California Sends Democrats and the Nation a Message on Crime
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
I'm sure it's a solvable problem for Democrats, but first they have to resolve to address it, rather than just wishing that voters didn't feel this way.
Small town police departments are notorious for running "undesirables" out of their town...redlining and zoning keeping certain people from buying real estate...things like that.
Not really. Donald Trump is, for quite a long time, much more of a personal brand marketer than a real estate developer (though “real estate developer” is part of the personal brand he markets.)
Both; suburban and rural homelessness is less visible, but also less common, in part because urban jurisdictions are inherently more amenable to service delivery (whether by the government or by charities) to the homeless, and homeless people are not nailed down in one place.
> Are they shifting their homeless burden to places like cities with more programs and support for homelessness?
Some of it is “shifting”, some of which is just inherent features of the places conducive to Republican political success in the first place.
> Because I've never actually heard a Republican plan for dealing with homelessness that doesn't involve criminalizing it and sweeping it under the rug where no one can see it.
To be fair, Democratic-run jurisdictions do this a lot, too (there are some exceptions, but they are exceptions even among urban Democratic jurisdictions.) The difference is that heterogenous urban jurisdictions can sweep the homeless out of the places where the people who matter can see them without sweeping them out of the jurisdiction or the range of local government or charity service delivery.
No, they don't. Whether they are actively fighting it, meekly bending to it, or crassly exploiting it for intra-party power games (and there are clear examples of all of those among nationally prominent Democrats), national Democrats understand very much how those things, and even more the right-wing media narratives around those things, drive opinion.
The internal dominance of the center-right faction of the party for the last 30 years has been built almost entirely on exploitation of this.
But if you show the video of someone robbing a convenience store (in oakland! another city entirely!) enough times on loop, you can convince enough voters that Something Must Be Done.
There you go the clear graph: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2022/06/05/why-san-f...
I think the one thing with the data is how much crime it takes to make a neighborhood feel unsafe. And my hypothesis is that the threshold is very, very low. Like double digits low. It doesn’t take much to rattle the psyche of a community.
But sure. Crime falls by 40% during a DA’s tenure (hypothetical example) so all is well right? But what is the absolute number and what does that absolute number translate to in the real world?
I can name roughly 10 people in my life who said they didn’t bother. Another 5 who went to police only to be told by them that there was nothing that would happen and that they shouldn’t waste time on finishing the paperwork. To complete the data, I know only 1 person who fully reported a crime, and it was an extreme violent crime.
The second hand testimony from residents and business owners saying the police are telling them not to expect them to be able to prosecute anyone.
But there's also the evidence of what Boudin openly said and advocated. Sometimes the message and the stated intent are worth replacing regardless of how effective they've been at their goals.
The rising crime narrative is entirely an artifact of the pandemic causing historically low crim because for like 8 months no one did anything.
I'm not sure about SF in particular, but my account was for the US as a whole.
> Murder and shootings are comparable with 2018.
This is incorrect. SF homicides:
Year | Homicides
-----+----------
2018 | 44
2019 | 41
2020 | 48
2021 | 56
> The rising crime narrative is entirely an artifact of the pandemic causing historically low crim because for like 8 months no one did anything.
Again, I'm not sure about SF in particular, but nationally the "rising crime narrative" is entirely an artifact of soaring crime, especially violent crimes. For example, homicides have been falling for decades, and then the trend abruptly reversed around 2014. Criminologists have identified specific reversals in cities that experienced large BLM protests immediately following those protests, and this is all pre-pandemic data (the 2020 and 2021 data is still being compiled and analyzed as far as I know).
For example (https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27324/w273...):
> For investigations that were not preceded by "viral" incidents of deadly force, investigations, on average, led to a statistically significant reduction in homicides and total crime. In stark contrast, all investigations that were preceded by "viral" incidents of deadly force have led to a large and statistically significant increase in homicides and total crime. We estimate that these investigations caused almost 900 excess homicides and almost 34,000 excess felonies. The leading hypothesis for why these investigations increase homicides and total crime is an abrupt change in the quantity of policing activity. In Chicago, the number of police-civilian interactions decreased by almost 90% in the month after the investigation was announced. In Riverside CA, interactions decreased 54%. In St. Louis, self-initiated police activities declined by 46%.
