The modern Democratic Party has grown sclerotic in its commitment to chaos. Indeed, the more indefensible the position, the more likely a modern Democrat will adopt it.
This phenomenon, of course, requires an explanation.
In an interview Tuesday with Jan Jeffcoat of The National Desk, former Superintendent of Police for the Chicago Police Department Jody P. Weis offered one of only two possible explanations for why Illinois Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Chicago Democratic Mayor Brandon Johnson have fought tooth and nail against President Donald Trump’s pledge to clean up their crime-infested city.
“Why do you think Pritzker and Johnson are so resistant to this?” Jeffcoat asked.
“If I’m gonna say a simple answer,” Weis responded moments later, “I think they’re afraid. I think they are afraid that people will see what can be done if politicians commit to taking action and really want to make a difference.”
“That’s the only reason I can think of,” he added, “because, otherwise, it makes no sense.”
Weis then credited Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser of Washington, D.C., for taking the opposite approach.
“And if you look at what Mayor Bowser has done in D.C.,” he continued, “she’s embraced it, and it’s made a huge difference. I wish they would learn from her.”
So why would Democratic leaders reject Bowser’s example and continue to resist Trump? Let us examine the only two possible explanations that leap to mind.
Oddly enough, the question of federal control over municipal law enforcement arose in an ancillary way when Alexander Hamilton, the United States’ first Secretary of the Treasury, delivered a written opinion to President George Washington in defense of Congress’ power to create a corporation, in this case the First Bank of the United States, for the purpose of collecting taxes or regulating trade.
“Thus a corporation may not be erected by congress, for superintending the police of the city of Philadelphia because they are not authorised to regulate the police of that city,” Hamilton wrote in 1791.
In other words, questions of federalism come into play when discussing power not expressly delegated in the Constitution. And power over the police certainly falls under that heading. Trump has not proposed using the National Guard to supplant or co-opt the CPD. But a “slippery slope” argument does exist here.
And that leads us to our first possible explanation: Democrats object to Trump’s anti-crime measures because they love liberty.
Not often in one’s career does one have the opportunity to advance a proposition so laughably absurd. After all, Democrats showed their true authoritarian colors during the COVID scare. And they did it again with their reaction to the Capitol incursion of Jan. 6, 2021. They also detest the Bill of Rights, in particular the First and Second Amendments.
Thus, their objection to Trump’s anti-crime measures has nothing to do with loving liberty. They simply object to the exercise of power by anyone other than themselves.
Second, as Weis noted, Democrats have resisted Trump’s efforts because they fear his success.
That, of course, makes total sense. If Trump frees Democrats’ constituents from crime and poverty, then those constituents will have no use for Democrats. They will begin to see, for instance, that Democrat leaders have no real interest in black lives.
“Seventy-eight percent of the victims are black,” Weis said of shooting victims in Chicago, “[and] 81 percent of the offenders are black.”
Democratic leaders, however, prefer to march with Black Lives Matter than to save actual black lives. The former requires nothing more than grievance-mongering, which they do best. The latter would require solving a problem on which they prefer to continue campaigning. To hold onto power, they need to preserve the status quo and blame others for it.
In short, Weis offered the only possible explanation for Democrats’ resistance to Trump’s anti-crime measures.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.