Radley: I don't doubt any of your stats. And I certainly agree there is no "crisis" that demands this deployment.
Still, I think Josh Barro's take below is not only better on the merits but also much, much smarter politically. The reality is that the DC crime rate is still way higher than it should be, and it's a mistake for the Democrats to put themselves in the position of implicitly suggesting that it's no.
And as I've said before, while I appreciate the role you play as a watchdog of police abuse (and I'm a paid subscriber because of that), I think this Substack would be at least 10 times more valuable if you spent 50% of your time researching and writing about how to effectively reduce crime (and disorder) rather than focusing all your energy on abuses by law enforcement.
The whole piece is worth a read, but here are two paragraphs that do a reasonable job of summing it up:
"Now, it is true that the president’s showy intervention this week — with FBI, ATF and DEA personnel doing foot patrols in neighborhoods with relatively low crime rates, like Georgetown — is unlikely to help matters much. It also constitutes a diversion of federal law enforcement resources that are needed for other threats to public safety, and it’s an inappropriate use of the National Guard, since the city is not facing civil unrest. But it’s not good enough for Democrats to say Trump’s plan won’t work. They need their own argument for how they would make us safer. And they definitely shouldn’t be acting as if Trump is making the problem up, or as if the local problems of Washington, D.C. are none of his business
... Of course, crime in D.C. specifically is not going to be a major motivating issue for voters all around the country. But broadly, crime matters to voters. So when the president moves crime in D.C. up to the top of the national agenda, Democrats should not be saying the problem is made up and the federal government should butt out — that makes them the party that doesn’t want to do something about crime. Instead, they should offer a plan that’s better than the president’s plan. Given how insufficient the president’s plan is, that shouldn't be as difficult as it appears to be."
No offense, but every time a generalist like Barro writes on my beat, I remember why I shouldn't put much stock in what generalists write on other beats.
"The Democrats should have a plan to fix crime" . . . well, ok! It reminds of a couple years ago, when this cohort was writing stuff like, "I would simply hire a lot more cops, but also make them more accountable, and have them solve more crimes." Great! No one has thought about that before.
You can do a lot of harm by taking a "just do something" approach to these issues. And for centrists like Barro, the "something" in "do something" always seems to be more cops and more incarceration. That's how we got awful, destructive policies like mandatory minimums, AEDPA, and the notorious Crime Bill. Meanwhile, Barro and other centrists mock ideas like violence interruption, CAHOOTS-like programs, and other alternatives to policing.
So I do think we need to push back on Trump's lies about crime. When we concede his bullshit premises, we've already lost half the battle.
Sorry to be cranky. I do appreciate the dialogue (and the subscription!) But generalists who feel entitled to confidently assert their "common sense" solutions after spending 10 minutes thinking about issues I've been covering, studying, and reporting on for 20 years is a personal pet peeve.
Trump can't and won't do anything about crime, although maybe he can juke the reported crime rates. What he can do is round up visible homeless people, put them in one of his dungeons, and then give before-and-after clips for the teevee. A lot of people will confuse that with crime reduction. Disorder intuits as crime.
This is all about the fact that suburban/exurban people find cities terrifying and so are easy marks for Trump. Glad to see Balko take on Barro with facts.
I have family who lives near DC and has worked in DC for 30+ years. I don't hear them talking about how afraid they are to work and recreate there. We've also visited DC and ridden the Metro. An absolutely safe, positive experience. Now however I wouldn't go there if you put a gun to my head. The Gestapo has free rein to do whatever the fuck they want. Also NYC. Went there last December for a weekend. I felt way fucking safer walking the streets there after dark than I would in Savannah GA where I live close to. Savannah has multiple shootings every week. And when their Democrat mayor tried to penalize people who left guns unsecured to be stolen, the fucking world was ending! Lawsuits filed and nothing will be done. I'll gladly go to DC or NYC before I'll be caught in Savannah after dark.
