Tucker Carlson: ‘Defund the Police’ Was a Disaster for Democrats
Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” host Tucker Carlson outlined how the so-called “Defund the Police” moniker was a “disaster” for Democrats in last week’s election.
He noted that Democrats had abandoned the slogan out of politics and not necessarily out of it representing bad policy.
Transcript as follows:
What you’re watching right now is not simply a battle between two political parties, or even two opposing worldviews, it is deeper than that. And if you want to understand what’s really going on, we’re going to isolate just one slogan that kind of decodes it all. The slogan is, “Defund the police.”
Defund the police. You probably haven’t heard that for a while. In the weeks before the election, no elected Democrat would say those words in public. So effectively, it has disappeared.
Yet, in a lot of ways, “defund the police” defined this year in American politics. For months, it was the central demand of the American left. It was the main thing they wanted. And there was never any question about what defunding the police would mean. Really, it was a remarkably straightforward slogan.
Defund the police meant, defund the police: cut off their salaries, get rid of them. But why? What was the point of getting rid of the police? Of defunding them? That’s the real question. It’s baffling, really.
In conventional politics, the goal is always to improve the lives of your voters, give people something they want, and in return, they will vote for you. That’s the exchange.
But who exactly wanted to defund the police? Was there a constituency for that? Whose life was going to be improved by abolishing law enforcement? Was there evidence that anyone’s would be improved? No, there wasn’t.
No academic study or white paper from some think tank in Washington even suggested that defunding the police would help anyone. In fact, dozens of studies over decades proved exactly the opposite. It would make things much worse, and that makes sense. How would dangerous neighborhoods become safer once there was no one around to stop crime and violence?
Well, obviously, they wouldn’t become safer. That’s ridiculous.
If you thought about it for 15 seconds, you would know that defunding the police inevitably would wind up killing people. That’s not an exaggeration. Literally, Americans would die if you defunded the police. They knew that, but they did in any way.
We’ve never seen anything like that happen here. We have had a lot of bad ideas in America over the years, but most of them hurt people by accident. In the late 1950s, doctors prescribed for example, thalidomide to pregnant women because they sincerely thought it would help. When the drug turned out to cause horrifying birth defects, they were shocked and contrite.
The well-meaning liberals who designed our welfare system never dreamed it would destroy the black family and make poverty worse. That was an unintended consequence of a good intention. That is not what is happening here.
The left called for defunding the police knowing full well what would happen next — chaos. Chaos was the whole point of it. More rape, more robbery, more murder. Those weren’t unfortunate byproducts of a noble idea. Those were the intended consequences.
Think about that for a minute. The people behind defunding the police tried to destroy society itself. That’s not politics. Tearing down civilization isn’t a political position. It’s something much, much darker than that. It’s a kind of spiritual battle.
That sounds like overstatement, but it’s not. We should understand the stakes here.
For a long time though, we didn’t understand them. In fact, when the Defund the Police Movement started this summer, few knew what was going on, as was so many faddish hysterias that sweep our culture, most people just went along with it. They were afraid not to. Everyone else was.
So when BLM vandals painted “Defund the Police” on a major thoroughfare in Washington right near the White House, the incompetents who run that city let it stand for months. They were proud of it. They said so.
Gadflies like Sandy Cortez from Westchester went on television to explain that defunding the police was cool. It’s what all the kids were doing. It’s the future, and therefore better.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): It’s funny because when people ask me what does the world where we defund the police, where you know, defunding police looks like, I tell them it looks like a suburb.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Defunding the police looks like a suburb just like the one Sandy Cortez grew up in, with lush lawns and pool parties and hip moms and Range Rovers and the pickup line. Fun.
But the reality of defunding the police was very different. America’s cities did not become suburbs, thanks to Sandy Cortez’s idea. As summer continued, here’s what they looked like.
[VIDEO CLIP PLAYS]
CARLSON: No, that’s not Sandy Cortez’s sleepy hometown, that’s the reality of defunding the police. Our cities burn.
