Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Where’s the GOP Law-and-Order Candidate?
Where’s the GOP law-and-order candidate?
Is there a GOP law-and-order candidate? Murders in Atlanta are up 32% since mid-May. Murders in Chicago are up 17%, and shootings 24%. In St. Louis, in the aftermath of Ferguson, shootings are up 39%, robberies 43%, and murders 25%. In Baltimore, scene of the worst urban riots in two generations, law and order is in extended meltdown, with 32 shootings over the Memorial Day weekend alone. As Heather Mac Donald’s disturbing column in last weekend’s Wall Street Journal makes clear:
The most plausible explanation of the current surge in lawlessness is the intense agitation against American police departments over the past nine months. Since last summer, the airwaves have been dominated by suggestions that the police are the biggest threat facing young black males today. A handful of highly publicized deaths of unarmed black men, often following a resisted arrest—including Eric Garner in Staten Island, N.Y., in July 2014, Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., in August 2014 and Freddie Gray in Baltimore last month—have led to riots, violent protests and attacks on the police. Murders of officers jumped 89% in 2014, to 51 from 27.
Left-wing politicians have been waging a war on cops that’s left civil society imploding in many major cities.
America is now waiting for the one member of the burgeoning field of Republican presidential candidates who will speak up for our embattled men and women in blue—and for the fundamental principles of law and order.
The president, the past and present attorneys general, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton have been accusing the criminal justice system of systematic racism and blaming cops — not the rioters or shooters — for the growing violence. In effect, they’re putting a bullseye around our law enforcement officers’ necks.
In short, Democrat politicians aren’t just foes of the “broken windows” approach to law enforcement; they’re now cheering on those breaking the windows.
This is a case crying out for a Republican counterattack. It’s time for one of those White House aspirants to take the fight to the enemy, namely progressive liberalism’s perverted social vision in which it’s the police who are the problem, and even violent felons are merely victims of an “unfair” socio-economic order.
So where is the candidate who is going to speak to police associations to tell them they are our nation’s heroes, not our disgrace?
Where’s the candidate doing a press conference with Sheriff David Clarke of Milwaukee to point out that homicides in that city are up 180% from last year and that the real victims of the collapse of law and order are the poor and the working class?
Where’s the candidate standing with Rudy Giuliani and former Police Commissioner Ray Kelly to blast Bill de Blasio’s abandonment of “stop and frisk” and the state attorney general’s plan to appoint a state prosecutor whose only job will be to prosecute cops who dare to use deadly force against perpetrators?
Where’s the candidate taking it to Hillary for endorsing the Al Sharpton line that the police act out of racial bias, not out of a desire to protect life and property? Who’s going to call her to account for fomenting racial tension in hopes of getting votes?
Where’s the candidate who’s going to inner cities and barrios to talk to ordinary people for whom the drunks, prostitutes, pimps, drug dealers, and muggers that liberals embrace actually pose an existential threat? Where’s the candidate that knows that an effective police force is the thin blue line standing between civilization and chaos—and between life and death?
For any Republican candidate looking for an issue that will appeal to black and Hispanic working families, this is it. Being the candidate advocating for law and order is an electoral strategy that works. It’s also the right thing to do.
So, where’s the GOP law-and-order candidate for 2016?
Published in Policing
Yes!
Rudy for AG.
What do you suggest a President should direct the federal government to do in these cities? A “law and order candidate” needs to promise what they’ll DO if elected.
The best promise (IMHO, of course) would be to get the federal level out of the hair of local and state police, but that would hardly be described as a “law and order agenda”, and I doubt it’s the sort of promise that someone like Rudy Giuliani would make.
Excellent suggestion. Not only would speaking against this rampant crime be just, but it is also the sort of rare opportunity that can convince some people to vote across party lines. Even Democratic voters worry when vandals, looters, and thugs roam their streets with impunity.
The silent majority is waiting.
Other than rolling back the encroachment of the federal government into local law enforcement, what can a Republican president do? Why does the answer have to lie in Washington? I am not interested in replacing one philosophy coming from DC with another one. Separation of powers applies to the states and municipalities too.
The Canadian scores a power play homerun!
You beat me to it. What I want in a president is someone who knows the difference between federal, state, and local jurisdictions.
Wow, and here I was only going for a rouge!
So will “rouge” trigger Caitlyn when the next CFL comes on?
Only if she remembers to take her pills every day.
Put me in the “I should care about this, why?” camp. Every community in which this happens votes for or supports policies that make crime rise.
It is a local problem. The solutions lie locally, not nationally.
