Violent crime is spiking. Homicides in cities were up by 25-40 percent in 2020, the largest single-year increase since 1960. And 2021 isn’t looking any better.
This is a crisis on its own terms. But it’s also a crisis for the broader liberal project in two downstream ways.
First, violent crimes supercharges inequality. Families who can flee, do. Business close or never open. Banks won’t make loans. Property values plummet. Children are traumatized, with lifelong impacts on stress and cognition.
Second, fear of violence undermines liberal politics. Just look at America post-9/11. Or after the crime surges of the 70s and 80s and 90s — strongmen politicians win, punitive responses like mass incarceration and warrior policing rise, social trust collapses.
We’re not there yet. Larry Krasner survived his primary challenge in Philadelphia.
But we are seeing other signs. Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms isn’t running for reelection after being attacked by challengers as soft on crime. nytimes.com/2021/05/07/us/…
Violence is the second most important issue to Democrats in the NYC mayoral primary. — behind coronavirus but ahead of housing affordability and racial inequality. ny1.com/nyc/all-boroug…
The politics of this could really tip, and not just in cities — if these numbers keep getting worse, then as with Nixon and Reagan in the 70s and 80s, it could bring "law and order" conservatives (including Trump) back to power in 2024.
More than that, crime should be an issue liberals focus on eagerly. People deserve to be safe from crime and safe from state violence. That's foundational to a good life. Too often, they’re given a choice between one or the other, and it’s often a false choice at that.
So I asked @jformanjr, author of the Pulitzer-prize winning “Locking Up Our Own,” to come on the podcast and talk through the way crime warps politics, the legacy of the 80s and 90s, and what a liberal response to violent crime looks like: nytimes.com/2021/05/21/opi…
There is good news here: We know a lot more about what works to prevent violent crime — both in terms of policing and in terms of other institutions we can and should build — and we're not in an age of austerity. There's a lot we can do, and should do. But we need to do it fast.
One central piece of this response should be seriously investing in community organization and violence interruption programs that have been proven, again and again, to work. The American Jobs Act includes that, though it doesn't get much press: thetrace.org/2021/04/biden-…
Not a single Democrat I've spoken to who doubts that if Biden endorses Harris, the party will unite behind her.
At this point, given how little time is left before the convention, and how strong she's been since the debate, that probably happens even if he doesn't endorse her.
I've been arguing for an open convention since February. What Democrats deprived themselves of with Biden was information. A mini-primary process would've given them more information. But they've not planned for it, built consensus for it, and in my reporting, they don't now have the stomach for it. nytimes.com/2024/07/07/opi…
But I don't think that if Biden steps aside, the party falls into chaos. This — what's happening right now — is a party in chaos. It has lost confidence in its presumptive nominee, and it has recognized that most voters had lost confidence in him long ago.
Party actors like @AOC could easily rally the party around Harris. *Biden* could easily rally the party around Harris! That's where it already mostly wants to go. Instead his staff has often been quietly talking her down to fortify his position. nytimes.com/2024/07/18/us/…
As part of my dive into how “affordable housing” came to cost almost $600,000 per unit in Los Angeles, I had a conversation with @HeidiEMarston that I’ll be thinking about for some time.
What does it mean to trust an agency? One answer is that you can trust an agency that is transparent, heavily audited, tightly bound by rules and regulations, highly accountable to the public or other overseers.
Let’s call this trust-through-transparency.
We often talk about ideas like that as ways of increasing trust but in practice they're ways of not needing to trust.
It's really transparency as a substitution for trust.
On the podcast, I've talked around this experience, and how it changed the way I see pregnancy and reproductive choice. But I've tried not to say too much, because it was @annielowrey's story to tell.
I'll only add: The idea that any legislator would force her, or anyone else, to undergo this much agony and this much danger, is unthinkable to me. But it's the reality now in much of the United States.
One more thing, while I'm breaking my Twitter silence. Something you learn, being near a truly horrible pregnancy, is how common such pregnancies are, because when people know what you've been through, they begin telling you what they've been through.
This is an important counterargument, so let me encourage you to read it — @Sifill_LDF's full thread, not just this one tweet — and try to answer it, and some others, and explain why I think Twitter is ill-suited for the central role it plays in our politics.
The nature of Twitter is it shrinks everything down to units of a single thought, image, video, and then makes it possible for that unit to go viral, reaching communities it would never reach and building a community behind it.
This can be incredibly powerful when there's an outrage that can be contained in one tweet. That's true for many of the cases @Sifill_LDF describes. Enormous good has come out of that.
Musk's tweeting today is making me more confident of the argument I make here.
I don't think he'll change the platform that much, at least not soon. But I think having the owner of the platform tweet like he does will change the feel of it dramatically. nytimes.com/2022/04/27/opi…
On some level everyone here is providing free labor for Twitter.com. It's weird.
But now we're going to be providing free labor for Elon Musk. And Musk will be making clear his contempt for the views of a lot of the people creating on his platform. Do they stay?
How does a viral tweet or a flourishing following feel if it's to the greater glory and profits and influence of Elon? Maybe great if you love him. Pretty unsettling if you don't.
One response I've heard to this column is that there are ways the Child Tax Credit could be better designed, or targeted.
I agree, and we all have our ideal design ideas here, but we're not seeing negotiations over design bog down. The policy expired, and Congress moved on.
The question of this column is why the CTC didn't generate the political force to secure expansion, or a process in which a deal was seen as a must-pass outcome.
Why have we abandoned tax credits for poor kids while we endlessly extend tax cuts for the rich?