Against federalizing law enforcement

Local law enforcement, particularly elected sheriffs who fall under the purview of the citizens rather than state or federal authorities, are some of the most essential safeguards against the emergence of tyrannical government in the U.S.  To convince enough of them that they should transition from defenders of the Constitution to enforcers of orders imposed by the ruling clique — squashing any meaningful resistance of the people against the unpopular regime — would clearly be a gargantuan task.  As a matter of fact, sheriffs have been more likely to side with their constituencies than with state or federal authorities if there is a substantial conflict between the former and the latter.

On the other hand, federal law enforcement agencies may be, and have been, weaponized against the people under such pretenses as defending democracy, making sure that no one is above the law, or accomplishing other desirable political (but not mentioned in the Constitution and the laws based upon it) objectives.

The above rather obvious fact must have been known to the powerful lobby that is trying to transform the U.S. into a neo-Marxist behemoth, closer to an authoritarian Soviet-style system with a Chinese twist, while eroding the constitutional republic that offers the American people unprecedented individual liberty paired with high living standards.  So it must surprise no one that said lobby consistently advocates dismantling of the local law enforcement while being totally permissive toward sustained expansion of unconstitutional police powers of the federal government, particularly those exercised by the so-called "fourth branch" — the administrative state.  The lobby and its allies would cry "defund the police" and call for non-enforcement of criminal laws and statutes about every time when a lawbreaker is killed by a local law enforcement agent, but they remain conspicuously silent when federal agencies overstep their authority and violate constitutional rights of the people, or even break the law in order to accomplish politically desirable objectives — of which the recent raid on Mar-a-Lago is an example.

Several decades of the above-described advocacy, aided by propaganda in many "mainstream" media and the well orchestrated indoctrination of students in the American education system, have resulted in what we see these days: a sharp political split between conservatives and progressives.  The conservatives would like to preserve the constitutional republic, based on the law and individual freedom.  The progressives would like to abolish it and replace it with authoritarian system controlled not by the American people, but by the government of "experts" who know better than the people what is the best for the people, and are in charge of dispensing "social justice" and protecting the so-called "oppressed" from the alleged abuses of the so-called "oppressors."

Although the conservatives remain firm supporters of law and order, which presumes a dose of common ethic among the majority of Americans and requires well functioning law enforcement, they are often skeptical about real and perceived threats that the federal agencies pose to their individual freedom.  On the other hand, the progressives appear more sympathetic to empowering federal authorities, particularly the administrative state, at the expense of local law enforcement agencies, presuming that the federal government has declared itself a champion of social justice and protection of the so-called "oppressed."  This dichotomy is a logical consequence of the fact that progressive ideology is generally incompatible with human nature and, therefore, requires a strong element of coercion in order to be implemented, while trusting the American people with their individual freedoms does not generally lead to forcing the citizenry into actions that are antithetical to their natural propensities and moral beliefs.

From the perspective described above, in the aftermath of the recent FBI raid on the Mar-a-Lago residence of President Trump and the subsequent widespread outrage among conservative politicians and commentators, the claims that the conservatives are no longer the law-and-order segment of the American society, and have equated themselves with the "defund the police" progressives, are utterly absurd.  There is no symmetry between the right and the left.  The conservatives want to live in a free society that protects the law-abiding from the lawbreakers, while the progressives want their unaccountable "experts" to rule the society that has been coerced to obey their ideology of social justice and protection of the so-called "oppressed."  For all those who still don't see the fundamental difference here, please, keep in mind that the welfare of the people was a typical excuse for virtually all known parasitic regimes that kept their people under unchecked control.  This is why all those who cherish their freedom in America must oppose any kind of federalization of law enforcement — when policing is delegated to local authorities, those agents are accountable to the very people they are supposed to serve and protect, and that system is most compatible with individual freedom.

Mark Andrew Dwyer's recent columns are posted at The Federal Observer and Canada Free Press.  Links to his other commentaries can be found here.

Image: Jacqueline Macou from Pixabay, Pixabay License, free for commercial use, no attribution required

If you experience technical problems, please write to