You don’t see it in Houston, Dallas, or San Antonio. These cities tend to be run by Democrats, but if they let crime go through the roof, they get turfed out of office. In other words, communities get the crime they tolerate.
You did not see it in New York City for nearly 20 years – except citizens there got bored with low crime and graffiti-free streets and voted in an administration which is returning to the “gritty” old days when “Escape from New York” was filmed.
If citizens want to turn their cities into cesspools . . . well, that is what freedom is about – the freedom to make bad choices.
As long as those running cities are willing to tolerate high crime levels and as long as citizens in those cities keep re-electing those enabling thugs, I say let them stew in it. It is what they want.
When they get tired of living in a cesspool they will clean it up. Until then? Activity on a national level? Fuggetaboutit.
Seawriter
< devil’s advocate mode = on >
On the other hand, a candidate with a strong law & order background could be a pretty great salesperson for a full-throated defense of the constitutional separation of powers.
Such a candidate could talk about what they did in their jurisdiction to fight crime, and then talk about how federal policies helped or hindered that work, or how the policies of the current administration definitely would have hindered that work.
“Here are five things I did in [enter city here] to fight crime that are now illegal thanks to the federal government!”
That could be a good way to position a “law & order candidate”.
< devil’s advocate mode = off >
Are we sure this is the case? Seems to me like it is mostly blacks that are protesting.
It could give Lindsey Graham some sort of rationale for his candidacy.
I don’t think it would lead to meaningful gains with minority voters.
It makes a great deal more sense with respect to the current “gender gap” in Presidential politics. Kinda doubt it will gain much traction with the GOP primary electorate, though.
There’s plenty a conservative AG could do about the national crime epidemic.
For one thing, use the bully pulpit — and real power — of the AG’s office to back up local and state law enforcement, instead of using civil rights laws as an end-around against double jeopardy, and as an excuse for anti-police propaganda.
Second, enforce the law against all the Lois Lerners — and those who they protect — by turning the machinery of big government against the Constitution and the people.
Three, enforce immigration laws nationwide. Okay, maybe that should be #1.
Four, many criminal gangs, organizations, and serial offenders operate across state borders. Put them out of business. Get the AG’s office out of affirmative action enforcement, and back into crime-fighting!
The Justice Department, under a Giuliani (or a second Mukasey term) would also be a bulwark against those trying to roll back effective interrogation techniques used against terrorists; against abuses like the Bergdahl deal; and in support of coordinating law enforcement efforts across and among jurisdictions.
We need to upgrade and refine all the tools which the federal government has been providing local LE for decades. What began with fingerprints in a huge FBI card catalog should now be available to every cop with a smartphone. Problems like identity theft are global in nature, and a hardliner with international security experience like Giuliani would be just the ticket to coordinate an ongoing global response to the challenge.
Information age surveillance systems need to be targeted against criminals and terrorists. License plate readers police the parking system at the college where I teach. An aggressive AG could push this type of technology down to the level of every small town car stop.
Want to support your local sheriff? Give him access to Big Data.
Yes, it’s primarily a local problem. No, I don’t favor granting the national government any more powers.
Neither means that a candidate can’t simply identify vandals and thugs as what they are. Campaigns are more driven by rhetoric than by policy proposals.
And it sure would be a nice change if the nation’s chief lawyer actually cared about the law.
This sounds like the old Ed Koch, “the people threw me out, now the people must be punished.”
Lives are at stake. We can’t wait for another round of “the Bronx is burning.” The innocent victims of urban crime deserve our support, whether they want it or not. Giuliani saved thousands by ratcheting up policing. Guess what? Those black lives — the innocents, the grandmothers, the children — do matter! And of course so do the lives of the police officers who can’t just wait around for DeBlasio to be voted out.
We live in a nationalized media environment. Returning law and order to the national political agenda would say “no more riots, let’s elect Republicans” on the national level. That’s what happened in 1968. The Left is re-rerunning the 1960’s playbook, but the Right had a better game plan. Saul Alinsky lost, and the Nixon campaign won.
So you believe the will of the people should be ignored? A representative government is based on individuals taking individual responsibility. As Jefferson once said the Tree of Liberty must be renewed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. This is an example of what Jefferson meant. If you can ignore the will of the people in communities willing to tolerate high crime rates, you can equally ignore it in communities unwilling to tolerate high crime rates.
Faith in the efficiency of the Federal government while touching, is the triumph of hope over experience. Get the Federal government involved in local policing and you are likely to get the same results as when the Federal government got involved in health insurance and education – a dysfunctional system. Policing belongs in local communities with the local communities setting the standards for what level of crime they want.
