Metrocons

There are two types of conservatives.   One is libertarian leaning and know the police are people, too, that make mistakes and sometimes violate civil liberties and are even actual thugs.  The other type is more patrician and authoritarian and are big on Law and Order, especially order, and to them the police are the protecting thin blue line and get a bunch more benefit of the doubt.

The second kind are often Metrocons.  City conservatives.  Conservatives that call the cops when things go bad but to actually take up arms to defend themselves.  As if they were too civilized to possess a weapon.  They would never stand in front of their store in a riot defending it with their rifle.

Bush Sr. lost some respect from the first kind, the more libertarian conservatives, when he defended the ATF from charges that the ATF was acting like jack booted thugs.  And they WERE acting like jack booted thugs, is the thing.  Bush resigned his NRA life membership over that.


The unpleasantness in Missouri exposes this difference, again.  Leftists are SHOCKED to learn there are conservatives that don't like the militarization of the police.  As if abusive cops only abused Democrats.

And now Bush Jr's speech writer Robert Patterson is calling Rand Paul a traitor for "giving aid and comfort" to the 'enemy' because he criticized the over militarization of the police.

That's the thing though.  You can be all for law and order and still be against cop playing at soldier in numbers larger than 4.  And it seems the more effective calming influence in Ferguson is being accomplished by cops wear blue than by cops wearing camo.  Seems.  It's still in flux and a gawdawful mess down there. And we know even fewer facts at this stage than we did with Le'Affaire Zimmerman.

Bottom line here:  the Metrocons.  They are wrong.  Their desire for security is understandable but also achievable while retaining a bunch more liberty that they currently propose to yield.