Michael Brown Shooting

Ferguson as a Conservative Wakeup Call, Part XII: Erick Erickson at Red State

|

The shooting of Michael Brown and subsequent riots in Ferguson, Missouri are having a profound effect on conservatives, who are starting to extend skepticism of state power to law enforcement. Here's the most recent example I just ran across, from Erick Erickson of Redstate.com:

Police do a good and necessary job. But if power corrupts men and absolute power corrupts absolutely, we should be wary of putting our neighborhood man in blue in camouflage, a helmet, and an AR-15 inside an armored personnel carrier except in the most serious of circumstances.

No conservative is saying police do not need to be able to outshoot and out arm the bad guys. But many of us are saying police are more quickly than ever before resorting to playing soldier when they could accomplish the same as just a policeman….

Regardless of how one views the events of Ferguson, we should all be troubled by the over-militarization of routine police activity. We should all be troubled at the growing number of well documented cases of heavy handed local and state police. Being a conservative means we should support the judicious use of force.

Read the whole thing, including a concluding swipe at libruls ("who routinely turn a blind eye to the abuses of the state targeted toward their opponents"), here.

To get a sense of where Erickson, a very prominent conservative writer and activist, is moving on from, check out this old compilation of hits.

Last week on MSNBC's Hardball, I touched on how an increasing number of conservatives seem to be gravitating to a more-libertarian skepticism of state power (in policing, foreign policy, privacy, etc.) in the wake of Sen. Rand Paul's ascendance. Watch that segment below:

Advertisement

NEXT: Teens Create "Five O" App to Report Police Brutality, Rate Officers

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But Shreek swore that all of the Conservatives were pro cop regarding Feguson. You mean shreek was lying? I am shocked I tell you. Shocked.

    1. On the other hand even I’m having a difficult time coming to grips with the fact that E.E., dickhead cum laude, actually wrote that.

      My how far we have come. Maybe there is some hope for movement on this.

      1. Conservatives are wrong but they are not generally delusional the way progs are. When confronted with reality, they will change their minds.

        1. Eeh.. Sure, dude, whatevs.

          1. They seem to have here. Sorry you don’t like it when life doesn’t live up to your prejudices. But sometimes life is really fucking hard if you are stupid. I don’t know what to tell you. Maybe you can get smarter. There is always that.

            1. Sorry you don’t like it when life doesn’t live up to your prejudices

              Thanks for the LOL, John.

              1. You welcome. Sometimes humor is all we have.

          2. They’ll change their mind just like the progs do. That is ‘Our message is the right one, we’re just not splainin it to the peasants in a way they can understand it, we have to be better messangers, even though we’re right about everything and have never been wrong. In fact, we’re incapable of being wrong’.

            1. we have to be better messangers, even though we’re right about everything and have never been wrong. In fact, we’re incapable of being wrong’.

              Are you talking about conservatives or Libertarians? I don’t recall any Libertarian ever admitting to being wrong about anything.

              1. “Sorry you don’t like it when life doesn’t live up to your prejudices”

                “I don’t recall any Libertarian ever admitting to being wrong about anything.”

                Most amusing.

          3. I was fairly conservative when I started reading reason 10 years ago. Not anymore.

            1. Yeah, riiight

              1. Go fuck yourself, cunt.

                *Rehides the useless cunt’s post*

                1. Touched a nerve?

                  1. Yes. The nerve that despises useless, banal cunts.

                    1. You have a nerve that hates yourself?

                    2. “I’m rubber, you’re glue”

                      – Bo Cara Esq.

                      You’re gonna make a heckuva lawyer.

            2. Like every ideology, Libertarianism has its blind spots. It is not perfect despite what its adherents claim. Amazingly enough, reasonable people can disagree on these sorts of issues and even make valid points that Libertarians don’t have very good answers to.

              1. Libertarian: This problem is caused by central planning. It needs to be decentralized.

                Non-libertarian: That’s not a solution! I mean, who’s going to do the decentralization and then who’s going to be in charge? Be specific!

                Libertarian: *facepalm*

                1. Yes sarcasmic. The world is just that simple. You just solved every issue in one pithy paragraph. You perfect and right and everyone else is wrong and so wrong in fact, they don’t even have a reasonable point about anything.

