It’s beginning to look as if our Democratic friends are going to get hammered in the midterms in part because of the crime issue.
NY Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) let the cat out of the bag in her debate with challenger Lee Zeldin (R).
Really? Anyway, Ann Coulter had a field day on that, with chapter and verse on all kinds of violent crime where the suspects were released on “no bail” and pretty soon were arrested for another violent crime.
Really, Dems: what is this all about? Coulter blames Mara Gay at The New York Times.
The main objective of the criminal justice system is to ensure that it does not “worsen racial disparities,” as explained by The New York Times‘ Mara Gay.
Here is Mara Gay in an NYT opinion piece in 2020. She is attacking Bill de Basio (!) for “promoting a change that would allow judges to consider dangerousness when setting bail.”
Studies have shown that such consideration are likely to worsen racial disparities already rampant in the criminal justice system.
There they go again! Those darn “studies!”
Aha! So that’s what the “no bail”movement is all about: reversing racial disparities in the criminal justice system.
Really, that’s it? All the flapdoodle about Soros prosecutors and “no bail” laws is all about reversing racial disparities in law enforcement?
Don’t forget that what Mara Gay is not talking about is the monstrous overrepresentation of blacks in crime, both as victims and as perpetrators. Blacks are about ten times more likely than whites to be victims of murder and perpetrators of murder. How do you “racial disparity” that?
Now I would say that the obvious solution is a Lockdown. I mean, here we have a pandemic of violence and we have to Do Something. If a Lockdown was good enough for COVID, what’s not to like for murder and mayhem?
But no! Our liberal friends demand the opposite! No Lockdowns for accused violent criminals! No bail! No nothing! Because reversing racial disparities.
Which just shows what a bunch-a-baloney the COVID lockdowns were.
Really, “racial disparities” has become the Great White Whale for Democrats. Nothing trumps the fight against racism.
You can see that this thinking works both for the Allyship Narrative, of Allies fighting for the Oppressed Peoples against the White Oppressors, and also Sowells’ Vision of the Anointed where the Anointed are petting their Mascots and shaking their fingers at the Benighted.
And it fits the “politics must have an enemy” narrative. I am coming to the idea that whatever any politician does it comes down fighting against the enemy. So in the case of crime, a politicians is either fighting against criminals as the enemy or against the white racists unjustly prolonging “racial disparities.” Take your pick.
I say that government is only good for fighting the enemy, foreign and domestic. Foreign enemies are states that want to invade or harm us. Domestic enemies are people that want to steal from us or kill us.
But Democrats have a different idea of enemies. In the international sphere enemies are populist nationalists like Italy’s Georgia Meloni or Hungary’s Victor Orban. Domestic enemies are the racist sexist homophobes that are responsible for prolonging race and gender disparities.
Let’s restate this more directly in terms of Carl Schmitt’s Concept of the Political as the distinction between friend and enemy.
Here’s my idea:
In my world, friends are sensible nations that trade and interact with each other; enemies are aggressive nations that manipulate their economies and want to plunder other nations.
In my nation, friends are law-abiding people that follow the rules, go to work, and obey the law; enemies are street thugs and fraud artists.
Here’s the liberal idea:
In liberal world, friends are the educated elite of all nations and mulitnational organizations; enemies are populist nationalist politicians.
In liberal nation, friends are card-carrying members of the educated class and their oppressed clients; enemies are racist-sexist-homophobe deplorables that want to oppress the educated class’s clients.
This is not that hard.
Government is like a protection racket. The officials promise to protect public safety, while aiding and abetting the criminal activity. The "failed policy" is then used to justify increased taxes, more bureaucracy, and less liberty. The same model applies in education, health care, etc. If the problems were actually "solved" the political grifters would lose their cushy positions.