The elderly were beaten and killed by thugs. Crimes skyrocketed in every metro area in the country. Things fell apart as they were always going to.
No normal person in either party could support this. So, the architects of Defund the Police did what they could to silence all discussion of the topic. Don’t talk about it.
Here is Lisa Bender, the President of the Minneapolis City Council explaining that Americans who were uncomfortable with their homes being broken into in a world without police must be — and of course, you can guess the punch line here — racist. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Do you understand that the word “dismantle” or “police free” also makes some people nervous. For instance, what if in the middle of the night, my home is broken into. Who do I call?
LISA BENDER, PRESIDENT, MINNEAPOLIS CITY COUNCIL: Yes, I mean, I hear that loud and clear from a lot of my neighbors. And I know — and myself too — and I know that that comes from a place of privilege, because for those of us for whom the system is working, I think we need to step back and imagine what it would feel like to already live in that reality, where calling the police may mean more harm is done.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: So calling the police is an act of bigotry. Self-defense is immoral. That was Lisa Bender’s position. Again, that’s not a political position. That’s a religion.
But increasingly, that was the posture of the entire Democratic Party, and you know what happened next, inevitably. By August, shootings in New York City had increased by more than 80 percent over the year before — 80 percent. There is no precedent for that because it has never happened.
Defunding the police was killing Americans in huge numbers. And yet, remarkably, the very people who claimed so loudly to care about gun violence decided not to notice what was happening. They never mentioned it.
By September, when virtually every person who could afford it had fled the cities in fear of disorder and chaos, Kamala Harris was still repeating the same BLM approved talking points, still attacking the police. Here she is in a tape, she certainly wishes didn’t exist.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAMALA HARRIS (D): Black Lives Matter has been the most significant agent for change within the Criminal Justice System, because it has been a counterforce to the force within the system that is so grounded in status quo and in its own traditions, many of which have been harmful and have been discriminatory in the way that they have been enforced.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: If Republicans had been smart, that would have been a political ad last month, “Black Lives Matter has been the most significant agent for change within the Criminal Justice System.” What does that mean?
Well, Black Lives Matter had only one demand of the justice system and they shouted it over and over again into bullhorns in our streets, “Defund the police. Defund the police.” That was their demand. They said so, they didn’t hide it.
So in many places, the authorities did just that and you know what happened next. In Minneapolis, which was the first city in America to embrace this lunacy, more than a hundred cops are now leaving the force. Crime has become so bad in Minneapolis that the very politicians who once demanded that we defund the police are now begging for more police. That’s happening tonight.
City officials are now considering bringing in officers from other jurisdictions to restore order and keep citizens from being killed. Violent crime there is up 22 percent over last year. How did that happen? You know how it happened and voters do, too.
Thankfully, this has been a disaster for the Democratic Party, not profound enough, but still, no one is for it. Who is for defunding the police? Well pretty much no one, it turns out.
Crime and chaos scare the hell out of homeowners, taxpayers, job holders, anyone with children or pets or cars or furniture or any expectation of life beyond this afternoon. Defunding the police is nihilism and everyone knows that.
Polls show that Hispanic voters really hate the idea, and it’s one of the main reasons so many voted Republican last week. You wouldn’t have to be a desperately unhappy Gender Studies Major with a degree from Duke to think defunding the police was a wise idea. And it turns out, that’s the entire constituency for it. Unmarried, unhappy, Gender Studies Majors from Duke.
That’s not enough people to win an election and some of the smarter Democratic leaders are starting to figure that out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAMES CLYBURN (D-SC): Jaime Harrison started to plateau when Defund the Police showed up with a caption on TV, ran across his head. That stuff hurt Jaime. And that’s why I spoke out against it a long time ago.
I’ve always said that these headlines can kill a political effort.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Jim Clyburn, and ladies and gentlemen, telling it like it is. Defunding the police is a bad idea because it can, quote, “kill a political effort.” Oh, not a bad idea because it kills human beings, thousands of the poorest people in our society, which it measurably does, no one disputes that.
