Police Abuse

How Not To Build a Transpartisan Coalition for Police Reform

Will progressives alienate allies and squander this opportunity for change?

|

Democrats seem surprised that Rep. Tom McClintock (R–Calif.), a libertarian-leaning conservative, favors the abolition of qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that often shields police officers from liability for violating people's constitutional rights. The Democrat opposing McClintock in this year's election, Brynne Kennedy, claims his position on qualified immunity, which she calls "a welcome surprise," implies that he should support the rest of her agenda, including such completely unrelated issues as Medicare, Social Security, and price controls for prescription drugs. If McClintock really wants to prove his bipartisanship, she says, he should agree with her about those issues too.

Given McClintock's history and ideology, Democrats should not have been surprised by his position on qualified immunity, and Kennedy's argument implies that true bipartisanship requires Republicans to agree with Democrats about everything. Her reaction to his stance, whether sincere or not, reflects a broader obstacle to building a trans-ideological coalition for police reform in the wake of George Floyd's death and the ensuing protests. Many left-leaning supporters of that cause either do not understand or willfully ignore the perspective of people like McClintock, and that incomprehension or misrepresentation risks alienating potential allies who disagree with them about a lot of other things.

As the Raleigh News & Observer noted, McClintock is not a newcomer to police reform, which he supported as a state legislator. Back in 2007, McClintock was outraged by the California Supreme Court's decision in Copley Press v. Superior Courtwhich shielded police disciplinary records from public view. "The Copley decision basically said that disciplinary proceedings against police officers are none of the public's business, even if conducted by a civil service commission under all due process considerations and even if the charges are proven," he said. "In short, once a citizen complains about the misuse of police power, even though the complaint is found to be entirely true, the public has no right to know. That is nuts."

Nor is McClintock a milquetoast when it comes to police invasions of people's homes. Here is what he had to say about no-knock raids this week: "No-knock warrants have proven to be lethal to citizens and police officers, for an obvious reason. The invasion of a person's home is one of the most terrifying powers government possesses. Every person in a free society has the right to take arms against an intruder in their homes, and the authority of the police to make such an intrusion has to be announced before it takes place. To do otherwise places every one of us in mortal peril."

Regarding qualified immunity specifically, the News & Observer notes, "libertarians have long been clamoring for change on the issue." The paper mentions the Institute for Justice, which for years has been backing cases aimed at restricting or eliminating qualified immunity. Conservatives such as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and 5th Circuit Judge Don Willett, a Trump appointee, also have criticized the doctrine.

McClintock's opposition to qualified immunity makes sense if you understand where he is coming from. During his 2008 House campaign, my former Reason colleague Dave Weigel observed, McClintock "saw the real political split in this country (and everywhere else) as between 'authoritarians and libertarians,' with authoritarians in the saddle now but libertarians coming on strong." McClintock also told Weigel, "I am concerned with civil liberties in this country, and with warrantless surveillance of Americans."

McClintock has been an outspoken critic of the PATRIOT Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and he supported amnesty for National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden. "I think it would be best if the American government granted him amnesty to get him back to America where he can answer questions without the threat of prosecution," McClintock told a Sacramento TV station in 2013. "We have some very good laws against sharing secrets, and he broke those laws. On the other hand, he broke them for a very good reason: because those laws were being used in direct contravention of our Fourth Amendment rights as Americans."

McClintock also has broken with most of his Republican colleagues in backing marijuana reform. He was an early supporter of legislation aimed at stopping federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries and repealing the national ban on cannabis as it relates to conduct that is allowed by state law. McClintock opposed federal marijuana prohibition years before many prominent Democrats decided it was safe or politically expedient to do so. That position reflects not just a libertarian sensibility but a principled defense of federalism, a cause that many conservatives abandon when it proves inconvenient.

The fact that progressives can find common ground with McClintock on some issues, of course, hardly means he is about to embrace the rest of their agenda. Likewise with other conservatives, libertarians, and moderates, whether they have long supported police reform or are newly sympathetic because of the problems highlighted by George Floyd's death and other recent travesties.

It may seem obvious that you cannot build a coalition on an issue like police reform if you insist that your allies agree with you about everything or if you mistakenly treat them as Johnny-come-latelies. But progressives are making both of those mistakes.