                  1. John, sarcasmic may not have solved every problem, but if his advice were followed things would be much better. Central planning doesn’t work, never has and never will. Government is good for certain things like protecting lives, liberty and property. Once it steps outside those boundaries, it doesn’t work nearly as well.

                  2. Yes sarcasmic. The world is just that simple.

                    Quite the opposite, actually. If the world was just that simple, then central planning and government force would indeed be the solution to most any problem. But the world isn’t that simple, and imposing limited ideas with force just doesn’t work when millions of people have millions of unique situations.

                    1. ideas so good that they can only be enacted by force.

                  3. You just solved every issue in one pithy paragraph.

                    Again, John, quite the opposite. I’m not arrogant so as to believe I can solve every issue. Quite the opposite. Central planners believe they can, and they try to do so with force. I believe in most cases things can best be solved from the bottom up, as millions of people deal with their own unique situations in their own way because they are the ones who know best about their own individual circumstances.

                    You’re totally missing the point.

                    1. No sarcasmic, you think you have the answer to everything. Again, must be fun living in your world but in reality, life isn’t that simple.

                    2. Are you deliberately obtuse or does it come naturally?

        2. Yes, because this is the first instance of police brutality to come to light

          1. Considering that you have a poor grasp of logic, I guess it makes sense that you would be puzzled by someone waiting for more than one instance of something before making a general conclusion.

            1. Conservatives, changing their minds on the thousandth peice of evidence presented!

              1. Yes Bo. we know, progs are just better on about every issue and when they are bad, well it is because everyone else is worse. Even when non progs are right, they are right for the wrong reasons.

                Buy you already told us that about a thousand times already.

                1. Actually, I’ve said many times liberals are overall worse, but keep talking your fantasy talk in your rush to defend your boys on this issue where they are worse

              2. But, they are changing their minds. Isn’t that supposed to be what is important? Or is it just so much more important to differentiate libertarians from those icky rightwingers among the progressives heaping contempt on libertarians?

                1. Some are changing, some. But hey, that is a good thing, better than none.

            2. Considering that you have a poor grasp of logic

              There’s a understatement.

      2. It only just occured to Erick Erickson that if police are brutalizing the public, they might someday brutalize him, rather than just people he enjoys watching the state brutalize.

    2. Conservatives are too slow. I guess they’ll smarten up on immigration in 15 years.

  2. Well, if it takes a Ferguson incident, with all its difficulties and complications, to get a national debate going, then it’s all good, I guess. Too bad they didn’t latch on to a better case, like the guy gunned down for gambling at cards, etc., etc. Oh, well.

    1. It’s kind of difficult to come up with a clearer case of police overreaction than an unarmed kid being arrested for jaywalking and then murdered.

      1. Unarmed people get killed by cops in similar circumstances every week or so. Including 2 cases in New York not that long ago.

        1. I’m not saying that there aren’t cases as bad or worse that pop up on the regular. But this one caught the community’s attention and then the nation’s. Considering that you really don’t get to pick what pisses people off, you could pick a worse incident to catalyze a debate.

          1. this one caught attention mostly because Brown was black, not because it was one more example of cops gone wild.

            1. I’d say the case got attention due to the protests and riots/looting. There have been plenty of other cases, some more egregious, that involved black people getting shot by cops, that received far less attention.

      2. Er, well, an unarmed 6’4″ 290 lb kid who had just robbed a convience store by force, and may have punched the cop in the face….

          1. Weren’t there reports that the cop initially yelled at them for jaywalking and THEN saw they were carrying boxes of Swisher Sweets, made the connection to the robbery, and then backed the car up and stopped? That was the story CNN was putting out yesterday.

            1. The police chief stated the day of or the day after that the initial stop and confrontation had nothing to do with the earlier robbery.

              & nothing noted in the radio logs support the idea that any officer involved knew that one or both of the two they stopped were involved in that crime.

        1. The STOP had nothing to do with the robbey, but that doesn’t mean the SHOOTING had nothing to do with the robbery. Maybe Wilson is being an A-Hole to Brown just because Wilson is power tripping; and Brown thinks he is about to get popped for a felony robbery so when Wilson steps out of the vehicle to engage in general harassment of minority, Brown (not wanting to go to prison) bumrushes Wilson and here we all are.

          1. “Brown, not wanting to go to prison, assaults a cop in broad daylight with witnesses everywhere” is an interesting train of logic, though.