And in 2022 we're on track for somewhere between 40 and 48, precisely in line with prior years. A single outlier year does not a trend make.
> and then the trend abruptly reversed around 2014
Until 2016, when it began dropping again, and then it jumped up a ton in 2020 but we don't really have data yet to know if that was a fluke or not. (it really looks like the 2014 thing was just regression to the mean).
I didn't claim a trend in SF homicides, I was responding to your claim that 2021 homicides are at the same level as 2018.
> Until 2016, when it began dropping again, and then it jumped up a ton in 2020 but we don't really have data yet to know if that was a fluke or not. (it really looks like the 2014 thing was just regression to the mean).
The post-2020 "spike" (is it a spike if it hasn't come back down abruptly/dramatically?) has persisted for 2 years. Researchers insist the ~2014 surge was not a fluke or a blip, and the 2020-2022 "spike" is much more dramatic.
> “These aren’t flukes or blips, this is a real increase,” he said. “It was worrisome. We need to figure out why it happened.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/13/ferguson-eff...
And researchers disagree that the 2014 surge was merely a regression to the mean. From https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/13/ferguson-eff...:
> While it’s not clear what drove the increases, he said, he believes there is some connection between high-profile protests over police killings of unarmed black men, a further breakdown in black citizens’ trust of the police, and an increase in community violence.
> “The only explanation that gets the timing right is a version of the Ferguson effect,” Rosenfeld said. Now, he said, that’s his “leading hypothesis”.
> “That led me to conclude, preliminarily, that something like a Ferguson effect was responsible for the increase,” he said.
From https://www.vox.com/22360290/black-lives-matter-protest-crim...:
> Campbell’s research also indicates that these protests correlate with a 10 percent increase in murders in the areas that saw BLM protests. That means from 2014 to 2019, there were somewhere between 1,000 and 6,000 more homicides than would have been expected if places with protests were on the same trend as places that did not have protests. Campbell’s research does not include the effects of last summer’s historic wave of protests because researchers do not yet have all the relevant data. ... His research on homicides aligns with other evidence. Omar Wasow, a professor at Princeton University who has done seminal research on the effect of protests, told Vox that the results are “entirely plausible” and “not surprising,” considering existing protest research.
Note also the aforementioned paper (https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27324/w273...) from famed Harvard economist Roland Fryer and Tanaya Devi which found an increase in violent crime rate in cities that experienced a prominent BLM shooting (and subsequent protests), resulting in an additional 900 homicides and 34,000 excess felonies across two years. They suggest that this was caused by changes in the quantity of policing.
We'll have to wait for the 2020 and 2021 data to understand that spike; however, it seems really unlikely that prior to 2020 homicides were driven by anti-policing protests, but afterward it's merely a coincidence that the largest homicide surge immediately followed the largest bout of anti-policing protests.
To give you an analogy that might help, high covid infection numbers are bad always, but low covid numbers can be either good (if the covid numbers are truly down) or bad (if the real numbers are just not being tracked properly/swept under the rug, and people are just not getting tested enough).
But to give a direct answer to your original question, yes, low crime numbers are bad when they are the result of prosecution and enforcement not doing their job, as opposed to being the result of crime actually going down.
Lies, damn lies and statistics is still applicable and relevant today, if conveniently forgotten.
Just to bring something else to this discussion, Chesa didn’t run on statistics. He ran on a soft-on-crime message and delivered. Since this is an elected office, he didn’t answer to the Mayor, so he didn’t benefit from the Mayor’s cover but also wasn’t in the same chain of command as SFPD, so when the voters turned, they turned directly on him and this being an elected office, he just didn’t have a good story to tell or the support he needed from the communities he needed it from. The real statistics don’t even matter at that point because statistics don’t run for office or win elections.
The answer is it depends on the context.
Cites statistics.