Instead of supporting the four-page, stand-alone qualified immunity bill that Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.) introduced, House Democrats produced a 134-page bill that addresses qualified immunity but also includes several provisions Republicans are likely to oppose, including increased Justice Department scrutiny of local law enforcement polices and practices, government-backed racial profiling lawsuits, "training on racial bias" for federal law enforcement agents, and financial penalties for states that fail to ban chokeholds or are deficient in reporting data on traffic and pedestrian stops, body searches, and the use of force.

There is a huge gap between the Democrats' grab bag of proposals—many of which are worthy ideas—and the reforms that Republicans seem inclined to support. "The fact that it has no Republican sponsors, the fact that there was no effort to contact any of us to have us weigh in on the legislation, suggests it's designed to be a message piece, as opposed to a real piece of legislation," says Sen. Mitt Romney (R–Utah), who plans to introduce a bipartisan police reform bill. "We should vote on each proposal separately," Amash argues. "Massive bills with dozens of topics aren't serious efforts to change law. They're messaging bills with no expectation of getting signed. They cram in so much that they're never written well or reviewed carefully."

The "defund police" slogan adopted by many activists (but wisely eschewed by most Democrats in Congress) poses similar problems. Some people who use it mean it literally, while others have in mind a restructuring of police departments and/or the transfer of money from them to social programs. Whatever the intent, the slogan is bound to alienate people who would otherwise be inclined to support reforms aimed at preventing police from abusing their powers and holding them accountable when they do. The fact that Donald Trump has latched onto the meme as a way of discrediting Democratic reformers is not a good sign. While "defund police" may appeal to some progressives and libertarians, it is not a message that will help attract broad public support for reforms.

It is also a strategic mistake for progressive reformers to act as if they own this issue when many people who don't agree with them on other subjects have been fighting this battle for a long time. As a libertarian who has been covering police abuse, the drug war, criminal justice reform, and civil liberties for more than three decades, I find that attitude irritating, and I'm sure other nonprogressives do as well. But this is not about personal pique; it's about how people with different ideological perspectives can come together on this issue now and avoid squandering an opportunity, perhaps the best we've had in many years, to do some good.

David Menschel, a criminal defense attorney, activist, and documentarian who runs the Vital Projects Fund, describes himself as a "left-winger," but he recognizes that progressives and libertarians are natural allies on this issue. He poses some provocative questions to libertarians about whether they are prepared to support social programs aimed at performing functions currently handled by the police. While that is a good conversation to have, it is not directly relevant to seizing this moment, which requires not only getting along with people who have different political views but also compromising with grudging supporters of reform who may be willing to back specific, concrete proposals to address police abuse that fall far short of the fundamental restructuring Menschel has in mind.

Much of the action on police reform is happening on the local and state levels, as you would expect given our federalist system of government. But to the extent that Congress can address the issue, we should be thinking about changes that might gain the support of not only Tom McClintock and Mitt Romney but also Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.), who has not heretofore distinguished himself as a criminal justice reformer but lately has been making noises about racial disparities in law enforcement. I'm not sure how much change someone like McConnell can stomach, but reform-minded legislators should find out before it's too late.

NEXT: Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions

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. How relevant will Republican concerns or support be in January? It likely will take several months to craft appropriate legislation. By the time votes are needed, Republican votes might not be needed.

    1. If Democrats win big in November there will be little impetus to pass meaningful legislation at all. If they actually fix things they won’t be able to campaign in 2022 on the platform of “vote for me so I can fix things”

      1. More like: Send money to me, so I can tax you more, so that I may get around to fixing things”

        1. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job.DCx Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website.

          This is what I do.►…..► Go to this link

      2. If Democrats win big, they’ll start doing exactly what they did here in New York when they took over the State Senate. They’ll immediately start passing every activist bill on their progressive wet dream Christmas list. Gun control, minimum wage, climate regulation, plastic bans, open borders, no pre-trial detention, expect all of it and then some. We’ve been an object lesson for the last two years, and I just wish more people could see it.

        1. I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use these.Make 5000 bucks every month… Start doing online computer-based work through our website… Reading Articles

      3. This is being employed now by Republicans who have decide to use the 2016 party platform in 2020. They are stilling running against Obama and Clinton.

    2. You’re already not needed, yet you keep coming back.

      Keep on clingin’, gecko.

