Friendly reminder that violent crime is down and has been dropping consistently over the last three decades.
Property crime is down overall, too.
Frankly, anyone concerned about crime is falling for conservative propaganda. It would be nice if people could wisen up and think a little more critically about what they see on TV and on social …
Friendly reminder that violent crime is down and has been dropping consistently over the last three decades.
Property crime is down overall, too.
Frankly, anyone concerned about crime is falling for conservative propaganda. It would be nice if people could wisen up and think a little more critically about what they see on TV and on social media feeds--those are the real reasons why anyone has fears about crime.
Whether you like it or not, it's not just conservatives and Republicans who are concerned about violent crime. Whenever people "hear stories" about crime and murder, they get scared and think "I'm/we're next" and that they must be "protected." Lest we forget that the first two states to pass so called three strikes laws were Washington and California, two not exactly red states, even back in the 1990s. That fact alone should have been a warning sign to "progressives" that "Defund the Police" was a terrible strategy and slogan and it would backfire. We can point to statistics all we want, but fear will always win out. People want the "scary/bad people" to be punished and being seen as "soft on crime" remains a drawback. Even in Blue America.
And the notion that "Defund the Police" apologists have that it failed due to Democrats not standing behind it and "explaining" it is not at all based in reality. The fact that even in deep blue cities voters are rejecting policies seen as "anti police" says it all.
Yeah, it's an utterly stupid slogan. But thinking crime is always the worst it's ever been is terrible for sound policy, and the solution is not to hang 'em high all the time. There has to be some kind of sanity.
Democrats should long ago have pivoted loudly to "Republicans want to defund the Police and law enforcement". Not just the FBI, but the EPA, FDA and all sorts of other agencies that ensure individual and corporate compliance with laws and regulations.
No it’s not. Being pro-criminal is a bad thing. The DLC was created to purge those soft on crime elements from having any significant influence in the party.
Yeah, real Democrats don’t execute the mentally disabled as a political stunt, and describing belief in human rights as “pro-criminal” is criminal for a Democrat.
Using “DLC” as an exemplar rather than an epithet in 2024, is counter to values shared by the pro-Constitution, pro-civil rights, pro-civil liberties, pro-human rights core of the party. You might as well say Dixiecrat.
You first. I remember the CIA importing cocaine to the U.S. and the GOP providing chemical weapons targeting info to Iraq while selling weapons to Iran, yes.
And the people who "had control of Congress, most Governors and most state legislatures" were to the RIGHT of where the Democratic Party is today. Back then, Joe Manchin would have been considered a "radical liberal."
It’s not irrelevant, recognizing this is the first logical step in counter-acting it. Unanswered propaganda is very effective, yes. That doesn’t mean it’s a natural, unavoidable state of affairs.
It also doesn't help when some on the left insist and insist and insist that Democrats embrace words and phrases that THEY like.......but nobody else does. This is precisely what happened with the "Defund" nonsense. Many of us rational Democrats - those of us who accept that the USA is not Vermont or NYC politically or demographically - said "reform the police" in response. We were told "Republican lite" or "not good enough." Never mind the fact to most Americans, defund = abolish/eliminate. And all the "explaining" in the world is NOT going to change that simple fact.
The fact that every adult in the country doesn’t know this is part of the gaping hole in messaging that’s not being filled by the idiots backing messengers like Eric Adams.
Nope. It's because the police are a sacred cow in this country. In the eyes of the majority, to insult or trash one police officer is to insult or trash ALL police officers. There's a word for politicians who bank on the rationality of votes: losers.
Trust in cops is neither monolithic nor immutable, as we saw in 2020. There’s more than enough police misconduct to run a story every minute of every day.
That doesn't mean Democrats can afford to be seen as "anti police" or "anti safety." I'm not going to pretend that the electorate is rational. Had to learn that lesson the hard way back in 2004.
Not to single you out (and there were many times that I pointed out crime was dropping to people, in the Internet and irl) but that attitude is one of the main reasons we trail on Crime, inflation, and why one of the reasons immigration is so potent for our enemies. When we dismiss these things, rather than providing context and directly blaming it on Republicans, we lose the audience. I still remember Biden's first press secretary almost answering at a reporter asking questions about inflation as inflation started to gain steam. Then they called it transitory, which was political malpractice. Inflation was an actual problem and it should have been acknowledged and laid at the floor of Trump and the Republicans. Crime was actually up in some areas, and it should have been pointed out that it was under Trump that it started rising.
Exactly. As I've said for years, whether we Democrats like it or not, crime IS a genuine concern with the majority of Americans. We Democrats needs to have answers to address that other than "don't be afraid" and "looky looky Red State crime!"
