I've followed his economics and commentaries for years now and he strikes me more like a realist. His past columns have focused on how government oppresses blacks through minimum wage laws, housing policies, etc. I really don't see him as a social justice type or a government apologist either.

Yes. I agree with that. I got the idea, although I can'tell for sure, that he has a broad definition of "attacking the police." I suspect he thinks my opinions that the police should not use what I consider militaristic approaches, should mostly patrol their own neighborhoods and interact with the people they're protecting, and should be given few laws to enforce strictly to be "attacking" the police.

What he's actually trying to say is that these politicians who attack the police are actually doing so because they think it will further their political careers.

I get the notion he thinks disagreeing with his ideas on policing = attacking the police.