Crime is visibly exploding, the police are only recording the most heinous/obvious incidents, and then we're told that crime is down.
When the paperwork is filled in, we have reported crime (because the police take a police report) and we have convictions (how many people were convicted is a matter of public record since courts are open). What we don’t have is a paper trail for all the crime that isn’t reported or when the paperwork isn’t filled out.
What can a third party bring to the table that the paper records cannot?
Also, Seattle has a Find-It-Fix-It app that allows people to report various things that are broken with the city, opening up that data to the public would be great. I know it's not crime-related, but getting an overall sense of the health of the city seems correlated. This would require that the app be administered by a 3rd party though.
I can’t say I particularly like it though. I do care about suppressing crime, but not to the point of becoming a police state. That ship may have already sailed between both existing apps like the ones you listed and the prevalence of home security cameras, so I’ll say it’s at least worth considering.
> Seattle has a Find-It-Fix-It app
Is this like SF’s 311?
Given the degree to which opposition to Boudin comes from other progressive Democrats, including politicians, in SF, the article we are discussing about a “message” to “Democrats and the nation” is an example of that.
It showed Obama standing opposite a Republican, and the Republican saying:
"If you take a step towards me, I'll take a step towards you."
So Obama takes a step towards the Republican, who doesn't move and just says again:
"If you take a step towards me, I'll take a step towards you."
Its right which shifted so far right that it might seem the left shifted away.
A lot of things coming from the republican party, of bring tolerated by the republican party on recent years are uncanily similar to how Hitler proceeded before he started mass murdering (like in the rethoric of speach and willingness to commit violence etc.)
The right hasn’t changed much other than they care less about religion/morality than before.
I’d say leftists tend to be more authoritarian and less liberal in general than the right. Though the right is also full of the authoritarians who just want it for their side.
What the political leaders love is when all the problems are because of the other side. Two wings one bird though.
This is said a lot online, but I'd like some concrete examples. Our abortion laws are (for now) more lax than almost all European countries, and the US left still wants more. Our tax system is more progressive than many European countries, but our rich still need to pay their "fair share." The left in the US wants us to essentially have completely open borders, and there's been a huge pushback to the 'refugees' coming to Europe.
There are some things where we're more right than Europe because Republicans or our constitution won't allow it, but that doesn't mean the American left isn't overwhelmingly quite far left.
And quite frankly, if you're comparing Republicans to Hitler you're too far left yourself to have a balanced perspective. You could just as easily say something like "The way the Democratic party treats white men in recent years is uncannily similar to how Hitler treated Jews..."
Both are ridiculous statements.
The way it currently looks is the right want to ban abortion no matter what context. Which is far far more strict then most EU countries. And the current legality status is in a legal gray are as far as I know, which is also worse then in many EU countries, through in practice in some states might not. And sure there are EU countries which are also quite far right.
> Our tax system is more progressive than many European countries
Progressive is not the same as left/right. I'm not sure a tax system can be left/right at all. But if we look at the usage of taxes than it's a very clear no.
> but our rich still need to pay their "fair share."
No, not at all. Through sadly that is the case for huge parts of the word.
> The left in the US wants us to essentially have completely open borders, and there's been a huge pushback to the 'refugees' coming to Europe.
The US (and EU) are a major (but not the only) drivers behind the conflicts leading to the refuges...
I will let you in on a little secret. The right doesn't actually want to ban abortions. They need the carrot of banning abortions to turn out voters, and abortion is a very powerful single issue. By this I mean, there are plenty of left-leaning folks who would abandon Bernie if he came out as anti-abortion, and there are plenty on the right who would turn on their candidates if they came out pro-choice.
By the same token, the left also needs the right to keep wanting to ban abortions (but failing) so they can turn out the vote. It isn't as binary as it seems.