    3. Coming from a once liberal Minnesota, I don’t think the Republicans will have any problem in November. We’re nice, we keep our opinions to ourselves, but once in the voting box I’m predicting a bloodbath for the Democrats.

      1. Last Star Tribune poll has Biden by 5.

        1. A Minneapolis Star Tribune poll with Biden up by only 5 pts in DFL country is a disaster for Democrats.

    4. Has anyone else had their comments come up as ‘you’ve already said that?’ I have not made my comments twice and I guess we now have a mediator?

      1. I haven’t noticed it a Reason before, but a lot of platforms have an automated catch against double posts.

      2. There is a widget in the Reason comment system that tries to prevent double and triple posts when a commenter hits the “submit” button multiple times. In my experience, that widget triggers too often and too easily, especially when the upload is lagging.

        It’s entirely automated, though. No human moderator is involved.

    5. They’ll still need to avoid a possible Republican filibuster in the Senate.

      1. Maybe.

        Maybe not.

  2. They already have.

  3. They will absolutely squander the opportunity because its much easier to campaign on the promise of fixing problems than by pointing to the problems they already fixed

    1. If you fix a problem, you can blame the other side of hindering your efforts.

  4. Spoiler alert: progressives don’t want to build coalitions and they don’t care about making things better. They are mostly racist pieces of shit like Kirkland up there who view minorities as Pokémon.

    1. Now do conservatives…

      1. Conservatives don’t want to build coalitions and they don’t care about making things better. They are mostly racist pieces of shit like Tom Cotton who view minorities as Pokémon.

        Maybe we aren’t all so different after all.

        1. How was Cotton being racist?
          Was it overt like Biden’s or was it those super-secret dogwhistles that only journalists and DNC politicos can hear?

          1. Mother, 10/10.

            Everyone else, line up to make your loyalty declaration for the day. Don’t get caught slackin’!

            1. We all notice you didn’t answer his question Jeff, just bitched and contnued the accusation.

              1. He’s a dishonest piece of shit. This is what he does.

                1. Dishonest about what?

        2. Tom Cotton’s words and/or actions are racist? Care to be more specific?

          1. “no fuck you racist” -Jeff/DOL

      2. Spoiler alert: conservatives don’t want to build coalitions and actually reduce the size and scope of government. Some of them are also racist pieces of shit, they just don’t collect minorities like Pokémon.

  5. Will progressives alienate allies and squander this opportunity for change?

    1. Yes.
    2. Assumes they actually want to make things better.

    1. Good news for the Southern Poverty Law Center. Poverty and racism will never be ended so they can continue to accept donations! I wish I could get a six-figure job with an organization that will never go out of business.

      1. Poverty and racism will never be ended
        It helps when you can define them as whatever you need them to be.

        1. Evolving definitions:

          Racism 1920 – Official platform of the Democratic party and their paramilitary wing, the KKK.

          Racism 1960 – Discriminatory behavior towards someone of a different ethnic origin.

          Racism 2020 – Disagreeing with white wokes and opposing the Democratic party.

  6. I am surprised by Jacob’s surprise, how short his memory must be. I remember when McConnell sat down with Obama to work out a budget compromise and then when he took it back to the Senate for deliberations Obama crawfished and stabbed him in the back. Then again when the budget sequester deal was worked out he spent the rest of his time in office blaming it all on the Republicans when it had been a bipartisan agreement that he had proposed. This was a big theme of his tenure, refuse to work with the republicans but then blame the impasse on them.

    1. At least Sullum is completely on the mark with this article. Bipartisanship means finding the common ground, not forcing people to accept everything you propose. It really shouldn’t be difficult to create a veto-proof coalition on the issue of police reform right now, but if you try to pair reasonable suggestions with controversial positions, you’re just reinforcing the battle lines.

      And yes, Democrats in Congress and the at large leftist with thie #defundPolice movement are doing their best to make sure the Republicans and the right are their enemies on this instead of working with them.

      1. You’re telling me that this entire charade isn’t really about just continuing to draw battle lines and points scoring as far as politicians are concerned? Of course congress isn’t going to do anything to meaningfully pull back policing. Enforcement is the only thing that gives what they do any meaning. They need law enforcement on their side. It’s their army to stem the tide of populism. That’s why QI (which only applies to civil suits) immediately jumped to the front of the line instead of the drug war, asset forfeiture, culture of fraternity or no-knock raids. Lip service to win votes and further divide us against each other instead of focused on them.

