It’s true Democrats sometimes say the secret to good legislation is compromise between the parties. The problem with this squishy tenet is it’s a more common refrain when the leftists are out of power. When they are in power, they are more likely to employ President Obama’s We won; you lost. Deal with it! model.
But the left doesn’t allow the Republicans that luxury when they win. Instead, when the left loses elections, either the Russians “hacked” it, or Republicans somehow stole the election by colluding (not a crime) with Russia.
Amazing how projection works, eh? Accuse others of doing what you’re doing. Especially now that we’re learning about what’s increasingly looking like a failed coup d’état—in the United States of America!
It appears it was actually the Democrats who were colluding, (not to mention conspiring, which is an actual crime) with foreign parties, and using the intelligence and law enforcement apparatus of the federal government to clear one candidate of obvious wrongdoing while sabotaging a fellow Democrat primary candidate and spying on the Republican opponent’s campaign. As President Trump might say, “This is huge!”
Obama’s actual words about winning (and losing) elections are eerie, especially considering how the left has been treating President Trump’s Republican election win. In fact, while reading this, you’ll have to keep reminding yourself who it is that spoke these words:
“You don’t like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don’t break it. Don’t break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That’s not being faithful to what this country’s about.” Barack Obama uttered those words.
I never realized just how prescient and pro-Constitution Mr. Obama could be. Too bad more lefties don’t listen to his wisdom, fleeting as it seems to have been.
Now, out of power at the federal level—well, at least on the “shallow state” level, the left talks about compromise and bipartisanship—well, when they’re not being the resistance Obama spoke so eloquently against. Though he appears pretty supportive of it now.
Still, wherever they are in power, leftists work maniacally to impose their view of not only how people should live but, increasingly, how people should think. Of course, my primary interest in this topic is with how it affects police officers. This normally occurs with leftist government’s outright political indoctrination of police agencies. It’s easy; cops are a captive, para-military audience conditioned to obey lawful, if not ethical, orders.
There is a notion that is so accepted by academia and the media that it has become an almost rhetorical question: Why does the left get to be the sole arbiter of virtuous behavior, political thought, and public policy? Most people simply answer, “That’s just the way it is.” Shouldn’t the right push back and ask why? Shouldn’t the right have at least as much say as the left?
Whenever the left decides a police department is racist or some other -ist or -phobe, who do they bring in to “remedy” the situation? It’s always and every time, leftists—only leftists: liberals, progressives, social justice warriors, socialists—even full-on communists. You won’t see Republicans, conservatives, or libertarians in the mix—ever.
When I was still on the job, my city brought in a social justice program disguised as police training. Its leftist producers designed the program to smack the “unconscious bias,” “white privilege” and “Uncle Tom-ness” out of the cops. Toward the end of my career, this training was only barely disguised. Today, it’s simply standard “training” and policy.
In February 2018, I wrote an article about a recent example of this exclusively leftist, social justice indoctrination, occurring in the bucolic splendor of Vermont. Even in the hippie haven of the Green Mountain State, the cops still tend to be more conservative than the general population. The city of Burlington, the state’s largest city, contracted Dr. Bryant T. Marks, Sr. to teach Implicit Bias Training and Education sessions to its police officers. It’s ironic that the course title is itself implicitly biased.
Professor Marks’ leftist credentials are solid: he is a psychology professor at Morehouse College. He founded and serves as the director of the National Center on Inclusion, Diversity and Equity. Yes, the organization is as leftist as its politically correct lexicon indicates. No political balance in sight.
Implicit bias may have some legitimate basis in social science. I mean, every human being naturally has biases founded upon myriad environmental and experiential factors. In this case, so-called implicit bias is based on a partisan political concept that white people are racist even if they are not aware of it. Still, despite leftist attempts to coopt the term and its definition, objectively, the notion of implicit bias, when extrapolated for political discussion, is arguable. But the left vehemently opposes any intellectual discussion.
But, when in power, the left doesn’t allow the right its rightful place in any argument. After all, the virtuous leftist saints aren’t obligated to discuss anything with people they condemn as “haters.” Their job is simply to indoctrinate and reeducate such malevolent people—conservatives. Leftist city leaders simply force-feed cops their exclusive interpretation of sociopolitical issues. Then they force officers to enforce (and not enforce) laws based on policies based on their partisan political views rather than on state and federal constitutions.
Look, if a Democrat-run city wants to “have a, leftist, discussion on race,” okay, I guess. Elections have consequences. I don’t like it, but I realize race comprises a huge component of leftist political thought, and the left still controls many of America’s biggest cities.
So, I say, let’s talk. But the left doesn’t care if I agree to discuss race issues with them. Leftists don’t care what I have to say. For all their talk of “wanting a dialogue,” in reality, they don’t want to talk unless it’s within an echo chamber.
Why can’t leftists at least have the intellectual honesty to give cops, forced to attend this “training,” a balanced perspective on race and bias issues? Only then can there be an honest discussion about the issue.
If the left’s ideas are superior, as they obviously believe they are, then they should trust they will win an honest debate. The right is willing to compete on this level playing field. Why won’t the left? Because they’d lose that debate and have to give up their political hegemony on race issues.