While it's true that some republican run states are going this direction. If we look at the original case that will likely lead the SC to overturn Roe v Wade (again, it hasn't even happened yet), would be a European style ban, where abortion is allowed up until 15 weeks (this is a typical European cutoff). I believe the Mississippi law also has exceptions based on maternal health or fetal disability, which in countries like Germany, would actually require government approval in the late second and third trimester [1]. After the Roe v Wade leak, only a few GOP states have attempted to ban abortion outright. Popular GOP governors like Ron Desantis, whose name keeps coming up for 2024, signed a Mississippi style 15-week ban in Florida, instead of a full on ban.
So, while it's certainly true same in the party want a 100% ban, it's also true that the mainstream ones (again, DeSantis is extremely popular, so is a good indicator of 'centrist' republican thought) are not going that direction and instead making our laws more similar to Western European countries.
Compare that to the man you said represents the mainstream of the GOP. Ron DeSantis signed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks "without exemptions for rape, incest or human trafficking.
https://www.bpas.org/get-involved/campaigns/briefings/aborti...
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/14/politics/desantis-signs-a...
> Ron DeSantis signed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks "without exemptions for rape, incest or human trafficking.
You are deliberately misrepresenting the law and what I said about it. Your own article says:
> The bill, which goes into effect July 1, does allow exemptions in cases where a pregnancy is "serious risk" to the mother or a fatal fetal abnormality is detected if two physicians confirm the diagnosis in writing.
And Germany has no automatic exception for rape after fifteen weeks. It's up to the government. There is no government involvement in getting abortion approval in Florida. That makes florida more progressive.
In fact, in Germany, abortion is illegal at all stages, just merely decriminalized. So again, Florida et al are more progressive. I don't understand why we have to do this pointless thing where we just pretend America is less libertine than all of Europe. In fact in Germany, their courts have ruled that unborn fetuses are innately entitled to human rights. The only reason abortion is allowed is because the courts have said it's okay for the legislature to not punish this kind of murder (that's what the German courts say it is, not my opinion)
If you look at the actual law: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/BJNR001270871.html#B...
It boils down to (per paragraph):
(1) if you follow the right procedure (consulting, 3 days waiting then decision, done by doctor, no more then 12 weeks) it basically doesn't count as a crime (practically it's in a semi state between crime and not crime due to the constitutional court ruling you mentioned, it's anyway clear cut something you can not be convicted/pursed for, which is all that matters).
(2) if there are serve medical issues abortion is not against the law. This paragraph can theoretically apply to some cases of rape victims as it does explicitly mention mental medical issues/damage additional to physical issues.
(3) explicitly/automatically makes 2 apply to rape victims through only up to 12 weeks (since getting pregnant, not since the last period). Doesn't mean it can't apply post 12 weeks.
(4) the person having the aborting can not be punished if the abortion was done by a doctor and no more then 22 weeks passed (the doctor might be punished thou), if the person was pressured into it the judge can decide to not punish even if they normally would need to.
So what does that mean
- no the government is not involved, you never have to ask the government, only doctors
- yes post 12week there is no automatic exception, but you still do not need to ask the government a doctor is enough
- through theoretically a court case could be pushed to decide if the decision of the doctor was correct and paragraph 2 does apply to a rape victim in a post 12 week abortion so the best way to avoid that is to make sure its very clear that it's the case before doing the abortion, the lead to the common practice of getting two doctors to agree with the abortion (one of which isn't involved in the abortion in any other way). Even better (but not required!) would be to get the agreement of a state doctor (which is I guess where the idea of needing government approval comes from). Through saying a "state doctor" is part of the government is very very misleading, technically true trough. But their role is more like "doctors the government believes are competent and trust". I.e. their medical decisions are still independent from the government.
And sure this can be improved by a lot.
But then at least harassment of people going for a abortion is neither common nor tolerated in Germany (but seems to be common in parts of the US). Similar there is no in general no "attack" against doctors which do abortions, nodded of abortions as reasonable in Germany. Which from what I have heard happens in some US states often enough to be called systematic.
In the end for any conclusion I guess you would need to speak with people having gone through abortions (in various contexts/circumstances/US states/German states etc.).
PS: Depending on when you start counting the 12 weeks here might also be referred to as 14 weeks.