          2. A lot easier to believe than the “I strong armed a store 10 minutes ago on video, so let me turn around and have nice Officer Wilson slap these cuffs on me and I’ll take my chances with the jury” route of prison avoidance.

            1. You don’t think he might have tried to, I don’t know, get away?

      3. But how much of an over reaction was it? Ok, plugging an unarmed guy 6 times might reasonably be an over reaction anytime. But if the unarmed guy is 6’4 and charging you like an angry bull, after having already assaulted you, it’s an over reaction of a few inches, not a mile.

        1. The cops story so far is bullshit. He’s clearly lying.

          That doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a justified shooting by the way, but at this point, the burden should be on him to prove it.

          1. “Clearly lying”? Not clear to me. The more that comes out, the better the cop’s story looks.

            1. The latest summary of the story goes like this:

              Officer saw kid walking down middle of street pulls up next to him and tells him to get onto sidewalk.

              Kid reaches into cop car to grab cops gun.

              Cop pushes him away. Then gets out of cop car.

              Cop Pulls gun and Kid takes possession of it.

              Struggle ensues and cop gets gun back.

              Accidental shop fires (not passive voice) but does not strike anyone.

              Kid takes off running.

              Kid stops running, turns around and starts taunting cop.

              Kid then charges cop.

              Cop fires 6 shots at kid while he is charging him.

              That story is clearly bullshit.
              And pathetically so, seeing as how they had more than a week to come up with it.

              1. Ballistics will determine the verity of that scenario. Ferguson PD better hope for a sympathetic forensic expert. What was the name of that doc from Mississippi? He did more than just bite marks, right?

              2. I’ve never seen that version. I think it’s more like this:

                Officer saw kid walking down middle of street pulls up next to him and tells him to get onto sidewalk.

                Kid reaches into cop car, slugs the cop, and tries to grab cop’s gun.

                A shot is fired, but doesn’t hit anyone.

                Cop gets out of car.

                Kid takes off running.

                Kid stops running, turns around and starts taunting cop.

                Kid then charges cop.

                Cop fires 6 shots at kid while he is charging him.

                Certainly that narrative seems closer to known facts than the original one. (“Cop stops innocent teen for no reason, and then shoots him while his hands are up, surrendering.”)

                1. Since the story has changed and directly contradicts first hand reports from others – while I agree this narrative more closely fits the facts, I believe the narrative was built just for that reason – to fix the facts.

                  But it?s not what happened.

                  & ballistics should show if the individual was charging of if he had his hands up and was moving forward slowly or not at all.

                  But I suspect the ballistics will match the narrative without independent testing.

          2. My guess is that the cop misinterpreted the guy turning around with his hands up as “charging” when he was actually surrendering, or didn’t react quickly enough – he was already in the process of shooting. Then made up the “charging” thing after the fact to cover his ass.

            1. I agree, although I think it’s more likely that the kid turned around to call the cop a fat pussy or something.

              The problem with the charging bullshit is the distance that the body was from the car – it could have easily been covered in a few seconds if in fact he was charging, or he must have started charging from another 50-100 feet down the road – which means the cop was some kind of marksman with his pistol.

            2. Except the bullet wounds on his arm are from the front, meaning either Brown was facing him with his arms down (seems more likely), or was turned away with his arms up (unlikely, and which doesn’t fit with the head wounds).

      4. It’s kind of difficult to come up with a clearer case of police overreaction than an unarmed kid being arrested for jaywalking and then murdered.

        The autopsy opens up the possibility that the dude was charging the cop. Me? I don’t know, which is why I wouldn’t post anything resembling what you did.

      5. Because charging at, and then attempting to disarm, a cop who calls you out for jaywalking is a perfect reaction by the perp.

        Unreal.

    2. Murphy’s law. The one incident that gets the attention is the one with the least sympathetic victim in a while.

      1. The conspiracist in me thinks that the media does that on purposed as a way to diffuse the anger at police abuses and keep black people riled up for democrats.

        1. If so, it risks backfiring: it’s just as likely to drive more white people to the polls to vote against Democrats, who once again are falling into the ’60s-’70s meme of being excuse-makers for dangerous criminals.

      2. I believe these types of incidents make better cause celebre because they better allow us to focus on the use of excessive force.
        Even the lowest common denominator of society has a right to due process.
        Ironically, most people get distracted by the ‘character’ of the individual, as in the Rodney King beating.
        Does a kid deserve the death penalty for stealing cheap cigars? Is it a policeman’s duty to carry out the execution without trial?

