The New Republic

It is ridiculous to describe fear of crime as racism, always and everywhere.

- liberalref

March 28, 2011 at 1:12pm

Obviously, racism was more pervasive than crime, at that time. And much of the fear of crime was indistinguishable from racially-motivated fears of integration. That much was clear to me as a young person growing up in Northern New Jersey in the 60s. I don't know about Detroit, but I observed that my neighbors equated civil rights with crime, and had exaggerated fears of African-Americans, who were assumed to be hostile and prone to both violence and crime. Yes, there really was a legitimate concern about crime, but it was not separable from very negative racial attitudes that persisted and were openly expressed in hateful terms. If you were a law and order conservative, you discounted (or endorsed) the racism and deplored the crime. If you were a liberal, you were horrified by the hate and saw the law and order rhetoric as coded racial rhetoric. Obviously, crime was an issue, and liberals lost the votes of those whose fears were reasonable as well as those whose fears were an expression of racial animosity. Don't underestimate however, the impact of the second group on the first - politicians, mainly Republicans by the 70s, who profited by magnifying and then exploiting fear. I'm not sure I understand Jonathan's taking time now to criticize the liberals who saw through this tactic and denounced it, but to the extent that liberals seemed insensitive to the victims of crime, or to those intimidated by crime rates in their neighborhoods, that was as much due to the successful demagoguery on the right as it was to actual insensitivity on the left. That insensitivity was real in some cases, and it was a serious mistake, but let's recognize that it was exaggerated by the other side for political benefit. Neil

- purcellneil

March 28, 2011 at 1:23pm

Well said Jon. This is what should have been an obvious fact to Dems long ago, including those who contributed mightily to the decline of the party because they couldn't get beyond the NYT-endorsed (still) ideological line. Daniel Patrick Moynahan was a candle in the wind.

- Robert Powell

March 28, 2011 at 1:54pm

It might've been nice to give a complete context for Sugrue's statement (see below). First, attacks on black families trying to move into white neighbourhoods. Second, white flight that began well _before_ the increases in crime rates noted by Chait. It's fashionable on TNR to blame liberals for almost everything, but that inattention to what was actually written is almost Peretzian. "As Detroit’s black population skyrocketed during the Great Migration from the South, the city’s whites fought what they called the “Negro invasion” with every tool at their disposal. From 1945 to 1965 whites attacked at least 250 black families — usually the first or second to move into all-white neighborhoods — breaking windows, burning crosses and vandalizing homes. When white Detroiters could not win by fighting, they fled to the suburbs. Indeed, for a half-century beginning in the 1950s, Detroit lost nearly half of its population, almost all whites. Those who left the city cited various reasons: desire for a little green space, new housing, better schools, freedom from crime. Few of them acknowledged the racial motive behind white flight, that words like “freedom from crime” were code for moving away from blacks."

- SMacEachern2

March 28, 2011 at 1:59pm

Um, I may be remembering wrong but I think the issue in The American President isn't that crime isn't real, it's that the mushy, Clintonesque "Crime Bill" he's pushing on the Hill is by and large, a big fancy piece of crap that won't amount to much to actually fight Crime, and so, after reinvigorated with moral purpose at the end of the movie he's going to go pass a real one, that will include very strong gun control in it. It's not that crime isn't an issue, but the way we go after substantive issues with poll tested, pussy footed gobbledygook.

- Crock1701

March 28, 2011 at 2:01pm

In some instances, people may be worried by actual rising crime rates. But I feel certain that in many others it's just a code word for "black people." (Or possibly "Mexicans" now.) Case in point: my mother teaches at a Catholic high school in a mid-sized city. It has a larger African-American population than its sister schools, although it's probably 80% or more white. Many parents hesitate to send their children from the local Catholic grade schools to this school, citing worries about "crime." And yet the crime rate is no higher there than at the other Catholic high schools. The only difference is the relative size of the black student body. (To the his credit, the principal addresses conflation of crime and race this head-on in meetings with prospective parents.) This would be the basis of an interesting sociological study, if it isn't already: controlling for income and property value, was white flight a rational response to crime rates?

