The terms “socialist” and “leftist” used to send shudders through most of the American population but given poll numbers of support for the current crop of Presidential candidates these terms are no longer offensive or frightening to about half of the adult population.
Let me say at the outset here that for policy analysis
purposes an informed voter should try to be as objective as possible. The
ideological divide in our current political climate seems to have boiled down
to two major social theories, even though there are, of course, many other
flavors of thought. Reasonable people can argue for less government as well as
for more government. We can toss around various ideas about the economy and
have different views on abortion. All of these topics are defined differently
by our Presidential team candidates.
A leftist or socialist oriented criminal justice policy, as
currently focused by the Harris/Walz team, is defined by leveling as opposed to
equality. I use the word leveling as opposed to the rhetorically proffered
label of equity as a refinement of the concept of equality because equality of
opportunity and inherent value of personhood is different from the equity
concept that says everyone should be the same, have the same, and be given the
same. The fear of the right’s use of law enforcement is oppression in favor of
the privileged class, the fear of the left and law enforcement is the brutality
of enforcing censored speech and politically correct behavior.
Given this philosophical foundation, the idea is that
anything that causes one person to be at a higher or lower level than another
is inherently morally wrong and must be subject to social adjustment. Further,
the fact that one person seems to have fared better than another, since equity
is the natural and proper state of things, that person must somehow be the
direct or indirect cause of the person of lesser economic privilege.
For example, if we find that the prison population does not
reflect an equal representation of citizens, then it is an inequity to be
corrected. How does that happen? Get rid of the police (let’s not forget that
defunding rose from the concept of abolition of police completely), or at least
weaken them. Develop prosecutors who are reluctant to prosecute. Reduce
criminal penalties. Release people from prison. Eliminate bail for violent
offenders. Eliminate harmful labels like “terrorist” and “illegals”, and broadly
define “hate speech” to include anything that does not promote diversity and
inclusion.
The essential flaw in such a system is the assumption that
equity is the natural order of things. Competition and achieving goals, however
low or high, is the natural order of things. Debate that proposition if you
want to, but enforcing socialism necessarily leads to centralized power which
is antithetical to our Constitutional democratic republic.
Since abolishing local police is an idea whose time has not
come, and defunding has become unpopular and disastrous in many places, what is
the next best thing to do for leftist ideology to degrade the influence of the
oppressive local armed government agent? What if we demonstrated to the police
that they face likely criminal prosecution in the course of their duties? What
if we eliminated qualified immunity in complex, unique cases where
split-second, unprecedented decisions are made? What if we made law enforcement
so tainted and unappealing that fewer young people would choose that career?
What if we dramatically reduced or eliminated pedestrian contacts, traffic
contacts, and policing in schools where positive interactions between civilians
and police happen thousands of times a day?
What if we had a Presidential candidate team who endorsed
defunding the LAPD? Or a candidate who suggested that the Border Patrol is like
the KKK and eliminating it might be good? What if we had a candidate who
encouraged violent protests by raising funds to bail out violent suspects,
endorsed reduced penalties for shoplifting and drug offenses, who claimed that
more police has nothing to do with public safety, and chose a Governor who
delayed National Guard resources for Minneapolis as it burned, and encouraged
unlawful entry into the U.S.?
What if we had an administration that dangled offers of
federal grant money to local police agencies but only if they followed the
restrictions in Executive Order 14074 that were handed down when the George
Floyd Justice in Policing Act failed (but will likely rise again if Harris is
elected)? What if increasing restrictions of local law enforcement gradually
but inevitably shifted police power to the federal government where rule by
Executive Order reigned?
It seems clear that policies of a Harris Presidency would be
a downward spiral from even the Biden administration. Under Biden the FBI, IRS,
and now the Secret Service and TSA have all accumulated credible claims of
political influence in their enforcement activities. The first argument against
a Trump Presidency from a public safety perspective would be that he’s a felon
and an insurrectionist and therefore too morally vacuous to speak on justice.
It is doubtful that his felony conviction will stand up to an appeal, as we see
the other cases piled on him unraveling, and the insurrection claim hasn’t been
sustained. Neither of those arguments address what policies would be in place
during a second term. Whether it seems hypocritical or not, he is demonstrably
pro-law enforcement.