        1. Now, but it’s a policeman’s duty to defend himself from a violent felon who is assaulting him. If I’m walking down the sidewalk and attack a cop and he shoots me, I wasn’t shot “for walking down the sidewalk.”

  3. Police do a good and necessary job. But if power corrupts men and absolute power corrupts absolutely, we should be wary of putting our neighborhood man in blue in camouflage, a helmet, and an AR-15 inside an armored personnel carrier except in the most serious of circumstances.

    No shit. I’ll repeat the story of the 4 NYC cops standing outside the entrance of my very nice hotel in July, for 30 minutes, complete in full armor, helmets and AR-15s.

    The fat fucks just stood there, reminding everyone, who walked by or had the temerity to ask them why their intimidation convoy was taking up entire lane of 6th Ave, of just who is in charge.

    They then left to terrorize another part of the city.

  4. Police do a good and necessary job

    Yeah, unfortunately, that job is keeping down the serfs so that the elected royalty can continue to steal and oppress with impunity.

    You know, this might sound racist, but it’s just the opposite. If whitey would take to the streets and protest en masse like this the next time one of ‘us’ is gunned down in cold blood by a pig, then MAYBE things would start to change. Unfortunately, whitey might miss the next episode of Dancing with the Stars or something someone posted on Facebook while taking time in attempt to save their friends and neighbors from murderous thugs.

    1. If white people ever riot, the progs will want to call out the Army and just start mowing people down.

      1. That might be what it takes to turn things around and restore some liberty. I hope the revolution is peaceful, but I doubt it. In fact, I don’t think there will be one, just a slow and painful economic collapse that afterwards something better might arise from. That’s probably the best we can hope for at this point, things are so far gone.

        1. What follows an economic collapse is generally not better.

          1. Yes, and still the best we can probably hope for.

            1. I don’t think I have enough ammo.

      2. Progs determine a good resistance from a bad one based on hwo well they are armed. Guns bad, molotovs ok.

    2. Qualifiers and hedges make for unconvincing arguments.

      Police do a job. That job is what the people decide it should be. That job should be in accordance with the law, up to and including the supreme law of the land.

    3. I cringe every time I see the Ferguson incident characterized as “racism”, because I feel like the race baiters are really trying to keep the public divided on the broader issues of use-of-force and lack of police accountability. I definitely favor a more outreach-oriented approach in dealing with incidents like this. It’s not the problem of one group or another — it’s the problem of every American citizen.

      1. yes. I also cringe.

        This is about accountability of the police, not even-handedness. No one should want police abuse evenly distributed, we should want it elimated.

        I also cringe when the IRS scandal is postured as only against conservatives. The same logic applies, I don’t want even-handed IRS abuse. I want to eliminate IRS abuse for all americans.

        1. The IRS scandal is even worse, to the extent that I’ve heard some on the left attempting to claim that evidence of the IRS targeting Occupy-related groups as well as Tea Partiers somehow vindicates the IRS and the Administration — as if the Occupy movement was somehow chummy with the Democratic establishment, and IRS foot-dragging was justified in any case.

    4. Yes, when a white person gets shot, white people generally assume that he did something to deserve it.

      Although, conversely, it seems as if black people are maybe willfully ignoring Brown’s possibly criminal conduct, too.

      1. Although, conversely, it seems as if black people are maybe willfully ignoring Brown’s possibly criminal conduct, too.

        Hazel, I do not think the blacks are ignoring his conduct. From what I read resentment of the cops in Ferguson has been simmering for a long time, and this caused the top to come off.

        1. Yeah, it stopped being about Brown on the first day of protests.

        2. This. And it’s common all around the country. The 92 riots were about a lot more than Rodney king. In general, white people in the us are less likely to have negative encounters with cops, so it makes sense, hazel, that they’re more trusting of cops in these sort of stories, even when the person shot or beaten is also white.

          1. I agree with Hazel. To downplay or ignore Brown’s criminal actions is a way of changing the subject. People are simply using it as an excuse to bring up favorite topics. (Just as libertarians are using it to talk about the militarization of police.) If it turns out the policeman did nothing wrong, then all the talk of racism is just political bullshit.

        3. *From what I read resentment of the cops in Ferguson has been simmering for a long time*

          If every set of parents in Ferguson are as bad as Michael Brown’s parents, I can see why there might be some tension between the cops and the populace.

