Anyone who thought black people’s protests about police treatment of them were not being fair to the police can think again.
Trump has been dog whistling appeals to middle class white panic and racism pretty much non-stop. Every white power organization is just delighted with his candidacy and this is who they choose to endorse.
Apparently there is no longer any concern about the “we’re not racists” mask slipping, it’s just being tossed.
So in one fell swoop you’ve lumped the Police, and everyone who supports them, in with White Power groups. I’m sure radical feminist groups overwhelmingly support Hillary too. Absolutely meaningless (unless you like shooting fish in a barrel).
I’m not thinking again. Police deal with criminals. The police are overwhelmingly decent, hardworking, underpaid, public servants and criminals are overwhelmingly lowlife scum who deserve everything that happens to them. Regardless of what color they are (in both cases)…
I am not a woman, but I support women’s rights. I am not an incarcerated criminal, but I support penal reform. I am not a Muslim, but I support freedom of religion. Even though none of those promise to enhance my own personal convenience or fortune.
I would like to think the police would support things that are good for the republic and the commonweal, and not just that which is good for their own private personal interests. Democracy serves a nation only insofar as the citizenry can look beyond ways in which the system can be manipulated for one’s own personal gain.
I see it more as a case in which the NFOP leadership, as heads of a private organization, come out to affirm *they *do see things institutionally in terms of an “us vs. them” scenario and Long Live The Blue Wall; which unfortunately drags along a huge number of members of police forces who are not at all on Mr. Trump’s side. Creating an uncomfortable situation: are local/regional chapters, chiefs of specific police forces, and/or individual members going to feel compelled to put out statements saying “the organization that’s supposed to represent me does not ME”?
This is one of the more unfair aspects of these sorts of organizational endorsements. You know that there are rank-and-file members of NFOP and the NRA who do not want anything to do with Trump, you know there are rank-and-file members of SEIU or NAACP who do not want anything to do with Mrs. Clinton, and a bunch in every case who’d call for a pox on *both *their houses. But they are generally stuck, insofar as where else are they going to go to organize to protect their interests?
The NFOP endorsing Trump plays to the authoritarians in the crowd. Some of whom are racists first and authoritarians second. But it also plays to the many, many garden-variety authoritarians who aren’t frothing bigots.
Note I’m not saying that the police, as a group or as individuals, are authoritarians. But by and large the police cheerleaders amongst the general citizenry are. And that’s the far larger group that’ll be excited by the NFOP endorsement.
Overplays? You think? Sure assume everyone who supports Trump is a racist. That’s a good way to lose an election.
A professional organization endorses on the basis of who they think is better for their members not necessarily who will be the better president. Trump has made many pro-police statements. Whether he believes it or is pandering to his crowd I don’t know. Clinton has made anti-police statements. Whether she believes it or is pandering to her crowd I don’t know. It’s not too hard to figure out who they would endorse.
The FOP was always going to endorse Trump. In many ways, he is the essence of the FOP, which considers any criticism of policing to be “anti-police” and defends openly white supremacist cops as merely displaying German-Americanpride.
There are some FOP lodges that are more reasonable. But many of them, like the main FOP lodges in Philly and NYC, use rhetoric is barely distinguishable from that of white supremacists.
But any organization has really three choices: Endorse A, endorse B, or endorse no one. And within those three choices they can do whichever with varying degrees of enthusiasm.
My labor union’s officialdom & separately-funded lobbying arm naturally leans D for their support for (or at least not implacable hostility to) all things organized labor.
Our membership is a mix of folks who think of themselves as organized labor social democrats and folks who think of themselves as rock-ribbed military veteran conservatives. And regardless of where someone stands on the above, as relatively high-responsibility folks with relatively high earnings, they deplore irresponsible chaotic lives and the high tax costs to offset those social problems. They differ greatly on how best to address these problems but agree that paying for them is a bitch.
As such our union’s lobbying arm usually ends up mumbling something gently D-favorable shortly before each election. To a firestorm of internal protest. And little effect in the broader world since our pet issues have little impact on most folks’ day to day lives.
It seems NFOP chose a more full-throated option. For reasons that made sense to them at the time.
Like what? I’m aware of some remarks about racist bias and excessive force on the part of some officers. Is any criticism of the worst officers to be taken as a statement against the whole membership or institution?
Late add: My bottom line point is that the real impact of the NFOP’s endorsement is not on their membership. But rather on the public at large. And I am repudiating the OP’s contention that the endorsement proves the NFOP is/are slobbering racists.