Why won’t the left put their political positions up against contrary views in the arena of ideas and debate them? I think we know the answer to that, don’t we? Much of leftist ideology crumbles when confronted by logic and reason and emotion is removed. The left would rather mandate because they’re afraid to honestly educate. Frankly, because they are so ideologically rigid, there are very few leftists worth wasting breath debating these days.
As a remedy, instead of using straight-up leftie propaganda produced by progressive organizations like PBS, featuring exclusively black leftist speakers, how about including in the materials the views of black conservative scholars such as Dr. Thomas Sowell or Dr. Shelby Steele?
Let’s hear what leftist Professor Henry Louis Gates III or progressive Dr. Cornel West have to say about race and bias issues. But let’s also hear Sowell’s and Steele’s perspectives. Let’s compare and contrast and discuss.
Then we can make better observations and perhaps arrive at less divisive conclusions. Who knows, maybe even conservative-oriented cops might listen more intently to the “other side” if it isn’t imposed to the exclusion of other viewpoints—including theirs.
I don’t agree with Prof. Gates’ (of “the Cambridge Police acted stupidly” fame) political views, generally, but he seems like a very nice man in whose class I wouldn’t mind sitting. I could be wrong, but I don’t get the impression he’s anything other than sincere in his political beliefs. Though he may espouse the same perspective as many leftist race-baiters, I could listen to him because I don’t get that same “ulterior motive” vibe that others like the reverends Sharpton and Jackson exude.
When I sat in Seattle’s social justice day camp disguised as law enforcement training, I could not go in with an open mind because open-mindedness was only expected from conservative attendees, not from the leftist course materials. In Star Trek vernacular, I had my shields up from the start. Not exactly a conducive environment for learning, I admit.
What’s worse is they used fellow police officers to teach the course. Now, and I appreciated this part, most instructors taught the course with their tongues firmly implanted in their cheeks. Still, I don’t know how they could do it. My hat’s off to them for finding a way. I’m not sure I could have done it.
The modern Democrat Party has shifted so far to the left, its former commitment to liberal ideals such as scholarly dialogue and free speech has evaporated. Happily, there seems to be some recent pushback from a few Democrats who are upset their party has been hijacked by radicals.
For example, in San Francisco, of all places, Democrat candidate for mayor and former city supervisor, Angela Alioto, is running on a platform to reform the city’s “sanctuary city” laws and to get the “homeless” drug addicts off the streets.
During an interview on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight, Alioto said she finds the city’s shift to protect illegal alien felons “unacceptable.” Alioto pointed out that she wrote San Francisco’s original sanctuary city law.
She said the law was written to protect “undocumented” immigrant families, not violent felons. Now, she says, San Francisco leaders are interpreting the law in a way that it protects so-called criminal illegal aliens. She opposes using the law to protect violent people like MS-13 gang members and Kate Steinle’s murderer, Jose Ines Garcia Zarate.
Conservative, or blue dog (if there are any left, other than former Sheriff David Clarke), and liberal Democrats have allowed radical leftists to wrest control of their party from them. If it’s even possible, conservative and moderate Democrats are even less invited to the discussion than rightwing conservatives.
Reasonable Democrats face a fate similar to conservatives and Republicans if they dare to buck up against their social justice plantation masters. If you don’t agree with the leftist narrative creators, you simply may not say what you think or even have your own thoughts about the issues of the day. Again, but this time updating my Star Trek lingo, “resistance is futile.”
Leftist media is replete with examples of leftists, or those perceived to be, who dare to wander off the leftist estate. Kanye West, of course, comes to mind most recently. But also, people like Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz and The Evergreen State College professor Bret Weinstein. The former half-joked about losing weight because his liberal friends were no longer inviting him to dinner parties for having the nerve to defend the U.S. Constitution. The latter had his life and career upturned and was threatened with violence by leftist thugs for daring to support free speech for all on college campuses.
Until there is a coordinated push back against the left’s monopoly on political speech, this inequity is likely to continue, bringing increasing oppression and division. Don’t allow the left to get away with its domination of the political debate.
When someone asks you how you feel about an issue, tell them with confidence what you think. You have as much of a right to your political opinion, and to express it, as anyone on the left does. No more free passes for the left when it comes to them quashing your political opinion. Make them pay the price for trying to trample your speech. Allow them to hear your viewpoint.
Nature’s God gave you your right to express your political opinion. How dare anyone, especially an American, by any means, attempt to infringe on another American’s God-given rights?
Don’t be afraid of being called racist or any of the litany of derogatory filth the left tosses at you. It defines them, not you. There’s one positive in the left’s relentless attacks. Their accusations are losing their potency. The sting is dissipating from their volleys of racialist epithets. Their influence is waning.
The right, conservatives, and libertarians cannot continue to allow the left to act as the sole arbiters of race, bias, and other sociopolitical issues. The right can’t keep falling into the trap where they, as the saying goes, “go along to get along.” People on the right can no longer remain quiet rather than speaking their minds as the Constitution guarantees to all citizens—by the way, even cops.
