It’s true that crime rates are low by 1980s standards and even 1990s standards but it’s really an inadequate response to those who justifiably feel unsafe in a lot of places with elevated crime. I lived in Baltimore and was assaulted on the street in broad daylight in Mt Vernon (one of the safer neighborhoods) and know that neighborhoods like West Baltimore (which I had to drive through to get to work) were positively deadly—I regularly read about shootings that would occur on the very blocks I drove through only hours before I drove through them. Dismissing crime concerns is a mistake, and it’s heartless when you consider the biggest victims aren’t people like me (who suffered just a black eye and vision problems) but the poor who can’t move out of the worst neighborhoods.
Yes, Republicans are at best simplistic (with a “knock their heads” approach, fed by our meathead pop culture and natural frustration) and at worst cynical justification for fascism. But Democrats would be wise to listen to regular people who suffer from crime and focus on how to fix it. Don’t concede this issue to the worst people.
I've been mugged myself in my quiet little town of 1500 people, but I would be wary of ceding the argument to those who are cynically trying to appropriate the issue with performative theater that does nothing at all to address the actual problems.
Every single action taken by Trump and MAGA is designed to deflect from real policy solutions and take attention away from the hypocrisy and incompetence of the administration, starting with appointing the absolute worst people in every department whose purpose it is to destroy the functions of government under the guise of money-savings and eliminating DEI and the ever-elusive "efficiency". Using the military and the police to attack a problem that can only exacerbate the problem is no solution. It's like the TSA forcing grandmothers to remove their shoes for inspection before boarding a plane.
Of course we need to reduce crimes, and for the most part that is actually what is happening in most places without denying civil rights in the process. Perhaps we need to make it clear to those regular people that more police in the wrong places doesn't do anything to assuage their real fears.
I don’t think we need to “cede the argument” insofar as we just need to admit that crime is something we have a responsibility to bring down—we can and should still blame the Right for being ineffective at fighting crime (their policies on drugs and guns and approach to convicts all make crime worse and they underfund every local budget that can be used to reduce crime—these are things we should say, always!).
The problem is if our side says “crime is overblown” we sound insensitive not to bad faith right wingers but our actual constituencies who feel our side doesn’t realize there’s a problem even as the Right has the wrong answer to the problem. And that will backfire on us.
The areas that do need more police presence aren’t getting enough because Donny is the one that needs to feel safer in an area that’s already safe. His paranoia strikes deep.
Stephen, first of all, thanks for taking us down memory lane with your review of the history of the DC Home Rule Act. I for one needed that refresher. And as you observe,
“The Roe v. Wade ruling was also in 1973 — people can mistakenly assume certain rights have always existed.”
Yes they can, and do, perhaps because said rights were established before their lifetime, so thus has it always been. (In that regard, I’d like to point out that it was 105 years ago yesterday when women were finally “given” the right to vote. Rest assured, The Regime is working to get rid of that, too.)
“When you actually talk to residents in high-crime neighborhoods, they consistently state that they want more proactive policing to reduce crime that doesn’t treat law-abiding people like inmates in an open-air prison. Unfortunately, liberals can go in the opposite extreme. If you ignore that a problem exists, people will assume that only Republicans are interested in solving it.”
THIS. Not listening to the people who are telling you what their community needs is kneejerk “solidarity with our Black brothers and sisters” without bothering to listen to what your Black brothers and sisters have to say. It’s herd mentality, and it makes liberals look as clueless and unthinking as a common MAGAt. It’s a result of the elitist liberal arrogance that produces such counter-productive battle cries as “Defund the Police” and ACAB (“All Cops Are Bad”). The current bullsh*t in our nation’s capital is a consequence of that particular chosen blind spot.
Stephen, this article is one of your very best. Thank you once again for saying what needs to be heard.
I mean, that wasn't Clinton or Schumer's point, the point was that these assholes talk a big game like they're super tough but they want to make it that cities are super super oooh scary. It doesn't mean that zero crime happens and it never did.
But the data show that the crime is down. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen; it means it's much less so. I mean I grew up in the worst neighborhood in my city and got to know about the crime happening in it. And thankfully nothing happened to me except a man presumably high on crack demanding my half-consumed McDonalds drink.
Are we or aren't we reality-based? What exactly is the message here? Should we concede to the premise of their argument, "yes, all cities are crime-ridden hellholes, especially ones with Black people. Be afraid, be very afraid and we're going to bust up the criminals." Then of course in hindsight 10 years later Dems get to get the chop for things ala the Discourse™ about the Crime Bill used to help sink Hillary Clinton.
Because I recall people plying us for outrage bait saying Democrats always have focus-tested statements that are never clear and shooting from the hip. This kind of criticism is exactly WHY Democrats have to make sure they have both command of the facts as well as people's perceptions or "what they wish to be true."
Fair enough. I presume that goes for Newsom too, who pointed out the higher crime rate in Mike Johnson's district. Who should be the person doing it then, should it be AOC? Jasmine Crockett? Who is the Internet Fave who can do this?
Newsom will have a lot to answer for regarding California. The comparison to Johnson’s distinct misses the point that the average voter finds public drug use, visible homeless more of an issue that simply “broke ass rural community.” Dems are sort of behind the eight ball on this. As you point out, they got a lot of grief from the left about supporting crime prevention (HRC and crime bill and Harris as a “cop”)
We saw what soft-on-crime policy was like for the last 30 years and what it’s done to black communities. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but midnight basketball doesn’t work. https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/white-milksops-protest-in-dc-to-advocate
It’s true that crime rates are low by 1980s standards and even 1990s standards but it’s really an inadequate response to those who justifiably feel unsafe in a lot of places with elevated crime. I lived in Baltimore and was assaulted on the street in broad daylight in Mt Vernon (one of the safer neighborhoods) and know that neighborhoods like West Baltimore (which I had to drive through to get to work) were positively deadly—I regularly read about shootings that would occur on the very blocks I drove through only hours before I drove through them. Dismissing crime concerns is a mistake, and it’s heartless when you consider the biggest victims aren’t people like me (who suffered just a black eye and vision problems) but the poor who can’t move out of the worst neighborhoods.
