Said Eric Adams, quoted in "Defying 'defund police' calls, Democrat Adams leads NYC mayor's race" (Reuters).
His success could offer clues about where Democratic voters stand on policing issues ahead of next year's congressional midterm elections. With Republicans preparing to blame Democrats and the "defund" movement for a spike in homicides across U.S. cities, the Democratic Party could be forced to navigate progressive calls to reduce police budgets with combating rising crime.
Posts
2 comments:
Amadeus 48 writes:
“With Republicans preparing to blame Democrats and the "defund" movement for a spike in homicides across U.S. cities, the Democratic Party could be forced to navigate progressive calls to reduce police budgets with combating rising crime.”
WTF? What does this clueless thumb-sucker mean by saying the Democratic Party could be forced to navigate (strange word in this context) progressive calls to reduce police budgets with combating rising crime? Isn’t the writer conceding both an increase in homicides and rising crime? Shouldn’t the object of civil government be to keep the people safe and their property secure? Why would the Democrats be forced to do something that is the natural role of government? As one of our founding documents says, “… to secure these rights [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], Governments are instituted among Men….” If the Democrats are forced to combat rising homicide and crime by their Republican opposition, and significant elements of their party think that increased homicides and crime are unimportant, they have no business being in government.
But the writer is merely jabbering in an attempt to somehow implicate the GOP in the Democrats’ misgovernment. I live in Chicago. It is very clear where the responsibility for our situation lies. There are no Republicans in office. It is the Democrats against the people.
It should at least be "navigate between progressive calls to reduce police budgets and combating rising crime."
But there's still a terrible lack of parallelism. Make it: "navigate between reducing police budgets and combating rising crime." But that treats the solutions as if they were the problem. If it's a navigation metaphor, then it's navigation in a sea of troubles.
You could go with "navigate between progressive calls to reduce police budgets and moderate demands to combat rising crime." But then you can see that politicians don't really want to do anything people demand. They just want to avoid trouble and get elected.
It's hard to navigate out of that meaning and grammar problem.
I'd say don't use the navigation metaphor at all.
Post a Comment