I think that really depends on which policies you're considering to determine how liberal or conservative a country is.
If you're looking at things like Universal Healthcare, Reproductive Rights (which you mentioned, interestingly- but skirted over the fact that they are likely being rolled back to being illegal at any stage past fertilization in many states- much more conservative than other countries), College tuition, universal basic income or workers rights, the US is objectively conservative.
Drag queen story hour????
It's of course always problematic to oversimplify the thousands of different issues and perspectives into simple "left vs right" or "conservative vs liberal" buckets, but overall, it's completely accurate to say that America has moved massively to the left, or alternatively, that liberals have been winning for decades.
The right-wing ideals of individual liberty & responsibility, of meritocracy and free choice have been completely obliterated from academia, media and public opinion. The entire narrative is owned and controlled by a left-wing view of race-based collective groups (which would have be class-based in Europe, but American left focuses more on race than class), along with an assumption that luck or privilege is the sole or at least primary driver of inequality.
On essentially every issue the left has not just won, but moved the goal posts of debate. You may just not notice it because you either agree with the moves or because which issues get focus aren't the ones you care about. The American left is doing little to solve climate change, pollution, affordability of middle class lifestyle, etc, but that's because they don't "really" care about those issues. They're winning on LGBTQ+, winning on race-based initiatives, winning on government-controlled access to healthcare, winning on federal power expanding and state power receding, winning on narrowing free speech, winning on reducing religious freedoms and winning on government-controlled land use, government-controlled economy, etc.
I was a left-wing radical in college. Without really changing my stances since then, I'm now a left-wing radical on only environmental issues but basically a centrist on others and occasionally on issues of free speech or free association it's only the right defending those freedoms.
With the current supreme court? This is incredible! Federal power has been in decline for a decade (and really since like the 40s/50s with the good exception of incorporation), there's been no reduction in religious freedom in decades, even when it conflicts with civil rights, and free speech remains strongly protected at the federal level, though republican governor's keep trying to change that!
Your claim that the left has gone "so far left that everyone looks like they are far right comparatively" is detached from reality.
A Supreme Court decision reversing one that was dubiously made in the first place. It'll be interesting to see how many of those states will roll back abortion from being illegal to something more reasonable.
>Police departments overwhelmingly haven't been defunded
An incredibly far left idea
>Congress didn't pass an infrastructure bill
It's pretty far left to say we need to spend trillions on new projects at a time with high inflation and a shortage of workers
>The federal minimum wage is still $7.25
Which we found out is largely inconsequential in a time when McDonalds is advertising $17 an hour.
>There's still been no repercussions for 1/6
Some people are going to prison for the riot. What other repercussions should there be?
>Trans kids can't get proper healthcare in 2 republican States (and growing)
Alternatively, two states are protecting children before they have the capacity to make completely life altering decisions.
>There's no universal healthcare or student debt forgiveness
Student debt forgiveness is an incredibly far left idea
>And there's still no meaningful gun reform
Most of things you listed, like this one, are things that the left wants shifted to the left. The whole point is that the left has shifted left, and pointing out that things that they want haven't been accomplished doesn't dispute that. It just means the right has been fighting to maintain the status quo - and certainly doesn't show that they've shifted right.
Student debt forgiveness is an incredibly aristocratic idea by which the slowly establishing american aristocracy seeks to tax peasants for their failed lavish lifestyles. It's not 'far left', and it shows just how duplicitous the supposed 'left' in this country has gotten. They're openly advocating for wealth transfers from the poor to the rich, and are attempting to portray themselves as the sole party of empathy, working class sympathies, etc. It's really something to watch from the outside.
No it's not. The high inflation is precisely because of underinvestment in fixed capital and infrastructure.
OTOH, Biden is the one increasing police budgets. Maybe the party is "spreading" on the spectrum?
When people say stuff like this I wonder what planet they're from.
It's not like the US even has a viable Socialist party, never mind a Marxist or Communist one.