Sending criminals to prison for starters. Also reforming prison so that when released they are less likely to return. Not to mention banning the box so that when back into society, they are more likely to obtain and maintain well paying jobs, thus making them less likely to return to prison.
Considering the incarceration rate I’d say we’re already doing a bang up job on your first suggestion. Well, unless they’re rich and white. As for the others, I have to suspect most Dems are in favor of those but I wonder if they might be even tougher sells than police reform. Americans are vengeful, they want to see prisoners punished and suffering, not “reformed”.
No it hasn't. Putting loads of innocent people in jail for years just because they're too poor to make bail is an outrageous abuse of human rights and act of discrimination. Just because there have been problems with how it's been done and political issues with it doesn't mean it's really ok to hold people for long periods of time without trial.
I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks people should be allowed to shoplift with impunity, but you seem to think it's perfectly ok for people to be jailed without trial for years just because they can't afford bail. I'm sure, like (other?) conservatives, you'd change your mind if you were arrested and put in jail for a couple of years because you couldn't afford bail. Remember, anyone can be arrested, and many innocent people are jailed.
You have a point on messaging/framing and that also potentially affects the policy approaches used/pitched. Some folks (even here) get confused and think it also necessarily means changing policy objectives to match the reactionaries.
Friendly reminder that violent crime is down and has been dropping consistently over the last three decades.
Property crime is down overall, too.
Frankly, anyone concerned about crime is falling for conservative propaganda. It would be nice if people could wisen up and think a little more critically about what they see on TV and on social media feeds--those are the real reasons why anyone has fears about crime.
Whether you like it or not, it's not just conservatives and Republicans who are concerned about violent crime. Whenever people "hear stories" about crime and murder, they get scared and think "I'm/we're next" and that they must be "protected." Lest we forget that the first two states to pass so called three strikes laws were Washington and California, two not exactly red states, even back in the 1990s. That fact alone should have been a warning sign to "progressives" that "Defund the Police" was a terrible strategy and slogan and it would backfire. We can point to statistics all we want, but fear will always win out. People want the "scary/bad people" to be punished and being seen as "soft on crime" remains a drawback. Even in Blue America.
You’re 100% correct. And not dealing with those who shoplift, break into cars, carjack, and commit quality of life crimes is a political loser.
Defund the Police was the worst message too.
And the notion that "Defund the Police" apologists have that it failed due to Democrats not standing behind it and "explaining" it is not at all based in reality. The fact that even in deep blue cities voters are rejecting policies seen as "anti police" says it all.
Exactly. Even in the most liberal cities those policies are unpopular.
Minneapolis Mayor says 'hello'
Yeah, it's an utterly stupid slogan. But thinking crime is always the worst it's ever been is terrible for sound policy, and the solution is not to hang 'em high all the time. There has to be some kind of sanity.
Democrats should long ago have pivoted loudly to "Republicans want to defund the Police and law enforcement". Not just the FBI, but the EPA, FDA and all sorts of other agencies that ensure individual and corporate compliance with laws and regulations.
Trumpeting GOP propaganda on crime is also a political loser for real Democrats.
No it’s not. Being pro-criminal is a bad thing. The DLC was created to purge those soft on crime elements from having any significant influence in the party.
Yeah, real Democrats don’t execute the mentally disabled as a political stunt, and describing belief in human rights as “pro-criminal” is criminal for a Democrat.
Are you talking about Clinton in 1992? He did what he needed to do to win and I don’t fault him for letting that guy get executed.
Using “DLC” as an exemplar rather than an epithet in 2024, is counter to values shared by the pro-Constitution, pro-civil rights, pro-civil liberties, pro-human rights core of the party. You might as well say Dixiecrat.
How old are you? Were you alive in the 1980s, when Democrats were losing presidential elections by 40+ state landslide margins?
The DLC was needed desperately back then to make the Democratic Party attractive to voters. Crime was one of the issues they were right about.
You first. I remember the CIA importing cocaine to the U.S. and the GOP providing chemical weapons targeting info to Iraq while selling weapons to Iran, yes.
So you’re one of those far, fringe left types.
I was. And maybe that outrage was politically necessary then, but it isn't now.
And had control of congress, most governors and most state legislatures.
And the people who "had control of Congress, most Governors and most state legislatures" were to the RIGHT of where the Democratic Party is today. Back then, Joe Manchin would have been considered a "radical liberal."
"Pro-criminal" is utter bullshit. No-one is pro-criminal. It's like calling Democrats "anti-life" for supporting abortion rights.
