Why is Atlas so soft on crime, but also very hawkish?

[VBM]

Seems almost contradictory.

[Alben Barkley]

By "Atlas" are you referring to me lol? Because I think most of this site is more dovish than me and also perhaps less "soft on crime," at least when it comes to the death penalty and life without parole, both of which I think should be abolished along with excessive sentencing and overincarceration, particularly for nonviolent offenders.

Anyway, I don't see a contradiction at all. There is a difference between external and internal threats. External threats do not play by the same rules as us and threaten our very way of life, which itself should be as fair and just and decent as possible, in stark contrast to our enemies. In a way, America being a "kinder, gentler" nation internally is just another way of attacking our authoritarian, tyrannical, repressive enemies. It's a way of being BETTER than them, of proving that we can succeed and outdo them without having to stoop to their level. Not only is it not a contradiction, I'd argue those who would instead favor us being MORE harsh like those regimes while still claiming to oppose them are the ones really contradicting themselves.

It really all comes down to the Scoop Jackson quote in my signature:

"Others may seek to make America great again. I seek to make America good again, because that, in the last analysis, is our greatest claim to greatness."

[Crumpets]

This was my take on a similar question a few years ago, and I think it still holds pretty true:

I know many people whom I would describe as "pro-military/anti-police" including myself to a minimal extent. They are all basically very DC types who see the US as a country that needs to be a model of liberty, human rights, and democracy at home (and thus abhor police abuses and might even support things like prison abolition) and also see the US as a force of good around the world that needs to do things like keep Iranian influence out of Iraq and stand with countries like Georgia and Ukraine against Russia, using force if necessary. This particular demographic was probably more of a swing vote during the Bush era (at least older types), but is now squarely a Democratic voting bloc.

[Sestak]

Military vote more Democratic than police do

[Blow by blow, the passion dies]

Most of this site's userbase is composed of Democrats and D-leaning independents, hence why they support strong approaches towards Russia and China.

[Del Tachi]

Because Democrats are, duh.

[Mechavada]

Because Democrats are, duh.

Well, I agree with the basic blue avatar Trump supporter on one issue.

There is a tendency within American liberalism to be very judgmental about the way that not only other Americans live but how folks in other countries live.  This is why almost inevitably despite liberals occasionally becoming anti-war in response to wars started by conservatives they ultimately swing back towards being interventionist on foreign matters.  Yes, there is truth to the idea that America shouldn't be alone in the world or hide from it.  However, there is such a concept as "trade", there is such a thing as "diplomatic relations", and I think that differs from the tendency of liberal hawks to pre-emptively choose sides in any given conflict because it makes them feel good.

Also, one concrete argument I see against the culture of liberal activism ("wokeism", "SJWs", whatever the hell you want to call it) is that when you have a bunch of energized folks who spend months and years attacking other Americans for having disagreements over basic political issues, arguing that disagreements on those issues amount to "violence", such a group begins to get mission creep from dishonest actors from corporations and the military industrial complex whose motives are entirely monetary to make the argument that it's not only immoral to stand on the sidelines here when bad things happen, it's immoral to do so when it happens in the borders of another country.  We saw this quite clearly with the withdrawal from Afghanistan: Biden finally pulled us out of that country after twenty years or so and the first thing out of a lot of the precious and enlightened PMCs was BUT WHAT ABOUT THE WOMYNS!!!!!!?

As for why Atlas is "so soft on crime". . . . .I'm sure you've dealt with cops before my man.  I think the sane position is "soft on crime" because like honestly the only thing "hard on crime" seems to do is fund cops to sit in their squad cars eating donuts until someone goes five miles over the limit or a black man pulls into a Reasor's parking lot.  Maybe the real question is why isn't the rest of America "soft on crime"?

[Sol]

Since when is Atlas "soft on crime?" Most red avatars it seemed were rooting for Paul Vallas!

[Middle-aged Europe]

That's not necessarily a contradiction, since you are not "hawkish" or "tough on crime" (whatever that means) for the sake of being hawkish or being tough on crime. It applies to you when you happen to believe it is necessary and effecttive in solving/preventing certain problems. Criminals are no foreign government with a military, so apples and oranges. That being said, I am against the death penalty for Russian war criminals.