Radley: I don't doubt any of your stats. And I certainly agree there is no "crisis" that demands this deployment.
Still, I think Josh Barro's take below is not only better on the merits but also much, much smarter politically. The reality is that the DC crime rate is still way higher than it should be, and it's a mistake for the Democrats to put themselves in the position of implicitly suggesting that it's no.
And as I've said before, while I appreciate the role you play as a watchdog of police abuse (and I'm a paid subscriber because of that), I think this Substack would be at least 10 times more valuable if you spent 50% of your time researching and writing about how to effectively reduce crime (and disorder) rather than focusing all your energy on abuses by law enforcement.
--------
https://www.joshbarro.com/p/crime-in-washington-is-a-real-problem
The whole piece is worth a read, but here are two paragraphs that do a reasonable job of summing it up:
"Now, it is true that the president’s showy intervention this week — with FBI, ATF and DEA personnel doing foot patrols in neighborhoods with relatively low crime rates, like Georgetown — is unlikely to help matters much. It also constitutes a diversion of federal law enforcement resources that are needed for other threats to public safety, and it’s an inappropriate use of the National Guard, since the city is not facing civil unrest. But it’s not good enough for Democrats to say Trump’s plan won’t work. They need their own argument for how they would make us safer. And they definitely shouldn’t be acting as if Trump is making the problem up, or as if the local problems of Washington, D.C. are none of his business
... Of course, crime in D.C. specifically is not going to be a major motivating issue for voters all around the country. But broadly, crime matters to voters. So when the president moves crime in D.C. up to the top of the national agenda, Democrats should not be saying the problem is made up and the federal government should butt out — that makes them the party that doesn’t want to do something about crime. Instead, they should offer a plan that’s better than the president’s plan. Given how insufficient the president’s plan is, that shouldn't be as difficult as it appears to be."
No offense, but every time a generalist like Barro writes on my beat, I remember why I shouldn't put much stock in what generalists write on other beats.
"The Democrats should have a plan to fix crime" . . . well, ok! It reminds of a couple years ago, when this cohort was writing stuff like, "I would simply hire a lot more cops, but also make them more accountable, and have them solve more crimes." Great! No one has thought about that before.
You can do a lot of harm by taking a "just do something" approach to these issues. And for centrists like Barro, the "something" in "do something" always seems to be more cops and more incarceration. That's how we got awful, destructive policies like mandatory minimums, AEDPA, and the notorious Crime Bill. Meanwhile, Barro and other centrists mock ideas like violence interruption, CAHOOTS-like programs, and other alternatives to policing.
So I do think we need to push back on Trump's lies about crime. When we concede his bullshit premises, we've already lost half the battle.
Sorry to be cranky. I do appreciate the dialogue (and the subscription!) But generalists who feel entitled to confidently assert their "common sense" solutions after spending 10 minutes thinking about issues I've been covering, studying, and reporting on for 20 years is a personal pet peeve.
Trump can't and won't do anything about crime, although maybe he can juke the reported crime rates. What he can do is round up visible homeless people, put them in one of his dungeons, and then give before-and-after clips for the teevee. A lot of people will confuse that with crime reduction. Disorder intuits as crime.
This is all about the fact that suburban/exurban people find cities terrifying and so are easy marks for Trump. Glad to see Balko take on Barro with facts.
I have family who lives near DC and has worked in DC for 30+ years. I don't hear them talking about how afraid they are to work and recreate there. We've also visited DC and ridden the Metro. An absolutely safe, positive experience. Now however I wouldn't go there if you put a gun to my head. The Gestapo has free rein to do whatever the fuck they want. Also NYC. Went there last December for a weekend. I felt way fucking safer walking the streets there after dark than I would in Savannah GA where I live close to. Savannah has multiple shootings every week. And when their Democrat mayor tried to penalize people who left guns unsecured to be stolen, the fucking world was ending! Lawsuits filed and nothing will be done. I'll gladly go to DC or NYC before I'll be caught in Savannah after dark.