Seawriter
No, we’ve just got to mitigate the disastrous consequences when we lose, like when 2010 and 2014 mitigated Obama. I’m too old to wait around for things to get worse, while the idiots supposedly “learn a lesson.”
The best thing that ever happened to conservatives was Ronald Reagan winning election. One the best appointments Reagan made — just before becoming a crime victim himself — was elevating a young crime-fighter named Rudy Giuliani in the Justice Department.
I thought we had enough candidates. Maybe you should write George Pataki and tell him he should be the “law and order” candidate. Couldn’t hurt.
Seriously though, it’s a political loser. I’m with Seawriter.
I’m also done caring about inner-city neighborhoods. We actually at this point have too many laws and the Drug War is an unmitigated failure with horrific unintended consequences.
Law enforcement has also become perverted itself with more and more police corruption and quite a lot of acting as revenue collectors for the State. They are losing popularity with everyone.
Mitigation has to occur on the state, county, and community level. Look at the communities where there are problems. Look at the communities where there are not problems. Both share something in common – the local inhabitants are getting what they vote for and what they want. If some communities choose badly, I am sorry, but it is their choice, and their choice has to be respected if the choices of those who choose well are to be respected.
Will idiots “learn a lesson.” Unlikely. As Kipling observed in The Gods of the Copybook Headings:
Seawriter
Yeah it’s probably good general election politics, Jim. But it isn’t 1968.
The GOP base voters mostly don’t live near the rioters anymore.
IMHO, they’re much more likely to be concerned about incarceration rates, the Drug War, federalism/ subsidiarity, and due process than anarchy. Center-Right media seemingly bear that out.
So do relatively centrist actors at the state level, see: Daniels, Mitch prison reform.
Given that, any “Law and Order” candidate who has an actual chance had better keep it on the down-low until the general. My eleven cents.
Big Data? No law enforcement need to establish probable cause, seek the issuing of warrants, and stop trying to cut corners on their relationship between their role in society and the rights of a free people. I am damned tired of this idea that we need to live in a quasi-police state in order to stay safe. It is time Conservatives start to think about the role of law enforcement in the US.
Hush now. We’re courting the independent thug vote, as they are more numerous than law enforcement and military.
An effective law & order approach from a federal candidate would have to argue that the problem is being instigated from DC. And the GOP don’t want none of that.
It certainly isn’t going to be a political winner when the public is (rightly) concerned about the continuing and confusing explosion of laws and regulations at the federal and even state level. Additionally, the excesses of the previous law and order legislation need to be dealt with (e.g. three-strikes laws, too punitive laws for drug offenses, which seem to do more embedding criminality into offenders than anything else).
In the 80s and 90s, the crime issue was a big winner for Republicans. But they won the issue, thus depriving themselves of the electoral benefit of having people like Michael Dukakis to argue against. Things will have to get awfully bad until there is any movement in the law-and-order direction again. And, of course, most people are rather insulated from the inner-city neighborhoods, where strong and sensible law and order policy is most needed.
How bad does it have to get before some sort of action is taken? The Soros-funded riots in Ferguson and Baltimore, maybe even New York, aren’t enough reason? New laws don’t need to be passed—we need to enforce the laws we have now. No more ‘prosecutorial discretion’, one law for one group of people and a different law for other groups. We need to stand together against the thugs of all stripes, or we will fall separately. There are thugs wearing suits, as well as torn t-shirts and blue jeans. The thugs sit on judges’ benches and loiter on street corners. Identifying the source of the problem is only the first step. (But what do I know?)
Outreach is important. Regrettably Blacks and Hispanics, working families or otherwise, aren’t going to vote Republican, because “Republican.” So while this is a good idea and the right thing to do, I would be very surprised if it results in any votes.
I agree; the response to the riots was in some ways more appalling than the riots themselves. In fact, there never should have been mass riots in the first place had laws on the books been enforced.
But I just fear the political climate is not there, and barring brave local officials, I don’t expect this to get any better in most cities for some time. New Yorkers elected Mr. De Blasio. It wasn’t that long ago that his crime rhetoric was anathema in New York. Things have sadly changed, and people forget quickly. Plus, mobilization/encouragement of this behavior is easier with Twitter, etc.
I may be being too charitable, but I think the separate issues of respect for order and the real problems in the criminal justice system are conflated by many people. Maybe addressing the latter would help the former; then again, the progressives who tacitly (or not so tacitly) condone this sort of rioting as ratification of their beliefs will never be for vigorous enforcement of order.
When you tear down a society, it doesn’t get replaced with some other society.