from the American Spectator:
Breaking Out the Winchesters
What happens after you defund the police.
The apparently unstoppable nuttiness of the present moment has more faces and features than a Summit supercomputer could keep up with. Here, possibly, is the most incredible of those features: the call to “defund” the cops. Whatever “defund” may mean.
That nobody can explain the meaning of “defunding,” or the need for it, shows the rushed and improvised quality of policy — er — “thinking” in a world currently run by those whose pusillanimous elders, back in the late ’60s, routinely labeled them “the brightest generation in history.” If they ever were that bright, I believe it’s time we changed the bulb. Defunding law enforcement is the dimmest notion on public display.
You know this, in part, from listening to its advocates — for instance, Mariame Kaba, identified as “an anti-criminalization organizer,” writing — where else? — in the New York Times about her vision of “a different society, built on cooperation instead of individualism, on mutual aid instead of self-preservation.” This society would spend billions of non-police-directed dollars on “housing, food and education” — those ancient cure-alls for human maleficence.
Joe Biden’s idea — though Biden has yet to sign on with the defunders — is to “root out systemic racism across our laws and institutions” — the instant, no doubt, that we have figured out and agreed on the meanings of “systemic” and “racism.” Insofar as one notices, “systemic racism” is a figure of speech used to make indignant heads nod in unison.
In the heat of the moment, no plan seems necessary for simultaneously getting rid of cops and keeping the public safe. It’s just going to happen: assuming you believe in grand overhauls of a human disposition regarded over the centuries as less than consistently “sweet” or “nice.”