No, it’s a bad idea because it can kill a political objective and that’s the language the Democratic Party and its leaders can understand. So it’s unlikely we will be hearing a lot more about defunding the police. In fact, no one will ever again use that slogan.
At some point, it will be like it never happened. What was that? Something out of history. But it did happen, and it had massive consequences for all of us. You should remember it.
Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor
THE LAWLESS
LAWYER CLASS
LAWYER JACKIE LACEY
PROTECTS HER MURDERING GANG INFESTED L.A. SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT. SHE IS A
REMINDER THAT THE LAWS DO NOT APPLY TO THE LAWYER CLASS!
ONLY KAMALA HARRIS HAS
DONE MORE FOR MURDERING COPS AND THEIR GENEROUS NEO-FASCIST COP UNIONS!
https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-lawless-class-how-lawyer-jackie.html
During
her time in the DA’s office, Lacey has prosecuted only one officer for killing
a civilian, leading to protests outside her office and her home.
“She
continues to find that it is necessary for police
to kill
unarmed people,” Gascón said. “Perhaps she
thinks
it’s fine, or perhaps it’s all the money she
has taken
from police unions.” Lacey has benefitted
from
more than $5 million in contributions to
outside
committees benefiting Lacey has come
from law
enforcement unions.
In terms of her politics, there is clearly nothing
“historic” about Harris. As district attorney in San Francisco (2004-2011),
attorney general in California (2011-2017), and, finally, US senator (2017 to
the present), Harris has compiled a track record of backing the police, locking
up workers and immigrants, covering up for the banks and supporting militarism
and war.
The
selection of Kamala Harris and the degradation of American politics
13 August 2020
With the selection of Kamala Harris to be the running mate
of Joe Biden, the framework of the 2020 elections has been set. As was to be
expected, the Democrats have chosen the most right-wing candidates to run the
most right-wing campaign possible.
There is a certain inevitability to the
choice of Harris. In July of last year,—based on a survey of who would be the
worst, most reactionary and at the same time most suitable choice for second
spot on the Democratic Party ticket— predicted that Harris would most likely be
named the vice presidential candidate if she failed to win the nomination. She
had all the ruthlessness, narcissism and careerism requisite for the job, plus
the ethnic background to suit the Democrats’ obsession with racial and gender
identity.
Kamala Harris is a dyed-in-the wool political reactionary.
This year has seen mass demonstrations throughout the
country in response to the police murder of George Floyd. As a direct result of
the policies of the ruling class, nearly 170,000 people have died to date in
the coronavirus pandemic, with the daily death toll now at more than 1,000.
There is growing anger in workplaces over the homicidal back-to-work campaign
and broad opposition among teachers to the efforts to reopen the schools. Tens
of millions of people are unemployed, and they have been cut off from federal
benefits and face being evicted from their homes.
In the midst of this monumental political, economic and
social crisis, and against the backdrop of so much suffering, the American people
are to be offered the “choice” between the fascistic Trump, the conman from New
York, and a Democratic Party ticket headed by a corporate shill from Delaware
and an ex-prosecutor from California. This says everything about the degraded
state of American politics.
Following the announcement by Biden on Tuesday, the media
leapt into action with its nauseating effusion of state propaganda. The
selection of Harris has been universally proclaimed to be “historic,” a
watershed moment.
In terms of her politics, there is clearly nothing
“historic” about Harris. As district attorney in San Francisco (2004-2011),
attorney general in California (2011-2017), and, finally, US senator (2017 to
the present), Harris has compiled a track record of backing the police, locking
up workers and immigrants, covering up for the banks and supporting militarism
and war.
Wall Street is certainly happy with the
choice. “A VP pick that big business can back,” ran a headline on the inside
pages of the New York Times. As for the military, its main
concern is what will happen if the aging Biden doesn’t make it through a full
term. Since the beginning of the Trump administration, opposition from the
Democratic Party has been focused on issues of foreign policy. Harris, who has
no other agenda than her own self-promotion, will be silly putty in the hands
of the military-intelligence apparatus.
