Conservative contradictions

How did conservatives–typically staunch proponents of the Second Amendment and vocal opponents of government overreach–come to be the vanguard of the “thin blue line” movement, a symbol of government authority, unchecked and coercive in its use of force? One of the most perplexing developments of the past five years has been the emergence of a growing paradoxical pro-government wing of a self-proclaimed party of “limited government”.

History of a symbol

Though the symbol of the “thin blue line” has existed to some degree since the mid-20th century, it first gained mainstream popularity in the latter decades of the 1900s as accusations of police brutality and racial injustice haunted the LAPD. The symbol saw a resurgence in the public eye more recently as a response to the Black Lives Matter movement, which gained prominence in the mid-2010s. Though advocates claim that the symbol exists to honor first responders, it has been an increasingly popular emblem among white supremacists within the past decade.

Selective outrage

The “thin blue line” movement contains all the ingredients of dishonest right-wing rhetoric that have shaped the past decade:

  • Proxy argument: The right-wing muddies rhetoric by saying one thing while acting upon another. In a proxy argument, the speaker doesn’t care whether the argument holds up–they use it simply to muddy the waters and delay meaningful opposition. The logic is irrelevant; the object of the strategy is to produce appealing, if flimsy, rhetoric to gather mainstream support. Conservatives rallied behind both the pro-police movement and the attempted coup at the capitol that waged violence against first responders: a clear contradiction that went largely unchallenged within the party.
  • Hypocrisy: Conservatives appeal to a “limited federal government” when they are the minority party. The purpose of a limited government in principle is to favor individuals’ rights, but in practice, the GOP will forsake small government to achieve their ends when necessary.
  • Strategic Ambiguity: Though the right claims that the association of the “thin blue line” symbol with white supremacists and neo-Nazis does not represent the larger cause, they do nothing to root them out from the party. The administration gains tacit support from these hate groups by toeing the line of acceptance and rejection instead of a loud and clear admonition of the violence and hate inherent to these groups.
  • Logical Contradictions: Conservatives appeal to public safety when advocating for gun rights, but cops can use the presence of a gun–or the fear that a gun may be present–as an excuse to use deadly force, a fallacy conservatives embraced in the “thin blue line” movement.

The Massachusetts connection

When conservative leaders in Massachusetts towns decry cancel culture on one hand while calling for public officials to be fired for removing a controversial symbol on the other, it raises the question: is this about principle, or the panic of losing symbolic dominance?

A movement unmoored

The “thin blue line” has transformed from a symbol of solemn remembrance to a political litmus test, forcing a choice between critical thinking and tribal loyalty. Conservatives who once championed skepticism of government overreach now find themselves embracing its most coercive agents–not out of principle, but out of reaction.