        1. Well we’re not going to immediately convert people to libertarian positions just because they suddenly recognize that we’re right about some things. If we can get some progress, we’ll take it, and then we’ll use that as a springboard for related positions to explain how it works.

          The big goal should be to end the drug war, but we do need to build up to it since true Libertarians are like 3-5% of the electorate. We’ve made a ton of progress toward that goal by getting people to realize marijuana should be legal across many states, and that it’s not worth massive narc taskforces to chase down people for choosing to use a drug on their own bodies. The next step is to point that enforcing drug laws leads to shitty policies like no-knock raids. Sure, we’ll get no-knock raids banned while we’ve got the momentum, but we’ll also convince them that’s only a symptom of the underlying cause. Teach them how drug laws and “I smell weed” is always a huge crutch for chopping up the fourth amendment for law enforcement.

          If we’re willing to accept small strides we can start making progress. If we did what the progs are doing right now, we’d try to take this libertarian moment to start asking to disband the NSA and repeal the Civil Rights Act, instead of keeping the focus on fixing the police while there’s some energy for it.

    2. Defining bipartisanship as complete agreement with leftist positions has been a Democrat mainstay since the Clinton administration.

  7. “No-knock warrants have proven to be lethal to citizens and police officers, for an obvious reason. The invasion of a person’s home is one of the most terrifying powers government possesses. Every person in a free society has the right to take arms against an intruder in their homes, and the authority of the police to make such an intrusion has to be announced before it takes place. To do otherwise places every one of us in mortal peril.”

    Fuck yeah, that’s right! I clearly haven’t been paying enough attention because this sounds like a Congressman actually making sense. You go get’em, McClintock.

  8. “It may seem obvious that you cannot build a coalition on an issue like police reform if you insist that your allies agree with you about everything or if you mistakenly treat them as Johnny-come-latelies. But progressives are making both of those mistakes.”

    Yes, they are. But it seems their biggest mistake is supporting, either directly or indirectly, the violent actions of what is fast becoming the core of the Democrat party. Just when there was an opportunity to unite around the issue of police brutality, the left threw a collective temper tantrum, told their potential allies that they are a bunch of racists, and began burning, looting, rioting, etc., reminding people why aggressive police tactics exist in the first place. Police brutality remains an issue, and reform remains a worthy goal, but we are not likely to get much of it if cities are overrun by left-wing mobs.

    1. That’s a nice tidy worldview. Of course, the looting and rioting is not particularly the realm of Democrats, although there’s some overlap in the Venn Diagram — but don’t let facts interrupt a good Team Red / Team Blue sports narrative.

      1. In fact, it is almost exclusively the realm of the left, whether they call themselves democrats, socialists, democratic socialists, collectivists, or any of a variety of other names. I root for Team L for the most part, but that doesn’t mean that team R and team B are equivalent when it comes looting and rioting.

      2. “Of course, the looting and rioting is not particularly the realm of Democrats”

        Holy shit you’re ACTUALLY retarded.

  9. “Will JesseSPAZI and Nardz and John and Der TrumpfenFuhrer alienate allies and squander this opportunity for change?”

    Yes, absolutely! All absolute copsuckers in favor of lawn order WILL line up in favor of ABSOLUTE lawn order!!! And even though illegal sub-humans WOULD be able to mow your lawn, and give you, at an affordable price, some lawn order, the fore-mentioned offenders WILL willy-nilly offend against your freedom of association, and FORBID you to obtain affordable lawn order!

    Yet, to their dying days… Which, in the absence of them “seeing the light”, I hope, are very, very soon… They will INSIST that they are IN FAVOR of lawn order!!! (You should have lawn order, but only on THEIR terms!)

    1. Just sad man. How much do I owe for rent?

      1. Nothing.

    2. By the way… the fact that you took that as my position just shows how fucking dumb you are, just like sarcasmic.

      I believe QI needs to be fixed through the courts and cant be done through the executive and legislative. But I want it to change. There needs to remain a reasonableness standard so that a cop acting as trained by his department isnt just thrown under the bus, the department should be liable for said training.