The “historic” character of the Harris nomination is
premised entirely on her race and gender. She would be the “first
African-American vice president,” the “first Asian-American vice president” and
the “first female vice president.” She already is the “first Black woman on the
national ticket of the Democrats or Republicans.” Everything is about the
symbolism involved in the choice of Harris, with not a word about the program
of a Democratic Party administration.
As if any of this makes a bit of difference for workers,
whatever their race, gender or ethnicity. As if, moreover, the world has not
already had the example of Obama, not to mention Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza
Rice, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton and many others.
The selection of Harris exposes the utterly reactionary
character of politics that bases itself on race, gender and other forms of
identity—anything but class. In response to the eruption of protests against
police violence, the Democrats did everything they could to obscure the class
issues, promote racial divisions and propagate the lie that the violence of the
police is an expression of the oppression of “black America” by “white America.”
The outcome of this racialist campaign is the selection as their
vice-presidential candidate of a right-wing ex-prosecutor who once covered up
evidence to keep an innocent man on death row and worked to tear immigrant
children from their parents.
Those invested in the racialist campaign
have jumped on the bandwagon to declare the selection of Harris “historic.”
Ibram Kendi, author of How to Be An Antiracist and one of
the chief inspirers of the New York Times’ 1619 Project, wrote on
Twitter that “the Democrats now have a presidential ticket that reflects the
American people better than the GOP ticket and every presidential ticket in US
history.”
According to Kendi, politicians “reflect” the American
people not because of the socioeconomic forces they represent, but solely by
their racial and ethnic background and their gender. Interests are determined
by race. This is not progressive politics, but right-wing and racialist
politics, which shares much in common with the fascistic politics of Donald
Trump.
Black Lives Matter activist Shaun King wrote that he was
“incredibly proud to see a brilliant Black woman, and HBCU [historically black
colleges and universities] grad, chosen as a vice presidential nominee.” This
was, he added, the stuff “dreams are made of.”
Commenters on Twitter quickly pointed to the contrast
between this statement and his declaration in November 2018 that he would never
support Biden or Harris because “they both helped build & advance mass
incarceration.”
Political principles have never been a strong suit of
Democratic Party hacks. They look forward to positions within the Biden
administration and other opportunities that will reap financial rewards.
Then there is Bernie Sanders. In the Democratic Party
primaries, Sanders won widespread support for his attacks on social inequality
and his calls for a “political revolution” against the establishment. On this
basis, he emerged as the main contender against Biden for the Democratic Party
nomination. In the end, however, the “Sanders wing” of the Democratic Party got
nothing.
BLOG EDITOR: SANDERS ALSO ENDORSED
BANKSTER-OWNED CROOK ON THE LAM, HILLARY CLINTON!
This has not, however, stopped Sanders from praising the
outcome. Sanders tweeted that Harris “will make history as our next vice
president.”
Since packing in his campaign in mid-March, Sanders has
assumed his assigned role as principal cheerleader for the Biden campaign,
along with Elizabeth Warren, et. al. The more that social anger grows, and the
more the Democrats are exposed, the more determined is his support for the
Democratic Party.
What an exposure of the Democratic
Socialists of America (DSA), Jacobin magazine and other
political agents of the Democratic Party who claimed that Sanders was the path
to the transformation of American politics and even the realization of
socialism! They make fools of themselves every election. They will tag along
with the Democratic Party in one form or another, no doubt accompanied by talk
about how they are building a “progressive movement” inside that party of
American imperialism, along with other varieties of political fraud. Every four
years, the same play is performed.
There is something incredibly degrading and shameful about
the whole process, testifying to the intellectual and cultural collapse of
American politics.