- benjamin81

March 28, 2011 at 2:15pm

Go anywhere in the world, and if you've got major demographic shifts underway you've got a higher incidence of crime, ethnic/religious conflict, and if the setting is right, war. The Black migration to The Promised Land was the greatest peacetime migration on record. It was never going to be easy. The remedy is not to tell people who are frightened with considerable justification that they are bigots and fools and that their fears are superstitious nonsense (although in some cases they may be), but to address to the extent possible the most urgent presenting problem. Pragmatism rather than knee-jerk leftwing excuse making is required. I lived in and around NYC from the early '70's through the '90's--not all the time, but most of the time. It has been a legitimate renaissance, from a very low point. What worked was actually addressing the people's actual concerns. Traditional Democrat constituencies which fought Rudi tooth and nail initially voted for his re-election (I confess I never considered it remotely plausible that he was suited for any higher office, but he was a very effective Mayor). Bloomberg has moved things along on a similar trajectory. The only consistent success the Democrats have managed since 1964 has depended on pragmatic attempts to address real problems, not left-wing class struggle ideology.

- Robert Powell

March 28, 2011 at 2:53pm

Robert Powell: "...left-wing class struggle ideology..." Which is always a good accusation when - as now - the working class is getting badly screwed around. But Americans are, by and large, a deferential bunch, and you won't do anything about it.

- SMacEachern2

March 28, 2011 at 3:58pm

Thanks for the full quote SmacEachern2. This seems a good assessment as I remember it growing up north of Detroit and visiting relatives in Detroit frequently (from mid-sixties to mid-70s). It was talked about openly at the time as a black crime threat. We watched the neighborhoods around where aunts and uncles lived and saw blacks encroaching and our relatives moving out--in one case into the Detroit suburbs and in another across the state to white, rurual areas. in the 80s the same thing happened to friends and acquaintances moving as far as they could afford and not hesitating to tell you why.

- kras

March 29, 2011 at 2:50am

Not so much deferential as optimistic, Mr. Mac. Most of the population of most of the countries in the world would be delighted to be "screwed around" like the working class in the USofA.

- Robert Powell

March 29, 2011 at 9:22am

Here's what some guy in Philly said about why he moved: "Between my wife and I, we work 3 jobs in one household so we can live as far as possible from Section 8 housing. Keep your brave new world, liberal views to yourself. I don't want section 8 anywhere near me. I don't want anyone receiving any type of government assistance living near me," wrote Steve Arlo. "I pay THOUSANDS of dollars a year in Federal, State, City and property taxes to keep it away from my neighborhood. I'll say it. They don't deserve to live in or near my neighborhood. When are we going to stop this 'free money' mentality? I don't care how horrible their neighborhood is. You made your bed now sleep in it. Remember, neighborhoods are made up of those that live in them." Robert Powell is right, almost. People in developing countries would love to live here, but people living in developed countries are quite happy to stay where they are. That's American exceptionalism we can believe in - "We're Better than Bangladesh!"

- Geoff G

March 29, 2011 at 11:11am

Here's what some guy in Philly said about why he moved: "Between my wife and I, we work 3 jobs in one household so we can live as far as possible from Section 8 housing. Keep your brave new world, liberal views to yourself. I don't want section 8 anywhere near me. I don't want anyone receiving any type of government assistance living near me," wrote Steve Arlo. "I pay THOUSANDS of dollars a year in Federal, State, City and property taxes to keep it away from my neighborhood. I'll say it. They don't deserve to live in or near my neighborhood. When are we going to stop this 'free money' mentality? I don't care how horrible their neighborhood is. You made your bed now sleep in it. Remember, neighborhoods are made up of those that live in them." Robert Powell is right, almost. People in developing countries would love to live here, but people living in developed countries are quite happy to stay where they are. That's American exceptionalism we can believe in - "Way Better than Bangladesh and Ethiopia!"

- Geoff G

March 29, 2011 at 11:41am