          Quit raising scum.

  5. we should be wary of putting absolutely refuse to put our neighborhood man in blue in camouflage, a helmet, and an AR-15 inside an armored personnel carrier except in the most serious of under any circumstances.

    Just trying to close some gaping loopholes here, which are big enough to drive an APC through. And we know they’re big enough, because those are exactly the loopholes that the APCs have already been driven through.

    1. Though I’ve come to be wary of couching the whole issue in terms of military equipment, when it’s police tactics, behavior, and lack of real accountability that are the biggest problem. I’m concerned that military vehicles are acquiring such symbolic value that a law prohibiting their being acquired by police forces will get passed, everyone will declare victory, and everything else will get swept under the rug again.

      I’m actually unaware of any cases of ex-military vehicles being used to perpetrate police violence, in contrast to all the small arms and flash-bang grenades. I can even see where heavy vehicles might do some good in a flood or other natural disaster situation. If we could cut off local police departments from assault rifles and SWAT training, but let them have their M113s and MRAPs, I think we’d be making much more progress.

      1. ‘m actually unaware of any cases of ex-military vehicles being used to perpetrate police violence,

        I seem to remember an article here about a cop APC or Tank destroying some guys house in AZ, they were serving warrants for cock fighting or some similar non-crime.

        1. That’s interesting, and a legitimate concern, though I still think such cases are vastly outnumbered by misapplications of less flashy hardware.

    2. But what about rabble rousers like the Free State Project and Occupy Wall Street?

  6. including a concluding swipe at libruls (“who routinely turn a blind eye to the abuses of the state targeted toward their opponents”)

    Principals trump principles.

  7. This may well be the most significant legacy of this whole event.

    Even if it turns out that Brown was shot while attacking a cop after robbing a convenience store, the reaction of the police to a minor riot with armored personnel carriers, camo, and assault rifles was way over the top, and it shocked a lot of people.

    That ought to be elevated to a separate issue, not something that stands or falls on whether the cop was acting in self defense.

    1. Hopefully this incident impresses the importance of cameras on the police and their supporters, as well. If this cop did nothing wrong and was wearing a camera, then the video would have vindicated him immediately and riots would have been pretty unlikely. And if riots did happen anyway, people would be far more sympathetic to the cops than they are now.

      1. All cops should be camera’d up, all of the time. They are public servants, well, they’re supposed to be, haha joke on us.

        But that in itself won’t change much. There will have to be consequences to what they are caught doing on camera, because right now, there are zero consequences.

        1. not only that, the cops should be demanding it. If I were open to the sort of accusations they are, you could bet I would push hard for documentation.

          we citizens are often asked to submit to searches because “what have ya got to hide?”. Well, goose meets gander.

          1. Well, see, but you probably wouldn’t think that way if you were a cop, because you probably joined so that you could do exactly the sort of things that you don’t want to be seen on camera.

            1. alas, you are correct. There’s alot to the “should” of my earlier post.

      2. “Law” “enforcement” in Ferguson apparently has at its disposal tear gas, riot gear, armored vehicles and machine guns …but not a dashcam. From this bit from Steyn.

        This point needs to be hammered to death.

        1. They bought dash cams, and they disposed of them. What more do you want?!

          (Seriously, the department owns but has not installed cameras. FYTW.)

  8. I’m afraid that as these protests become more violent they are just going to be used to justify the militaristic response and letting police have military hardware.

    1. Indeed. And all the protests and riots just reinforce the belief that blacks are dangerous. Good work, Ferguson residents!

  9. Most conservative pundits I’ve read have criticized the police over this. Hopefully it will seep in and change the rank and files views

    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_…..140814.pdf

    1. I think that the rank and file is ahead of the pundits on this. At least the ones that comment online are.

  10. we should be wary of putting our neighborhood man in blue in camouflage, a helmet, and an AR-15 inside an armored personnel carrier except in the most serious of circumstances.

    ACCOUNTABILITY.

    ACCOUNTABILITY.

    ACCOUNTABILITY.

    ACCOUNTABILITY.

    1. Don’t you mean…

      ACCOUNTABILITY FYTW.

      ACCOUNTABILITY FYTW.

      ACCOUNTABILITY FYTW.

      ACCOUNTABILITY FYTW.