Certain conclusions must be drawn from this experience, not
only about Sanders, but about an entire type of pragmatic politics that hopes
for easy answers to the crisis confronting the working class without a direct
challenge to capitalism and its state apparatus.
The politics of the working class must begin with a serious
theoretical understanding, rooted in a Marxist and class analysis. The
Democratic Party is a party of Wall Street and the military-intelligence
apparatus. The politics of race and gender identity, which it relentlessly
promotes, gives expression to the interests of layers of the upper-middle
class, which employ this right-wing ideology in their fight for positions of
power and privilege in the state, academia and corporate boardrooms. The
pseudo-left, including the DSA and associated organizations, represent this
social layer.
All of this is directed against the working
class and the development of a genuine movement for socialism. Objective
conditions, however, have created the conditions for a powerful eruption of
class struggle, in the United States and internationally. The coronavirus
pandemic, as the Socialist Equality Party has explained, is a “trigger event
in world history that is accelerating the already far-advanced economic,
social, and political crisis of the world capitalist system.”
Nothing progressive will emerge except through the
intervention—the interference—of the working class. The Socialist Equality
Party and our election campaign are oriented to the development of a socialist
leadership in the working class. Our campaign is the only campaign that raises
critical questions of perspective, exposing the reactionary promoters of racial
conflict and the cheerleaders of Sanders’ “political revolution.”
The SEP is spearheading the organization of workers against
the homicidal policy of the ruling elite, in opposition to all factions of the
ruling class, on the basis of a revolutionary program to put an end to
inequality, war, dictatorship and the capitalist system. This is the way
forward.
Oversight Panel Calls for Resignation of LA
Sheriff Alex Villanueva
FILE: L.A. County Sheriff Alex Villanueva speaks in August at
the graduation ceremony for the latest Academy Class. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)
In a significant erosion of
support for Los Angeles Sheriff Alex Villanueva, the Sheriff's Civilian
Oversight Commission Thursday called on him to resign as leader of one of the
largest law enforcement agencies in the country. Commissioners said the sheriff
has obstructed oversight at nearly every turn and failed to address major
problems at the agency, including the existence of "deputy gangs."
The commission's resolution
describes "a serious lack of judgement and leadership by Sheriff
Villanueva" and decries "his efforts to block meaningful
reform." It also says Villanueva has restricted access to the department
by the county's inspector general.
In an extraordinary move, the sheriff opened a criminal
investigation into Inspector General Max Huntsman in 2019, accusing him of
unlawfully accessing department records. Huntsman — and the county's attorney —
said he had access to those files under the law that created his office.
Members of the commission called the sheriff's move an act of intimidation.
LOST CONFIDENCE
The nine-member panel says it
has lost confidence in Villanueva's ability to effectively govern the agency,
which employs nearly 18,000 people and operates the largest local jail system
in the country.
Villanueva was an unconventional
candidate for sheriff when he beat incumbent Jim McDonnel in the 2018 election.
He was a retired lieutenant with little management experience who had never
supervised more than 100 people. Villanueva won largely because of the backing
of the deputy's union and an endorsement by the LA County Democratic Party.
The vote Thursday to call on
Villanueva to resign was unanimous. Some of the panel's most traditionally
pro-law enforcement members agreed the sheriff must go, including former
Federal Judge Robert Bonner, former Deputy District Attorney Lael Rubin, and
former Sheriff's Lt. J.P. Harris.
Despite those credentials,
Villanueva has called the panel anti-law enforcement.
"They're political
philosophies are either they really, really hate cops or they slightly hate
cops or they're not too sure," he said. In the sheriff's view, attempts by
the panel to oversee his department are part of a "proxy war" by the
Board of Supervisors. The board appoints the panel.
It's worth noting Villanueva's
relationship with the board has deteriorated too — two members of the board
have asked him to resign. Aspiring members of the board also are critical of
the sheriff. In Wednesday's debate hosted by
our newsroom,
Herb Wesson and Holly Mitchell both said the sheriff was unqualified to do the
job. They're vying for the open District 2 seat, which represents cities such
as Carson, Compton, Culver City and Inglewood; all or part of L.A.
neighborhoods including Crenshaw, Koreatown, La Brea, and Mar Vista; and other
unincorporated areas of the county.