      But also what I want, and you and sarcasmic dont seem to give two fucks about, is actual reform of the police, not just the ability to sue after the fact tone lawyers pockets. This means doing what rand paul did and introducing legislation to end no knock raids. Increasing 4th amendment protections, even if they protect Trump (which you happily applauded), not allowing linking of crimes so a cop cant pull over a driver for a tail light and link it to a search. Real reforms. The shit you dont give a fuck about.

      You are really really a fucking dumb person

      1. Maybe you could get better communication results if you didn’t throw tantrums all the time and call people who disagree with you dumb. Just a thought.

        1. Shut the fuck up retard

          1. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job.UEd a Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website.

            This is what I do……… Buzz Cash

      2. I believe QI needs to be fixed through the courts and cant be done through the executive and legislative.

        You are wrong. Every branch of government has a role to play with QI.

        This means doing what rand paul did and introducing legislation to end no knock raids. Increasing 4th amendment protections, even if they protect Trump (which you happily applauded), not allowing linking of crimes so a cop cant pull over a driver for a tail light and link it to a search. Real reforms. The shit you dont give a fuck about.

        I don’t think you will find a libertarian here who DOESN’T support those things. They are all great reform ideas. But for some reason you have to be an oppositional jerk about whatever Reason is talking about and make a big issue about QI. Why don’t you take a moment to reflect that it is entirely possible to both agree that QI should go, AS WELL AS wanting no-knock raids to go and increasing 4th amendment protections. That someone happens to be talking about QI does not mean they oppose everything else.

        1. Shut the fuck up retard

      3. Behold two idiots who agree with each other finding a way to argue anyways

        1. you must be new to libertarians

  10. I got news for ya’ Sullum; nobody believes democrats anymore.
    I got news for ya’ Sullum; nobody listens to democrats anymore.

    1. I got news for ya’ Sullum; nobody believes any politician anymore.
      I got news for ya’ Sullum; nobody listens to any politician anymore.

      FTFY

  11. Tom McClintock for President?

    1. He may well be one of the many people who are too smart to want the job.

  12. Hey.

    Here’s a novel idea that might be able to fix this whole police mess.

    END THE GOD DAMNED DRUG WAR!

    1. But there’s no consensus at the grass roots to end prohibition. However, something that might fly, because it’s subtle enough for the rubes not to notice, would be END UNDERCOVER POLICING.

      1. Basically what I’m looking to foster is a conspiracy at the top between government and criminals to give the appearance that narcotics, prostitution, obscene forms of porn, etc. have disappeared from the community. Just an agreement to keep it quiet, and to harass and discredit any newspeople who don’t get on board.

  13. Expect one of the most critical reforms, scaling back the power and influence of the police unions, to be vigorously opposed by mainstream Democrats and the big union supporters like Bernie’s followers.

  14. Proggies don’t give a crap about police reforms; this is just a crises which is useful to further lefty ends.

  15. “Will progressives alienate allies and squander this opportunity for change?”

    /Places Jacob on lap. Caresses hair gently. Speaks softly.

    Yes, Jacob. Yes they will.

    Off you go buddy. Be back in five. I’m making butterscotch pudding.

    1. Your mother was much nicer than mine.

  16. I’ve been told for 40 years by both people on the “left” and people on the “right” that libertarians don’t really exist, that they’re just trying to fool others (and/or themselves) and must be either “liberals” or “conservatives” (some one and some the other). Because there’s not really such a thing as libertarianism or authoritarianism.

    I think they’re right on that last score. There’s practically nobody but crazy people who actually oppose freedom per se, and don’t care what the policy is as long as it removes freedom of choice. In reality, authoritarianism is a mere byproduct of other desires, not favored as an end in itself. (An example of the “crazy” exception was in the early 1970s when the LaRouchians briefly adopted what was said to be a Maoist slogan, “Smash self!”)

    1. I think it’s more as state power has grown, all parties (including libertarians) feel comfortable using that power and vie for control of it while also expanding its scope to enforce their worldview. It is more properly authoritarianism vs. autonomy- a right-wing utopia is going to be dramatically different from even a libertarian utopia.

      Not to mention there are wide swaths of libertarians with differing ideas on what “liberty” means which easily filter into the liberal or conservative paradigms (as libertarians often do to promote particular policies), as libertarians are too small to exert political power on their own.

