Why are politicians suddenly worried about the police?

police and politics

Yes, I know. I’m veering into politics again. I’d say I’m sorry, but I think this is something I feel needs to be said. If you looked at the headlines for the last week or so, you’ve seen plenty of coverage regarding the January 6th “insurrection”. Suddenly, we see liberal politicians worried about how Capital police were treated by the protestors. We’ve seen law enforcement officers on duty that day describing how horrible it was for them. What we haven’t seen? Any condemnation from those same politicians when it comes to all the weeks and weeks of “mainly peaceful” protests where businesses were robbed, buildings damaged and destroyed and cops abused and injured in the process.

I’m sorry, but if you’re going to suddenly get up there and complain about how protesters treated law enforcement officials, you need to do so equally across the board. It is so very clear these politicians are simply trying to score political points and use the events of January 6th against Donald Trump. If they were truly concerned about law enforcement, the safety of our cities, and the safety of our residents, these same officials would have acted long ago to look into–and shut down–the PNW protests where police stations were occupied, whole areas blockaded and crime ran rampant.

But no. They didn’t do more than give lip service to the situation, claiming it was either a local matter or–as noted above–saying these were “mostly peaceful” protests. Why? Because they fit the political agenda of the time. BLM was the cry of the day. Cops were evil and law enforcement agencies were to be defunded.

Funny how that cry has changed in DC after it saw its own protests and our career politicians on the Hill suddenly saw protestors up close and personal.

Even so, are these same politicians really worried about making sure out local, state and national government buildings are kept safe from incursions or our police are adequately funded, equipped and prepared?

Not really. If they were, Pelosi wouldn’t have been so hell-bent on making sure her investigative committee didn’t include anyone who might have even one tiny shred of sympathy for Donald Trump. From the beginning, she and others like her made it clear this was yet another attempt to bring down Trump once and for all. The man might no longer be in office but he is still living rent free in their brains.

But here’s another aspect to the hearing we’re not hearing about, not from the politicians involved and certainly not from the mainstream media. We aren’t hearing about all those people who have been investigated, harassed, even arrested in some cases who didn’t make entry into the building. We aren’t hearing about the name of the police officer or whoever it was who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt. We aren’t hearing much about why, if there was credible evidence of a riot, more wasn’t done to secure the Capitol. We aren’t hearing why, even though the threat was over, Pelosi and company kept the Capitol–OUR Capitol–locked down for the common person who might want to visit it.

Instead, we get the circus of a hearing all these months later. We get to hear from a few police officers who (I’m sorry, it has to be said) appear to have been carefully coached on what to say when certain questions were asked. We get yet another attempt by San Fran Nan and company to go after Donald Trump.

Damn, but that man has become the Dems’ personal boogey-man.

Am I a fan of Trump? Waggles hand. He did good while he was in office but he is, as my mother would say, rude, crude and socially unacceptable. But if that was the key to whether or not someone should be president, we’d have a number of men who wouldn’t have held office. That line would be headed, not by Trump but by Lyndon B. Johnson. As someone said yesterday on Facebork in a conversation about Andrew Jackson, he was a good president but a bastard of a human being (I’m paraphrasing here).

But here’s my question to you and to those people sitting on Capitol Hill supposedly representing our best interests: is it too much to ask that they actually do their jobs?

We didn’t send them there to engage in political theater for the sakes of their own egos. We sent them there to follow the Constitution and federal laws. We sent them there as our voice on the Hill. Instead, we’re getting San Fran Nan and her continuing war against Trump.

Maybe I’m feeling a bit jaded, especially considering the current legislative debacle here in Texas where our Democratic state reps are too busy grandstanding to actually stay in the state and do their jobs. Perhaps it is time for each of us, no matter what state we’re in, to take a long, hard look at who we have elected and 1) let them know what we feel about their job performance, 2) let them know what we expect them to do as our elected representatives no matter what level of politics we’re talking about and 3) let them know what we will do if they continue to fail to live up to their campaign promises and our expectations. Of course, then we have to do everything we can to carry out our own promises. Otherwise, I’m afraid we’re going to continue seeing more and more political theater and less and less political action that will actually be of a benefit on a state, local or national level.

End of political rant.

I’ll be back this afternoon with a snippet from Russian Nights. I was confused (no surprise there) yesterday. The snippet from Risen from Ashes will be Saturday.

Featured Image by Wokandapix from Pixabay


  1. There’s No Intelligent Life In The Democratic Party! 😡

    Note, I sometimes wonder about the Republican Party but I’m “positive” about the Democratic Party. 😉

  2. I saw a headline on Red State by someone trying to call both factions of politicians hypocrites on policing and police. I thought that headline likely to be the start of a bankrupt hit piece.

    Fundamentally, there are very few Americans who have the political stance that law enforcement should be unconditionally protected and supported, even when those specific law enforcement employees are engaged in or helping with criminal acts. We can prove this easily; if there were many Americans who so felt, BLM would have faced significant pushback of the form “No. Cop had a badge, therefore nothing they did is wrong.”

    BLM’s arguments against specific officers may have possibly included some that had merit. Many Americans seem to have found some of those specific arguments persuasive. BLM’s arguments against the category of police officers were a bit more tenuous, and it seems like many fewer Americans found them very persuasive. Certainly, the ‘remedies’ of arson, murder, riot, and looting seem to have impressed extremely few Americans.

    Lots of people make the accusation of hypocrisy against others, basing their argument on the accuser’s formulation of the beliefs or positions of the accused.

    When it comes to the beliefs of a large group, if there is a rough consensus that can be summarized, it may still be impossible to fully describe it in ‘closed form’. Americans in that past appear to have been persuaded by arguments of the form ‘you know, you say x, and do y, is that not hypocritical?’ Success draws imitators, some of them bad at it, now we have a bunch of extremely dubious arguments phrased in that form, and I get irritated by those arguments.

    WRT policing and BLM, the statements normal Americans have made were in response to acts and to other statements. Rarely were they a comprehensive theory of policing, covering all of the trade offs, difficult questions, and contingencies.

    The Capitol Police answer to the Speaker of the House. If a longer term Speaker is possibly involved in a criminal conspiracy, it may be reasonable to suspect that the Capitol Police have been suborned. To say that the Capitol Police are automatically and always sacrosanct is almost to say that all police killings of blacks are licit.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.