Crime Fighting is Back

There are two ways that voters decide their position on issues of public policy: They either ask themselves “what does this policy do for me?” or “what does this policy say about me?” New York Times columnist Ezra Klein refers to these two approaches as “transactional politics” vs. “expressive politics.” One of the most important aspects of any political or policy debate is the way that voters prioritize these two questions. 

For example, an extremely wealthy individual who supports higher taxes is making that decision expressively, based primarily on what that decision says about them. An up-and-coming entrepreneur may come to the opposite conclusion because the practical benefit of lower taxes is more significant than for someone whose economic status is more secure. We saw a widespread reconsideration of this balance on education-related matters during the pandemic last year, when many parents who had long been philosophically committed to public education chose instead to enroll their children in charter or private schools.

These competing priorities are now reframing the debate over public safety and criminal reform. Last summer, after the tragic deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, large numbers of angry Americans took to the streets to express their dissatisfaction with law enforcement they saw as being overly repressive to minority communities. For those who live in those communities and have faced police brutality, these marches were the essence of practical, transactional politics. For many others for whom mistreatment from the police was not a frequent occurrence, their protests in solidarity with those who had been mistreated were grounded primarily in expressive politics.

A year later, much has changed. Many American cities have seen dramatic increases in the number of homicides committed in their jurisdictions. A high-profile murder here in Los Angeles of a prominent philanthropist has galvanized public attention, as has an ongoing spate of flash mob and “snatch and grab” robberies in which retail stores throughout the state have been victimized by increasingly brazen robberies. We are reminded regularly that the overall crime rate is still much lower than was the case in the late 20th century, but the overall feeling of danger and vulnerability is palpable.

The result has been a noticeable shift in the public discussion of these issues. Most of California’s political leaders, including Governor Gavin Newsom and the mayors of most of the state’s largest cities, are devoting more time and attention to law enforcement resources than they did last year in the aftermath of the protests. Even though only a small number of activists on the left ever embraced the totality of the “defund the police” slogan in a literal sense, the sentiment caused many local governments to redirect funding from police and sheriff departments into preventive, community-based programs. That impetus has now largely disappeared, as those same elected officials now scramble to reinforce existing law enforcement capacity in their communities.

Across the country, Republican and centrist Democratic candidates are racing back toward crime-fighting platforms that have been out of fashion for some time. 

These shifting attitudes will almost certainly shape the 2022 election season. Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón was elected on a progressive reformist agenda just months after Floyd’s death. Now he may be facing a recall campaign. Across the country, Republican and centrist Democratic candidates are racing back toward crime-fighting platforms that have been out of fashion for some time. Meanwhile, left-leaning Democrats are nervously watching as public sentiment turns against the gains they thought they’d achieved last year.

As we’ve discussed many times before, American Jews occupy a unique place on the national political landscape, combining widespread economic success with pronounced ideological liberalism. Public safety and criminal justice issues can pose an especially difficult change to these types of voters, because they frame the expressive and transactional aspects of politics in stark relief. 

Many voters of all ethnicities and religions want to provide assistance and support and second chances to those who are less advantaged. They also want their families and communities to be safe. The challenge is balancing and prioritizing between those necessities, and then deciding which of the two is more important.

Dan Schnur is a Professor at the University of California – Berkeley, USC and Pepperdine. Join Dan for his weekly webinar “Politics in the Time of Coronavirus” (www/lawac.org) on Tuesdays at 5 PM.