I've never heard a Democrat call for the abolishment of private property or a revolution of the proletariat. In America, dreams of that sort died with end of the 60's and 70s with the destruction of the Weather Underground, the assassinations of MLK, Malcolm X, and RFK, the neutering of unions and the labor movement. The rise to power of Reaganism in the 80s and the switch of former leftists to Neo Cons sealed the left's fate.
Now pretty much everyone in America in any position of power (Republican or Democrat) is pretty solidly capitalist, which isn't exactly a far left position. Most of the leaders are also pretty pro-war and happy to support the military-industrial complex, which are not traditionally leftist positions in the US.
Republicans, on the other hand, have called for revolution, and some have even acted on it. The major terrorist attacks on America since Timothy McVeigh have come from the right (which includes not only "patriot" and "militia" groups and the "lone nut" inspired by the endless hatred and calls for violence on conservative talk radio, but also Muslim fundamenalists, who themselves are pretty right wing and have much more in common with right wing extremists because of their anti-women, anti-progress, and theocratic views than with the left).
The left in America is a complete joke when you compare it to how strong it is in Europe, where you can actually find viable openly Socialist and Communist parties, very strong unions, and solid social safety nets. What passes for the "left" in the US would be considered right wing there.
The only thing remotely left wing that I can see in mainstream American politics today is support for abortion and tolerance of minorities and people of different sexual identities/orientations. While important, that's a pretty small ledge for the left to stand on.
On abortion https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/05/06/abortion-acces...
Also the current views of liberals on race and gender are far left by European standards
Totally get that we currently have a significantly smaller welfare state though.
Not sure what your point about abortion is, but kinda seems to me like that is mostly aligned with Europe too? And neither are race and gender issues far-left issues here, but that's also more centrist and only the far-right really fighting against it (depending on what is meant exactly.. kinda broad topic).
Race and gender in modern far left US views is also far left by Europes standards and the US is actually leading the way in this regard.
Europe is just way further along on the welfare state than we currently are, but thats only one aspect of liberalism
I disagree that race and gender is a far left thing here. Of course you never really defined what you meant exactly here.
"With Roe in place, the United States has also been an international outlier on abortion rights, but in the other direction. Few countries allow abortion without restriction until fetal viability, the cutoff set by Roe v. Wade half a century ago — currently around 23 weeks, because of medical advances. That makes the United States one of just over a dozen countries that allow abortions for any reason beyond 15 weeks of pregnancy"
The far left's views of removing all ties to past racial discrimination, redefining the narrative of how the US is was formed, is extremely racially progressive and rarely seen in Europe.
Not sure what you mean removing all ties to past racial discrimination. But having a look at the bad parts of history is not that an outrageous thing in Europe - at least not in Germany.
Whether you look at the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, anywhere in Africa, you inevitably find that socialism brought horrific suffering, extreme poverty and widespread death. It doesn't matter whether the country is big or small, has lots of natural resources or none, is ethnically diverse or homogeneous, in literally every single data point we have, the empirical truth is clear, that private property and competitive businesses create better outcomes than centralized socialist systems.
And then let me add a nice data point that won't fit your nice narrative: Sweden. While not quite as socialist nowadays compared to maybe in the sixties, but it is still quite a lot more socialist than the US and is actually a pretty decent country to live and work in.
Sweden has welfare benefits slightly more titled in favor of the benefit receivers relative to the US. California unemployment lasts 26 weeks (182 days) compared to Sweden's 300 days. The USA provides free education from K-12, and then subsidized post-secondary education. Sweden provides citizens free tuition through college (international students pay similar tuition to American universities).
Everything a Swedish citizen might receive from the government, an American would have an analogous program, it just might have a lower payout, shorter duration or have more bureaucratic hassles to get. But it's not like these are fundamentally different systems, they're the same system with some numbers tweaked.
It also declined somewhat since the ~1970s when it was somewhat more socialist than today. But still it is quite a bit more socialist than the US: the points you already mentioned, plus things like universal healthcare, more employee protection, stronger unions (and unions are not a bad word), more paid vacation days (by law not because one has a nice job) and more public/affordable housing.
