Something strange about crime in America: The crime rates in the United States — both violent and property — have steadily declined in the last half century (Democrats love it); yet, our “fear of crime” has just as steadily increased (Trumpsters love it). Obviously, our current national obsession with crime is entirely unrelated to actual crimes that threaten our personal safety.
To proceed further with our thinking, we need to bear in mind these two cardinal principles of crime and the city:
One: That crimes are controlled always in balance with civil liberty; no crime can be controlled without controlling liberty.
Two: That crimes are already under control; the very existence of each city is proof.
President Donald Trump is offering to make city streets and neighborhoods safe for the residents by sending in federal troops. But, the local citizens (whose cities are “hell holes” and “are burning to the ground,” according to Trump) largely reject such military interventions. Why do they oppose guaranteed safe streets and neighborhoods maintained by soldiers?
The answer is very simple in the first principle: It hurts their liberty. Crime control is a worthy goal, but not at the cost of freedom. They want safe streets and neighborhoods, of course, but, not if the safety is bought with Nazi storm troopers or Soviet gulags, or their own military troops. What would be the benefit of safe streets and neighborhoods if they demand the ransom in civil liberty?
In the second principle: Cities reject military troops because such interventions are not needed. Cities can take care of themselves — all to the point of the balance between liberty and crime control. There are no cities or municipalities that are so crime-ridden that their very existence is threatened. Even in the “worst” case, say, for Washington, D.C., we have never heard that the capital is on the verge of collapsing under the strains of criminals and crimes. By the very nature of the existence of cities and municipalities, this sort of crime-ridden destruction is never possible and has never happened in American history. Our law-enforcement in each city, now heavily militarized, has been in firm control over crimes.
While Trump and his critics may argue on the finer points of constitutionality, there is no question that it’s unnecessary: The cities, whose residents themselves know better than anyone whether they need military order, never asked for it. President Trump’s deployment of troops is against the very wishes of the locals who see no need for such federal intervention.
If the citizens of a city felt they are in a “(crime) hell hole,” wouldn’t they naturally ask for, or demand, help? Trump insists that the city needs help, but the city never asked for it. On the other hand, no city has ever hesitated to ask for help, from the state or the federal government, if it needs help, whether financial, law and order, or in natural disasters: In fact, the city welcomes it gratefully. But in Trump’s helping case, the city is protesting against the possible help. Only in Kafkaesque nightmares do the “helpers” come and force their “help” on the “helpees” while the latter scream and fight to resist the help. How strange! If the cities were truly under siege from criminals and crimes, why would they reject federal help?
Fear of crime in America prospers wholly unfounded in reality: President Trump, elected in part on greatly inspired fear of crime, promises to make our city streets “safe” with masked agents and armed soldiers in our neighborhoods. In America, criminal reality has been replaced by political fantasy, both for the president and for the cities.
The truth is, we tolerate crime only to the extent that we tolerate liberty. Fear of crime leads us to intolerance for crime and, at the same time, intolerance for liberty. Crime cannot be controlled effectively without controlling freedom. Cities and towns want to tolerate both crime and liberty in balance. Trump’s intervention offers us the opposite: No crime and no liberty — under the military boots and bullets.
In all American municipalities, large and small, crime, by definition, is always under control: Like parents with active children, every city “allows” crimes only to the extent of its tolerability, no more, no less. In two most liberal cities in America — New York and Chicago— both libertines and Mafia prosper. In every city, crime rates and tolerability are exactly equal. Each exists because it’s capable of handling its own unruly elements. They strive to maintain the fine balance between order and liberty, both safe streets and vibrant city life.
All cities are organized, institutionalized and funded as a governing unit, while criminals (even in Mafia families) are all individually engineered enterprisers. No criminal is ever a match for the full complements of government power. (Michael Bloomberg, while mayor of NYC, marveled that, with 30,000-plus policemen under his command, he practically had “an army”). The hammer of government can be lowered on crimes and criminals any time it wants. Even neighborhood vigilantes can easily control criminals. It’s the very nature of government power, which doesn’t tolerate any threats to itself, least of all by criminals. No self-preserving local governments or residents would allow criminals to threaten their very own safety and existence.
As long as the president decides, by decree, which city requires his federal intervention, he can invade any city at will over the local citizens and their political leaders’ objections. For sure, soldiers would keep streets safe in American cities — just as Nazis and Soviets did theirs and the North Korean government still does today.
Jon Huer, retired professor and columnist for the Recorder, lives in Greenfield and writes for posterity.