Who's pro-criminal?
Seriously, please point to any serious Democratic candidate who has espoused views that are in favor of criminals.
Who funds them hearing those stories?
That's irrelevant. Rightly or wrongly fear sells. We do ourselves and the American people no favors by pretending that the electorate is rational.
It’s not irrelevant, recognizing this is the first logical step in counter-acting it. Unanswered propaganda is very effective, yes. That doesn’t mean it’s a natural, unavoidable state of affairs.
Appeals to lizard brain are not limited to the current slate.
It also doesn't help when some on the left insist and insist and insist that Democrats embrace words and phrases that THEY like.......but nobody else does. This is precisely what happened with the "Defund" nonsense. Many of us rational Democrats - those of us who accept that the USA is not Vermont or NYC politically or demographically - said "reform the police" in response. We were told "Republican lite" or "not good enough." Never mind the fact to most Americans, defund = abolish/eliminate. And all the "explaining" in the world is NOT going to change that simple fact.
You’re 100% correct.
Did you know that the majority of people killed by strangers in this country are killed by cops?
Good luck with telling that to the American electorate. "Democrats don't care about your safety!"
The fact that every adult in the country doesn’t know this is part of the gaping hole in messaging that’s not being filled by the idiots backing messengers like Eric Adams.
Nope. It's because the police are a sacred cow in this country. In the eyes of the majority, to insult or trash one police officer is to insult or trash ALL police officers. There's a word for politicians who bank on the rationality of votes: losers.
Trust in cops is neither monolithic nor immutable, as we saw in 2020. There’s more than enough police misconduct to run a story every minute of every day.
That doesn't mean Democrats can afford to be seen as "anti police" or "anti safety." I'm not going to pretend that the electorate is rational. Had to learn that lesson the hard way back in 2004.
Yeah exactly. Being anti-cop is a political loser.
Not to single you out (and there were many times that I pointed out crime was dropping to people, in the Internet and irl) but that attitude is one of the main reasons we trail on Crime, inflation, and why one of the reasons immigration is so potent for our enemies. When we dismiss these things, rather than providing context and directly blaming it on Republicans, we lose the audience. I still remember Biden's first press secretary almost answering at a reporter asking questions about inflation as inflation started to gain steam. Then they called it transitory, which was political malpractice. Inflation was an actual problem and it should have been acknowledged and laid at the floor of Trump and the Republicans. Crime was actually up in some areas, and it should have been pointed out that it was under Trump that it started rising.
I meant the press secretary was almost "sneering" at the reporter.
Exactly. As I've said for years, whether we Democrats like it or not, crime IS a genuine concern with the majority of Americans. We Democrats needs to have answers to address that other than "don't be afraid" and "looky looky Red State crime!"
What do you propose those answers be? Hopefully not further militarizing police forces or increasing their already bloated budgets.
Sending criminals to prison for starters. Also reforming prison so that when released they are less likely to return. Not to mention banning the box so that when back into society, they are more likely to obtain and maintain well paying jobs, thus making them less likely to return to prison.
Considering the incarceration rate I’d say we’re already doing a bang up job on your first suggestion. Well, unless they’re rich and white. As for the others, I have to suspect most Dems are in favor of those but I wonder if they might be even tougher sells than police reform. Americans are vengeful, they want to see prisoners punished and suffering, not “reformed”.
Unless they are rich and white or are cops…
Bail reform has proven to be a failure.
It's certainly bad political framing
No it hasn't. Putting loads of innocent people in jail for years just because they're too poor to make bail is an outrageous abuse of human rights and act of discrimination. Just because there have been problems with how it's been done and political issues with it doesn't mean it's really ok to hold people for long periods of time without trial.
It’s a failure when they constantly release people who shoplift over and over again and don’t show up on their court dates.
Honestly it’s not worth losing an election over those offenders.
I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks people should be allowed to shoplift with impunity, but you seem to think it's perfectly ok for people to be jailed without trial for years just because they can't afford bail. I'm sure, like (other?) conservatives, you'd change your mind if you were arrested and put in jail for a couple of years because you couldn't afford bail. Remember, anyone can be arrested, and many innocent people are jailed.
I mean, to the general public your first two points are contradictory.
Prison reform is seen as soft on crime by the same people who believe crime rates are spiking.
I would also argue that "sending criminals to prison" is compatible with also pointing out that violent crime rates are down.
You have a point on messaging/framing and that also potentially affects the policy approaches used/pitched. Some folks (even here) get confused and think it also necessarily means changing policy objectives to match the reactionaries.