That's not due to socialism but totalitarianism and corruption.
There have been plenty of corrupt totalitarians on the right too, but apparently no one's learned any lessons there, except how to emulate them.
If anything, the right has largely shifted to the center over the course of my life. For example: they, along with Democrats for quite a while, were opposed to gay marriage. While I'm sure there's still a small contingent that would roll that back if they could it's very much not an issue for the party anymore.
The left, or at least a good portion of the democratic party? They've gone off the rails in the past 10+ years. Everything is now about race or sex. Everything. It's 100% OK to discriminate against white men. We should have open borders. Abortion should be legal up until birth. Prepubescent children should be allowed to go on hormone blockers and get surgery if they think they're trans. Transwomen should be able to compete against women in sports. The Kavanaugh confirmation was a disgusting point in US history. Let's ban guns. The list could go on.
From what I see, Republicans largely want things to stay the same or be rolled back by a decade or so.
The Republican party is vastly more anti-abortion and anti-gun control now than in the past. It is mainstream in the GOP to talk about punishing women who get abortions. And in New York, a Republican congressman who said he'd vote for gun control in the wake of a mass shooting in Buffalo, New York, in addition to the one in Texas faced so much backlash from his party he had to quit politics.
I think what you've fallen for is a rhetorical trick Republican politicians use. They say, "Of course Roe vs Wade is settled law." And then they tirelessly work to undermine it, which is exactly what's happening right now.
> From what I see, Republicans largely want things to stay the same or be rolled back by a decade or so.
If what you said is true, the GOP would support the right to abortion and an assault weapons ban. Instead they are rolling back abortion rights by 50 years (Roe was decided in 1973) and expanding the "right" to purchase high powered firearms without background checks and carry them, concealed, without any training, to a degree literally never seen in US history.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/facing-backlash-republican-...
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096108319/roe-v-wade-alito-c...
The converse of that statement is true too. The Democratic Party is vastly more pro-abortion and pro-gun control than in the past.
The two parties mirror their rhetoric on those two issues intentionally. Its literally impossible for one party to criticize the other on them, as they are both chosen as firebrands issues for their base. So if the GOP moves to the extreme on one, they are the cause for the democrats to move to the opposite extreme on the same issue and vice versa.
https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/151975976283299430...
I am not saying there is anything wrong with American Democrats but if you look at actual policies they would be labeled centre right anywhere else in the world.
As an American friend once put it to me "Americans believe luck is made, so social handouts are basically perceived as tax payer theft".
Not in terms of social policies. How many European centre-left policies support giving puberty blockers to children? How many European centre-left policies support abortion right up to the time of birth?
And the recently introduced abortion bill by the Democrats which ultimately failed, does not match what you are saying (time limited by viability and exception for life-saving measures). It however matches roughly the (varying) standards in the various EU countries.
So both not really examples where the Democrats vary greatly from the average in the EU.
I hear this a lot, but as someone who's fairly up on politics in a few Western European countries I don't think it's accurate.
For example, the current democratic party platform supports universal healthcare, mass immigration with a roadmap to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, expansion of visas and a removal of wealth/income requirements, a major commitment to environmental protection and an acknowledgement of climate change including getting to net-zero emissions and devoting tens of billions to foreign aid.
That's all pretty in-line with left wing political manifestos/platforms in most of western europe.
I’m just going to say it: the perception of where the American Democratic Party or the American Republican Party sits only matters to American voters. To whatever extent it interests foreigners, I’m happy to provide the entertainment as I take plenty of entertainment watching foreign politics myself, so fair is fair, but an outside observation of where we sit politically isn’t an actionable or useful observation because we’re not those other countries.
That isn’t to say there isn’t anything to be learned from the actions of other governments, whatever their domestic political makeup, but I am happy that if this were 1792 neither major American 2022 political party would be perceived to be getting buddy-buddy with the left of the French National Assembly. Actually gives me some hope for my country to think of it that way.