Villanueva did not immediately
respond to requests for comment on the commission's vote.
AN ELECTED OFFICE
The sheriff is elected by the
voters — so it's unclear what effect the calls for resignation will have. In
fact, several commissioners worried their resolution will close the door on any
hope for effective oversight — even though it simultaneously calls on the
sheriff to cooperate with the panel.
"It does seem to be a bit
of a contradiction," said Harris. "I hope it doesn't close the
door."
"He is the one that closed
the door, he's the one that can open it," said Commissioner and Loyola Law
School Professor Priscilla Ocen.
The vote comes amid a raging
debate over policing in the country and a demand for more accountability and
transparency. It also follows a series of controversial shootings by sheriff's
deputies that drew angry protests, as well as accusations of brutality by the
department during the George Floyd and other demonstrations.
Among the resolution's points:
§ Sheriff Villanueva removed the
Sheriff's Department's constitutional policing advisors, while at the same time
attempting to rehire deputies who were fired for cause, such as fabricating
evidence and domestic violence.
§ Sheriff Villanueva alleged,
without proof, that the disciplinary process was "unfair" and
deactivated the disciplinary proceedings against deputies accused of using
excessive force and committing child abuse
§ Violent deputy cliques or gangs
continue to operate within the department, particularly in the Compton and East
Los Angeles stations... Despite Sheriff Villanueva's claims that members of
these cliques/gangs have been disciplined or reassigned pursuant to Sheriff's
Department policy, Inspector General Max Huntsman has said that he is
"'aware of no implementation whatsoever' of the policy and that his office
can't effectively investigate the secret societies 'because of the obstruction
of the Sheriff's Department.'"
In another part of the
resolution, the commission says the commission has "violated the First
Amendment rights of residents engaging in protest activity as well as
journalists covering protests." It cites the arrest of LAist/KPCC reporter
Josie Huang,
who was taken into custody by deputies last month after identifying herself as
a member of the press. "In defending the arrest, Sheriff Villanueva cited
inaccurate and misleading information that was contradicted by contemporaneous
video footage."
THE BACKSTORY
When Villanueva took office in
December of 2018, commissioners initially were hopeful for a better
relationship with him than his predecessor Jim McDonnell, who sometimes
resisted requests for information from the panel and attended only a handful of
their meetings.
Indeed, Villanueva attended
several meetings during his first few months in office but as commissioners'
questions became more pointed about deputy discipline, use of force and other
matters, he quit showing up.
Villanueva was particularly
perturbed by the panel's demand for more information about his decision to
rehire a former campaign aide who had been terminated by the department for
alleged domestic violence and lying. The rehiring of Caren Carl Mandoyan
sparked a lawsuit by the board of supervisors and a judge's ruling it was
unlawful.
His relationship with the
nine-member civilian panel steadily deteriorated since then with his often
refusing to even send subordinates to answer questions necessary for them to
conduct effective oversight. McDonnell almost always sent his undersheriff to
meetings - even if his responses to inquiries left the commission unsatisfied.
In May, Villanueva defied the
first ever subpoena by the commission to testify about how he was handling the
spread of coronavirus inside LA County's sprawling jail system. The sheriff
worried it would be a "public shaming" of him.
The commission was created by
the Board of Supervisors in January of 2016 to increase transparency and
accountability at the department. In March, voters approved a measure giving
subpoena power. At each point, criminal justice reform advocates expressed high
hopes for better oversight and changes at the sheriff's department.
With the commission now at a
standoff with the sheriff, nobody expressed much hope.
There was talk of a recall of
the sheriff among a few activists who spoke at the meeting - the only hope for
some to oust a sheriff who's vowed to remain in power.
»
No comments:
Post a Comment