Yes, Republicans are at best simplistic (with a “knock their heads” approach, fed by our meathead pop culture and natural frustration) and at worst cynical justification for fascism. But Democrats would be wise to listen to regular people who suffer from crime and focus on how to fix it. Don’t concede this issue to the worst people.
I've been mugged myself in my quiet little town of 1500 people, but I would be wary of ceding the argument to those who are cynically trying to appropriate the issue with performative theater that does nothing at all to address the actual problems.
Every single action taken by Trump and MAGA is designed to deflect from real policy solutions and take attention away from the hypocrisy and incompetence of the administration, starting with appointing the absolute worst people in every department whose purpose it is to destroy the functions of government under the guise of money-savings and eliminating DEI and the ever-elusive "efficiency". Using the military and the police to attack a problem that can only exacerbate the problem is no solution. It's like the TSA forcing grandmothers to remove their shoes for inspection before boarding a plane.
Of course we need to reduce crimes, and for the most part that is actually what is happening in most places without denying civil rights in the process. Perhaps we need to make it clear to those regular people that more police in the wrong places doesn't do anything to assuage their real fears.
I don’t think we need to “cede the argument” insofar as we just need to admit that crime is something we have a responsibility to bring down—we can and should still blame the Right for being ineffective at fighting crime (their policies on drugs and guns and approach to convicts all make crime worse and they underfund every local budget that can be used to reduce crime—these are things we should say, always!).
The problem is if our side says “crime is overblown” we sound insensitive not to bad faith right wingers but our actual constituencies who feel our side doesn’t realize there’s a problem even as the Right has the wrong answer to the problem. And that will backfire on us.
The areas that do need more police presence aren’t getting enough because Donny is the one that needs to feel safer in an area that’s already safe. His paranoia strikes deep.
"People only claim an American city is a “war zone” when they want to justify waging war against that city and its people."
I can't count the number of times Portland OR has been burned to the ground...
It was also the first appearance of non-identified agents arresting and shoving protestors into unmarked vans.
Stephen, first of all, thanks for taking us down memory lane with your review of the history of the DC Home Rule Act. I for one needed that refresher. And as you observe,
“The Roe v. Wade ruling was also in 1973 — people can mistakenly assume certain rights have always existed.”
Yes they can, and do, perhaps because said rights were established before their lifetime, so thus has it always been. (In that regard, I’d like to point out that it was 105 years ago yesterday when women were finally “given” the right to vote. Rest assured, The Regime is working to get rid of that, too.)
“When you actually talk to residents in high-crime neighborhoods, they consistently state that they want more proactive policing to reduce crime that doesn’t treat law-abiding people like inmates in an open-air prison. Unfortunately, liberals can go in the opposite extreme. If you ignore that a problem exists, people will assume that only Republicans are interested in solving it.”
THIS. Not listening to the people who are telling you what their community needs is kneejerk “solidarity with our Black brothers and sisters” without bothering to listen to what your Black brothers and sisters have to say. It’s herd mentality, and it makes liberals look as clueless and unthinking as a common MAGAt. It’s a result of the elitist liberal arrogance that produces such counter-productive battle cries as “Defund the Police” and ACAB (“All Cops Are Bad”). The current bullsh*t in our nation’s capital is a consequence of that particular chosen blind spot.
Stephen, this article is one of your very best. Thank you once again for saying what needs to be heard.
Well said!
Thanks!
I mean, that wasn't Clinton or Schumer's point, the point was that these assholes talk a big game like they're super tough but they want to make it that cities are super super oooh scary. It doesn't mean that zero crime happens and it never did.
But the data show that the crime is down. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen; it means it's much less so. I mean I grew up in the worst neighborhood in my city and got to know about the crime happening in it. And thankfully nothing happened to me except a man presumably high on crack demanding my half-consumed McDonalds drink.
Are we or aren't we reality-based? What exactly is the message here? Should we concede to the premise of their argument, "yes, all cities are crime-ridden hellholes, especially ones with Black people. Be afraid, be very afraid and we're going to bust up the criminals." Then of course in hindsight 10 years later Dems get to get the chop for things ala the Discourse™ about the Crime Bill used to help sink Hillary Clinton.
Because I recall people plying us for outrage bait saying Democrats always have focus-tested statements that are never clear and shooting from the hip. This kind of criticism is exactly WHY Democrats have to make sure they have both command of the facts as well as people's perceptions or "what they wish to be true."
Clinton and Schumer are the worst people to ever downplay crime in cities. They are both literally limousine liberals.
Fair enough. I presume that goes for Newsom too, who pointed out the higher crime rate in Mike Johnson's district. Who should be the person doing it then, should it be AOC? Jasmine Crockett? Who is the Internet Fave who can do this?
Newsom will have a lot to answer for regarding California. The comparison to Johnson’s distinct misses the point that the average voter finds public drug use, visible homeless more of an issue that simply “broke ass rural community.” Dems are sort of behind the eight ball on this. As you point out, they got a lot of grief from the left about supporting crime prevention (HRC and crime bill and Harris as a “cop”)
"They are the trees rooting for the wooden axe handle, because they believe he's one of them."