Hacker News Reader

Comment by colechristensen | Hacker News Reader

It's what happens when the ordinary politicians ignore problems until the "let's solve it like psychopaths" get a critical mass of support.

There were actual problems with immigration, crime, and trade that were aggressively ignored by both parties perhaps one more than the other. The problems grew and grew in the collective minds of the public until enough of the public started to support "let's solve it like fascists".

The lesson is that you can't manifest a perfect political reality by pretending problems don't exist.

View on HN

Or maybe their actual problems are caused by automation, tax cuts on the rich, and a lack of social safety net that lets people live in dignity, but the media they consume mostly blames immigration and crime.

Political "reality" is rarely objective.

In the US, we spend about $3T on social safety net programs at the federal level, that's half the federal budget or about 12% of the GDP.

I used to live in Oakland, CA...about a mile from MLK. I can tell you plenty about the amount of crime there over the last decade. I've known lots of people from the suburbs that will try to tell me that crime is down, meanwhile I saw my neighbors getting robbed during the day (not just at night anymore).

If your only experience with these things is watching the news, you really shouldn't be talking about them. And taking police services away from the poorest parts of town is despicable.

PS It was the votes from those high crime districts that got Trump elected last year. The people down there don't watch the news. Your take is just copium because you don't want to do the real work of looking at your side's policies and fixing what is costing you voters and elections.

As somebody avowedly on the left-hand side of the political spectrum - yep. I know the crime stats. I also have seen friends of mine get robbed 3 times in 4 years, once with them in the house. (LA, not Oakland. And in the nice suburbs.) And it's not an isolated incident.

I know that the crime stats say crime is down. But that's not the lived experience for a lot of people. And unless politicians are willing to acknowledge there are issues, and do the work to tackle them, you get demagogues. Right-wing ones will use it to extol the virtues of cracking down, left-wing ones will use it to talk about the plight of the downtrodden.

Meanwhile, you still have people for whom crime is the best option, and you have people who suffer from crime. We could choose to solve those problems (independent of political leaning), and we could choose to solve both sides of the coin. But that'd probably be too rational to sell at the voting booth.

> It was the votes from those high crime districts that got Trump elected last year. The people down there don't watch the news.

[citation needed] They do get enough info through various channels to decide "Trump might fix it". And a good chunk of that is news. We can debate the veracity of info they derive, and how they make their decisions, but let's not go "poor people don't watch news". Mass media exists and has effects, across all demographic strata. Mass media is a tool of demagogues, willing or unwilling.

But that's really also the point of the article - "if people just had better info" isn't actually a workable answer to demagogues. And so debates about media consumption are mostly useless waffling. See above re "what if we instead thought about fixing real issues"

First I want to say the last election wasn't people electing Trump, it was people rejecting the Dems. Second, this entire argument from the left on crime is based upon a false reading of the stats. When people quote the single recidivism rate, they are misunderstanding how that rate is measured. The majority of people that go to prison for the first time, never go back again. A fraction of cons go back over and over again and that skews the recidivism rate. A large chunk of those repeat offenders have serious mental illness. Most of the rest view crime as either a job or a lifestyle.

I'm not sure the 'people for whom crime is the best option' is really the right way to look at it. The vast majority of people in West Oakland never commit any crimes. And ignoring these realities is what is driving populism. Articles like this one say a lot more about the author than they do about political science or populism.

When I say the people in that neighborhood don't watch the news, I'm not making a value judgement. I'm just stating a fact. They don't really care about politics. They do care if the police come when they call and they do care if they can walk the streets at least some part of the day safely.

If Dems really wanted to win an election, they would change policy. Until they do that, they will continue to lose elections. That's Democracy working, not some new or different politics at work.

"this entire argument from the left on crime is based upon a false reading of the stats" -> Not sure whom you're debating here. I'm aware of the stats, and don't think I've made points that disagree with your view of them.

"A large chunk of those repeat offenders have serious mental illness" -> 25%. A bigger problem is substance abuse, at 52%.

Your "Most of the rest view crime as either a job or a lifestyle" and my "people for whom crime is the best option" are saying the same thing. So I'm not clear why you say you're not sure it's the right way to look at it. We both agree that there are subgroups that choose crime deliberately, and based on the stats, it's still a fairly significant group.

"And ignoring these realities is what is driving populism". -> Yes. That is exactly what the article is saying. Quote: "This gives rise to a set of views among those elites, [...] which are basically out of sync with the views of the majority". You're 100% aligned with the author here.

The author explicitly says that punishment doesn't work. He implies heavily that only the academics and elites know this because its counter-intuitive.

My point is that what is driving populism is poor performance by the elites. The other side of this coin is regular folks noticing the bad performance while understanding (in this case correctly) the problem. The populism only happens when both of these things are happening at the same time (bad performance, and normies noticing the bad performance).

Fix the policy and the populism fades. But in this situation that is unlikely to happen because the author believes something that is just false. That's why he keeps going in circles about the wrong fixes, because he doesn't understand that he is just wrong in his understanding. Ironic no?

PS The stats you quote, are they all offenders or repeat offenders? Because that's basically the same mistake the author is making by confusing those two categories. I'm not sure that matters for you because you seem to understand policing is effective. For him, it breaks his entire analysis. I hope this explains my point. Edit: the reason why your way of looking at it isn't all that helpful is that its based in economics instead of policy. There are always rich and poor, there isn't always a big increase in crime.

Crime has been trending down for decades.

Solving a problem like a psychopath might also include lying about the existence of a problem to scare people into putting you in charge. And then not solving it but abusing your position to get rich.

Crime measurement has been trending down.

As part of policy.

If you have proof a whole bunch of academics would be glad to see it as they're all arguing about the cause:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_drop

This is in the realm of JAQing.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/dc-police-commander...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/crime/general/dc-quietly-settles-l...

This is what's public and easily searchable.

We know about deliberately ignoring reports of crime (shoplifting, burglary, mugging, pickpocketing) because of the BLM protests (and the associated increase in black deaths in the area where He Floyd died), drops in funding and Animus between government and police.

The idea of pretending no one's faking records in these areas is quite fascinating as well as the idea it's only happening where covered or researched.

You probably know where to look for your fenced items if they are stolen from your home too. Yet those places remain open.

> The problems grew and grew in the collective minds of the public until enough of the public started to support "let's solve it like fascists".

Well said, and there's no indication that obtaining dictatorial powers hasn't been the original goal all along.

> The lesson is that you can't manifest a perfect political reality by pretending problems don't exist.

There are a lot of lessons here, but this is a good start.

> "let's solve it like fascists".

You have a weird way of spelling libertarian.

Nothing says libertarian like federal soldiers being sent into cities.

A distinction without a difference.

Never took a political science class I see. Of all the major political ideologies, the one that is the least like fascism would be libertarianism. Now if a specific person or party is actually libertarian, that's another story. In case you wondered why people just ignore your talking points, that's why. In Spain, you might have a point. In the US, you are just showing your ignorance.

PS There is a reason why political scientists never talk about left or right. Those terms only have meaning in one place at one time. They change meanings between places.

> Never took a political science class I see.

Actually I did and I'm quite good at it. However, not all classes are the same.

> Of all the major political ideologies, the one that is the least like fascism would be libertarianism.

Only if you haven't thought about it long enough or haven't taken the right classes.

> Now if a specific person or party is actually libertarian, that's another story.

It's not another story, it's where libertarianism always ends, it's in its DNA. In other words, cute baby-libertarianism has nothing to do with the finished product.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com