Ferguson brings the libertarians: Why a new coalition has everyone confused

[DonViejo]

After Mike Brown's shooting, an alliance of left and right emerged to demilitarize police. But here's what it's not

HEATHER DIGBY PARTON

One of the most misunderstood elements of American politics has to be the fact that legislative coalitions are very different from voting coalitions. The most obvious case in point is the erroneous assumption that the coalition that often forms around civil liberties, featuring elements of the most ideologically committed members of the left and the right, means that these groups are in agreement as to the goals they wish to obtain. It’s not essential that everyone who signs on to a bill is doing so for the same reason, but it’s vitally important that people not misinterpret the joint action as a sign that we are entering a moment of bipartisan kumbaya that will heal the nation’s wounds and bring us together once and for all.

In the wake of Michael Brown’s death and all that’s followed, we are seeing this play out in what Jim Newell accurately described as a potential coalition of right and left on the demilitarization of the police. In this case it’s the hardcore wingnuts at the Gun Owners of America joining in with the ACLU to demand an end to the Pentagon program that encourages police departments to buy surplus military equipment at bargain basement prices, both of whom have endorsed a bill by Democratic congressman Hank Johnson of Georgia to do just that. But it’s important that we distinguish that the liberty concerns driving this particular joint endorsement are not coming from the same place or seeking the same end.

Gun Owners of America president Larry Pratt is not concerned about the police harassing and shooting young African-American men or using military tactics and equipment against peaceful protesters exercising their rights under the Constitution. He has never before expressed any concern for these issues in the past. What he is worried about is something else entirely. Just a few weeks ago he appeared on Alex Jones’ conspiracy show and articulated exactly what it is he fears the most. Right Wing Watch captured the moment:

Jones asked Pratt about a Washington Times report about a 2010 Pentagon directive — an update to a series of similar directives crafted under previous administrations — outlining how and when the military can use force to quell domestic unrest “in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible.”

Jones, of course, read this to mean that it is “official and has been confirmed” that the military is “training with tanks, armored vehicles, drones” to “take on the American people, mainly the Tea Party.”

more
http://www.salon.com/2014/08/19/ferguson_brings_the_libertarians_why_a_new_coalition_has_everyone_confused/

[Jamaal510]

1. There's a saying

that immediately popped in my head from reading this: "the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend". The left and the libertarians obviously are about as far away from each other on the spectrum as possible. They have very few things they do agree on, and even with those things, the reasons why they hold those stances are vastly different. In a nutshell, there is disagreement even when there is an agreement.

[AverageJoe90]

3. This. We ignore this truth at our peril.....nt

[kwolf68]

2. There are agreements

civil liberties, choice (I think) and Libertarians are against war, but not for the same reason...they just don't like the war is being carried out by government, they could give a shit about peace.

But they are not against discrimination, government regulation or any kind of social safety net. It's truly the idealistic ideology of social darwinism.