  11. Read the whole thing, including a concluding swipe at libruls (“who routinely turn a blind eye to the abuses of the state targeted toward their opponents”), here.

    With a few principled exceptions, most of them pretty clearly do these days.

    And “libruls”? Hmmm. That’s the kind of formulation you typically see from butthurt liberals.

  12. I’ve always been amazed at small gov types who rail against big government that worship the police.Who do they think enforces these laws and programs?Then there’s the armed forces ,a gov program run by the same people.We also know the CIA and NSA will lie at the drop of a cell phone,

    1. It is left over from the culture war in the 1970s. In the 1970s, to object to the police was to be a new leftist dirty hippie. Thus, defending cops became the default position for many on the right. Beginning with Ruby Ridge and Waco, the cops have managed to bounce the blank check the Right gave them in the 70s and 80s.

      1. True, but even small-government types want the police to enforce basic laws against robbery, etc.

    2. It is interesting, isn’t it? After all, it wasn’t the worst tyrants of the 20th century that actually killed millions – it was the low level government agents acting on their behalf that did, including the ‘police’.

      1. First, very few people actually understand the history of communism and fascism. Second, see my point above about the 1970s.

  13. I haven’t visited Red State since Erick Erickson kicked out all the Ron Paul supporters for pointing out that Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney and McCain weren’t exactly conservative stalwarts. I wonder if he will kick out Rand Paul supporters?

    1. Kicked them out how? Removed their blogs? Revoked their commenting priveleges?

  14. At the same time, though, all this just reinforces what conservatives have been saying: Young black men are much more likely to be dangerous, blacks and the left reflexively support criminals, any left-wing protest includes Communists, there’s little difference between protestors and rioters, etc.

  15. I wonder what The Ron Paul Letter would have had to say.

  16. One of the big swing dick socons over there is way more intense on this that Erickson.

    These are worth check out:

    http://www.redstate.com/2014/0…..equipment/

    http://www.redstate.com/2014/0…..y-suspect/

    1. Wow. Streiff is normally a rightwing Shriek. Thanks for the links.

      Even more surprising is the sanity and the civility of (most of) the commenters.

      1. Yep, It bodes well for Rand if he can craft the right message to sell non-interventionism.

        1. A little blurb from the first article:

          Even such rabid liberals as Rand Paul have noticed:

          Rand Paul, rabid liberal.

          /faceplam

  17. The average Conservative man on the street respects the constitution and the declaration. They mostly follow classical liberal ideas. Yea SoCons can lean toward statism over things like butt sex and religion but for the most part the average church going SoCon is more likely to be teachable than the naturally craven evil mother fucking Progressives.

    Same comment for NeoCons and other *Cons. Tea Partiers included. Their fundamental ideas on governance are generally in line with the Founding. Yes there are unsalvageable statists among them but that shouldn’t indict the whole movement.

    1. Did you see the poll results I posted above?

      1. I don’t think those results contradict Eggs’ point.

        1. Well, if you think police tactics today are in line with the Founding principles perhaps not

          1. Police tactics today are only just beginning to get traction in the mainstream press.

      2. Many grassroots Conservatives just want to be left the fuck alone. They do have issues with their religion on a variety of fronts. My point is that those issues are overlaid on a foundation of liberalism. IMO, Religion is the main driver for statist tendencies on the right side of the ledger.

        A very different situation than Progressives who reject liberalism at the outset.

    2. Neocons are an exception. They are not in line with the Founding principles at all; they deliberately hold anti-American-Founding principles. They merely pretend they do not. Their method is to portray the Founders as supportive of certain statist principles, while calling it freedom and liberty. Deceptive co-option is the name of the game for them. They would rather see the United States destroyed than that it continue to move in a libertarian direction. That is not an exaggeration or an opinion. They have esoteric intellectual discussions about it.

  18. “Missouri are having a profound effect on conservatives, who are starting to extend skepticism of state power to law enforcement.”

    Such conservatives are few and far between. They may have been coming around before Ferguson, but they are squarely in the the law-and-whatever-necessary-to-enforce-order camp now. I suspect for much the same reason Erickson says liberals turn a blind eye to state abuses of power.

    1. I just don’t see that they are “few and far between”. There may be law and order tendencies but out and out support for a police state…I don’t see it.

      Proviso: I live in one of the most affluent and educated conservative areas of the country – Huntsville, AL. – so maybe I’m biased.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.