Like in no specific order: poverty, bleak future, failed "common" education system, state supported/tolerated exploition of citizens, failing police, falling justice system (if you ask they are meant to protect citizens), systematic deep rooted discrimination, toleration of fascism
national-socialist are one movement which is fascist, they are by far not the only one. (Nazis are fascist with socialist paint coat).
The US never had (internally) a problem with nazis, I think. But it does have a problem with white supremacist. It also does have a problem with religious extremist, most times Christian based. Both of this groups have quite a bit of overlap and have often strong fascist tendencies.
And sure California might be one of the US states better of. Tbh. especially with the last statement I was more thinking about some other US states.
Colloquially, this is what everyone understands when using the term fascist, but it's not quite in line with the history. 'Fascism' is a pejorative dog whistle, when people hear it they think "enemy" - because in WWII the Italian and German governments were fascist.
In fact, fascism, as I understand it, developed as a "third way" on the European continent. It was a rejection of capitalism as dominated by wealthy US, English interests, and of Communism. It's interesting that it developed in an area of Europe geographically juxtaposed in the middle of two powerful capitalist and communist fronts. Fascism was a reaction to domination by foreign power - so yes, naturally it's nationalistic. It also has a component of strong integration of nation and economy. The fasces is a binding together, metaphorically a combination of social, political, and economic institutions. Initially, it was an attempt to strengthen the nation, to reclaim power over the national destiny, and make good for the people of that country.
Of course, in hind site, we can see that some truly awful deeds were committed by some truly awful people, and we should be vigilant to prevent that from happening again. Unfortunately, it's a hard thing to predict, and even harder to prevent. It of course becomes harder if the name of fascism is misused in partisan political contexts because the nuance and history of the term is quickly lost.
>In fact, fascism, as I understand it, developed as a "third way" on the European continent.
Correct.
As you wrote, we naturally associate fascism with the Nazis invading neighboring countries and committing genocide, but its behavior was aberrant. Half of Europe was fascist/right-wing authoritarian in some form between the wars, including Poland, Austria, and Hungary, none of which started a European war; Italy only started one in Ethiopia. To put another way, Hitler's extreme anti-Semitic and anti-Slav attitudes were independent of his calling himself a fascist.
Mussolini in Italy invented fascism—the bundle of sticks and everything—but the "meh" attitude Italians have about fascism today (complete with Mussolini's granddaughter's longtime political career) is because the Italian variety of totalitarianism was never anything like the Nazis or Soviet Communists in its cruelty. Italian fascism always had substantial Jewish leadership and popular support, and Mussolini imposed anti-Jewish laws in the late 1930s only after substantial pressure from Hitler—by then clearly with the whip hand in the two countries' relationship—to do so.
Anyway this is why Nazis while mainly being far right managed to gather supporters from the far left. And especially in the beginning there where decision done which looked quite socialist, through in retrospective where basically always ware preparations.
I would say saying Nazis where socialists is quite wrong, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a bit of socialism their politics eve if just for pretentious reasons.
Through it also should be noted that the current political spectrum differs quite a bit from back then, neo-nazies normally have very clearly nothing to do with socialist and the far left has not many people which are extreme socialists but also nationalist either as far as I know.
These are both true in, at most, the same sense that it is true that North Korea is a democratic republic.
The US never had (internally) a problem with nazis
Your list begins to muddy the idea though. Poverty may be the only thing of great import mentioned.
Ignoring criminality (in the name of 'equity') develops into a situation seen in SF, Seattle and Portland. Preventing crime is not itself a draconian practice. Having some kind of penalty for criminal behavior is not draconian.
Ignoring crime and allowing criminals to go unpursued is a demoralizer for the entire community
If there are no consequences, then a percentage of the population will go nuts.
I've had a few young kids ask about going to California to get toys since you don't have to pay for them there. In their mind it's a great deal. Explaining that it's wrong even though you get away with it is awkward.
The problems need solutions which are not fully but to a non-small degree independent of classical "crime fighting" decisions.
But you are right, war on crime makes no sense. It should be on _criminals_. Basically, if they have strength left to exercise in prisons they are clearly too well fed and not worked hard enough.