Democrats - candidates AND voters - should be very cautious about casting aspersions on those who

[StarfishSaver]

work in corporate America and law enforcement.

Many decent, very "woke" individuals choose to work in those fields, not because they're co-opted, greedy or uncaring, but because they know that change can only come from both outside and inside.

Smearing people for working in law enforcement as some kind of fascists is just wrong. We need good people as police officers, prosecutors, etc. to help change the system from within, make reasoned and fair decisions, and encourage new ways of thinking and doing.

The same goes for corporate America. We need good, solid people there to influence decision-making, change the culture leadership and model new ways of doing things.

If we discourage people from entering those professions and attack them as unworthy of public service if they've worked in those fields, we will both drastically curtail our ability to effect change AND unnecessarily reduce the pool of "acceptable" candidates, leaders, and other public sector servants in ways that only hurt the cause we're championing.

Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot playing purity politics.

[LonePirate]

1. I refuse to provide blanket support for LEOs given their rampant racism and murderous tendencies.

Are there some good people in law enforcement? Yes. There are also far too many who have no place in that line of work.

[StarfishSaver]

2. I didn't suggest "blanket support for LEOs"

I said we shouldn't hold working in law enforcement or corporate against candidates solely because they worked in those fields.

And law enforcement isn't limited to police officers.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. I refuse to provide blanket condemnation of LEOs. . . . . nt

[George II]

3. Thank you! Back when I lived there, I came in contact with many NYC police officers....

In close to 40 years of living and working there (30 years living) I only came across what would be considered "bad cops". For perspective, there are 30,000+ police officers in NYC.

[AnotherMother4Peace]

5. Thank you. There are many fine law enforcement/public safety people, serving our community honorably

Many years ago I worked for Immigration & Naturalization Service, working on asylum cases. Our group was professional, caring, always followed up to assist the client and/or attorney. Some of our group have passed on, but boy, I think we were a true asset.

[mcar]

6. The new 1st VP of our Democratic Women's Club

in my red county is a retired Miami cop. Her husband is a Vietnam vet/career military. They both are as liberal as they come.

[abqtommy]

7. It makes no sense to make blanket statements about any people. There are good and bad folks

everywhere and we should congratulate those we deem to be good. But if they're bad folk who walk like fascists and talk like fascists then there's nothing wrong with pointing that out.

[StarfishSaver]

8. This is what I'm talking about ...

Link to tweet

Nice to know I'm not alone in my opinion.

[betsuni]

10. +1

[Otto Lidenbrock]

14. The most laughable aspect of this Pete/McKinsey furore is the new conspiracy that he was CIA

[stopdiggin]

9. Absolutely right. And absolutely needed to be said.

The "purity" and holier than thou games are destructive. Funny how we recognize that when it comes to family and personal relationships .. and seem to forget the same when comes to organizations and groups.

And when it comes to the point where we're criticizing anybody that's ever worked for a large company or a corporation ...? That's just silliness bordering on .... Well .. a very, very sheltered version of the real world.

[betsuni]

11. K&R

[theaocp]

12. I promise to have cynicism for corporate America and law enforcement at all times

until evidence warrants further trust in those areas. Better training for law enforcement, transparency overall, and goddamned OVERSIGHT will go a long way to building trust with the public. When the system is designed to quash dissent due to an unending supply of replacements, "good, solid people" will influence jackshit, no purity needed. They will be replaced as needed. The system grinds on.

[StarfishSaver]

13. What do you do for a living?

[theaocp]

15. To demonstrate my inability to form an opinion due to not having enough skin in the areas of

law enforcement or corporate America? Or to point out the necessity of cleaning my own profession before expressing justified skepticism of others? Did I miss anything? I'm skeptical of those professions. You're unlikely to change my mind. Cheers.

[StarfishSaver]

16. Just wondering if your purity extends to your own life, livelihood and pocketbook.

[theaocp]

17. As I thought.

You're no longer trying to discuss law enforcement and corporate issues and pivoting to me. You're welcome to start that thread, I suppose. I think staying on the weaknesses in oversight of law enforcement and corporate America is important. Maybe their reputation could be improved. Cheers.

[StarfishSaver]

18. I'm not "pivoting" to you

I'm simply pointing out that working in these fields should not be an automatic disqualifier because everyone who works from or benefits from these occupations is not evil or complicit. We can point out the weaknesses in oversight of law enforcement and corporate America without demonizing everyone who works there.

[theaocp]

19. While it may not be automatic, I believe the areas are deserving of skepticism

and tough oversight. Great power, great responsibility and all that. Putting the broad brushes away is great, but ONLY with agreement to such regulations. Cheers.

[StarfishSaver]

20. You're arguing something very different

"Areas" being "deserving of skepticism" is not the same as disqualifying everyone who worked in those areas from serving in elected office.

For example, the fact that a 27-year-old Pete Buttigieg worked for McKinsey is not a big deal. The fact that Kamala Harris was an attorney general does not make her a "cop" unworthy of the presidency. I actually think it's a good thing that decent people are willing to go into those professions. We need smart young progressives like Pete in the corporate world and dynamic progressives like Kamala in decision-making positions in law enforcement. Using those career choices to undercut them later in life is counter-productive and, frankly, just plain silly.

[Humanist_Activist]

21. Look at what happened in Miami, there's a systemic sickness and lack of accountability...

in law enforcement, the "good ones" are driven out or sometimes outright killed, and this is a nationwide problem.

I live in St. Louis, I remember driving down the street and having a fucking ATV drove up behind me, blaring for me to get out of the way when the Ferguson riots occurred. Never seen one before that day, they are a occupational army, nothing less. This is the same ATV that had cops arming its automatic weapons and pointing them at civilians, threatening non-violent protesters with death for being black. Where were the good cops that day?

Then during the Stockley protests, the police using bottling techniques(basically order you to disperse while surrounding you and not letting you leave) to make sure to arrest everyone in the area that was anywhere near the protests. It was so bad local businesses opened their doors to protesters to make sure they could hide from the police, it was fucking insanity.

For fuck's sake, we have two police unions for the city police, one for white police officers and another for black police officers.

As for "corporate jobs" it really depends on the job, doesn't it. It doesn't matter how progressive your personal politics are if your job description includes finding ways to screw over the working class, does it?

[StarfishSaver]

22. If you're concerned their job description "includes finding ways to screw over the working class"

then look at their job description and what they did. But attacking them because they worked in a certain job or industry is lazy, myopic and immature purity politics.