      Hell, even with only libertarians, there would still be conflict and sorting into camps, as the endless pissing matches here bear testament to.

      1. “ll parties (including libertarians) feel comfortable using that power and vie for control of it”

        No, not libertarians. This is why all of the candidates for the Libertarian Party nomination are either nut jobs or carpetbaggers from other parties.

  17. Sullum, you goddamn fool! Progressives don’t want to solve police brutality. Are you MAD? That would ruin everything they have ever worked to accomplish and take all the fun out of gaining power. Besides they need the issue to hang around the necks of the incompetent and impotent conservatives every fourth year. How the fuck else are they supposed to gin up the black vote?

    1. You fool! Conservatives don’t really want to end abortion. Are you MAD? That would ruin everything they have ever worked to accomplish and take all the fun out of gaining power. Besides they need the issue to hang around the necks of the incompetent and impotent liberals every fourth year. How the fuck else are they supposed to gin up the evangelical vote?

      1. I applaud your originality.

        1. You can villanize your opponents as evil monsters all you want, that doesn’t mean that they actually are evil monsters.

          I believe most evangelicals are sincere in wanting to reduce or end abortions. I also believe most BLM activists are sincere in wanting to reduce police brutality.

          1. “You can villanize your opponents as evil monsters all you want”

            you do.

  18. There are all sorts of reforms around the edges that’ll handle some abuses.

    But you want to actually reform police behavior on a systematic level, you need to actually address the root cause, the criminal violence in the inner city. Any institution whose members have to regularly deal with violent criminals on the street will develop an assumption that the people they’re dealing with are violent and dangerous, and will act accordingly. The only way to prevent that institutional coarsening is to actually reduce the number of violent criminals they interact with.

    And the only intervention known to social science that reliably reduces crime is increasing the number of police.

    1. How has this worked in Chicago for the past hundred years or so?

    2. Or reduce the laws that lead to that violence.

  19. I agree with Justin Amash that they cram so much into bills that they are worthless. A bill should be limited to a single topic, be well written and concise.

    The large bill end up being a trash heap of pork, are far too large to be read, are terrible documents and surely are not concise.

  20. Kennedy’s argument implies that true bipartisanship requires Republicans to agree with Democrats about everything.

    I had noticed that every time I’m told that something is dire and so I need to compromise with the Democrats, I end up being the only one who has to give something up.

  21. This all brings to mind “it’s amazing what can be accomplished when no one cares who gets the credit”.

    But what we get is nothing changes because no one will vote for anything the other side could plausibly use to make themselves look good.

  22. How Not To Build a Transpartisan Coalition for Police Reform

    Start by not including Amash; his presence in any legislative effort is toxic, since both Republicans and Democrats don’t trust him.

  23. The article reminds me of this Politico article about passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In particular, it reminds me of JFK’s words: “The fact of the matter is, as you know, that a lot of these people would rather have an issue than a bill […] But, as I said from the beginning, to get a bill, we got to have bipartisanship.”

  24. Will progressives alienate allies and squander this opportunity for change?
    Ha.

    It seems to me progressives are not very fond of this country, or the people in it. They dislike tradition, they dislike the poor. They are not actually in the business of improving lives. They traffic in resentment, fear, anger. People are only as valuable as their votes.

    Progressive are awful and unkind people. So of course they will make it impossible to pass police reform. If we had police reform that actually accomplished it’s goals, there would be no need for progressive freak-outs about racial inequality If black people weren’t dying at the hands of cops they couldn’t rush to a podium and blame someone (Trump, Republicans, whatever needs taking down) for violence that is squarely in the hands of the police. The police do them a big favor by making life in America needlessly dangerous and stupid. And they reward the cops by not doing a damn thing about it, despite pretending to be the party that isn’t sucking cop dick.

  25. McClintock had a very libertarian leaning conservative record and voice, until Trump was nominated.

    Trump is acting as a litmus test for principles. If you turn orange when exposed, you haven’t any.

    Maybe McClintock is not all that orange stained and stinking, after all.

  26. Progressives are not in favor of reform. They are in favor of government power and control. Police unions fund the campaigns of the progressive mayors and AG’s in these cities. Then they endorse them in the election. Progressives won’t give up the endorsement and the police unions won’t let them out from under their financial thumb.

Please to post comments