum, the irony that has liberal governments, constantly passing nanny-cratic laws and social engineering policies, which serve to alienate their own cops, often even from their own citizens. The good lord knows liberals are not attracted to law enforcement, for whatever reasons, but those who list left certainly exceed their representation in community groups hostile toward police, so they do also have a sense of duty, it just lies elsewhere.

         There’s one thing politically left-leaning communities, who rely on politically right-leaning cops, should think about. If the liberals in society can’t, or won’t, protect their own communities, then what happens if, or when, the conservatives become tired of being thought of, and too often treated, as barely better than the criminals they arrest, by the leaders of the communities they serve? What happens if, in great numbers, conservative-leaning folks opted out of law enforcement in liberal cities and decided to take their crime-fighting skills down the road to some more, conservative community? While the left can’t seem to find the desire to protect their communities in a law enforcement capacity, perhaps someday the right won’t either.

  • What if Liberty was America’s Public Policy?

         What if before any political decision was made in America, it was filtered through an individual liberty sieve instead of, as is currently the case, a left-wing political idealism filter? Liberty? In America? I know; a radical thought these days. However, let’s look at the soft tyranny of seatbelt and helmet mandates as public policy. Did the advocates consider these laws having first subjected them to a “liberty” litmus test? The test being: Does the edict infringe on personal liberty; is it really any of the government’s business?  

         No, of course they didn’t consider this—I doubt they cared. Rather than liberty, their dominant public policy is, ostensibly, safety, but more likely the true agenda is social engineering to enhance a political ideal.

         Is there anything wrong with safety? Of course not, but we have to ask, who is the sovereign over an individual’s body and the care of it, the government or the individual wearing it?

         I think if you asked a politically conservative person he’d answer, the individual. For too many liberal’s the answer would depend on the circumstances. For example, according to many liberals if the decision involves how you care for your body while driving a car or riding a bike or motorcycle, the government has the right to decide what you do with your own body, but if the decision involves birth control or whether or not to have an abortion, then the individual’s rights are supremely sovereign in such a way as to make any libertarian giddy, and in that case the government better, “keep its paws off my God damned body.”

  • No Mystery Here

         I’m tired of hearing about the “mystery” behind President Obama’s continuing 60% approval ratings, despite the approval of his handling of the economy being much lower. This is no mystery; these polls are as much a referendum on Obama’s voters, as it is on the President himself.

         No one likes to admit when they’re wrong and voters are no different. President Obama, for a variety of reasons, sane and insane, is enjoying the biggest political, benefit of the doubt, this country has ever seen.

         However, as it’s said: The higher one goes, the further there is to fall. There’s evidence that the messianic house of cards is beginning to crumble, and when it comes crashing down, it’s going to slam into the earth like a blazing meteor.

         Fortunately for liberty-loving, Americans, I’m confident President Obama has grossly overestimated American’s appetite for Socialism. This situation may also be the biggest blessing in disguise to those who revere the Constitution, because of its ability to coalesce the loyal opposition.