A new old war.
It’s easy to forget in hindsight just how popular the war in Iraq was in 2003 and 2004. The constant parade of talking heads on the news. The fulsomely supportive editorials in outlets like the New York Times and The Nation. Colin Powell prostrating himself in front of the United Nations Security Council. A steady and deafening drumbeat falling on the ears of a twitchy and confused populace that was (and in many ways, still is) traumatized by the events of September 11, 2001.
I see eerie parallels between our national mood then and the mood in many cities and towns across the country right now. The object of our fear and rage isn’t terrorists of vaguely Middle Eastern extraction - it’s crime.
Mayors and mayoral candidates in particular are running this playbook very skillfully, and it’s easy to understand why; it works. Just as we of course had to send troops and munitions into Iraq to defeat an enemy we could barely describe, much less find, we of course must allocate more police and surveillance equipment to administer increasingly harsh punishments against those we think may do us harm (or at the very least take our stuff.)
To be clear: people who commit violence should be held to account, which of course may include separating them from the rest of society. Practically speaking, the problem with most tough-on-crime measures like curfews and long prison sentences is that they simply don’t work.
There’s a lot of data to suggest that any contact with the juvenile justice system will actually equip a kid to commit more crimes in the future and if the threat of locking people away were a sufficient deterrent, then there would be no crime anywhere in America. Similarly, our wars in the middle east were poorly designed misadventures intended to satisfy political bloodlust - not make our planet safer. Opposing the wars got you tagged as a deeply unserious person at best, or possibly treasonous at worst. Opposing the tough-on-crime narrative in your town could bear similarly unpleasant results: Don’t you care about people’s safety? Don’t you care about your own?
Crime is going to be the pivotal issue in many, if not most, American mayors’ races this year. The tendency among many, if not most, candidates will be to tack to the right and follow the tough-on-crime playbook all the way to the end: more cops, more cameras, bigger jails, and fewer chances at rehabilitation or redemption. This isn’t because it’s what voters necessarily want - it’s because in a post-pandemic country gripped by fear, confusion, and trauma, we struggle to find the words that both acknowledge the seriousness of the issue and point the way to a different future.
Without being unfairly critical of my friends in the #DefundThePolice movement, that campaign has largely failed because it inadvertently encouraged people to think about what they may be losing - a responsive police presence in an emergency - rather than what they’d be gaining - a more humane, dignified, and efficient response to non-violent and non-criminal behavior.
Here again, the past is instructive, particularly if we look at former President and then-candidate Barack Obama’s critique of the war in the 2008 Democratic primary and subsequent general election. By then, public opinion had broadly turned against the conflict and the election was in many respects a referendum on George W. Bush’s (mis)management of it. Obama, preternaturally skilled politician that he was, knew how to capitalize.
In repeated speeches and debates, Obama was careful not to minimize the concerns that reasonable Americans may have about foreign adversaries — the September 11 attacks were, after all, less than a decade behind us. He certainly never minimized the service of the armed forces’ members that we sent into battle or the sacrifices of their loved ones.
Rather, he framed the Senate’s 2004 vote to authorize the war as a question of judgement — a conversation about how a leader makes difficult decisions and the kinds of things he or she must take into account, not the least of which is material cost.
“I was opposed to Iraq from the start, and I say that not just to look backwards, but also to look forwards, because I think what the next president has to show is the kind of judgment that will ensure that we are using our military power wisely.” - Barack Obama, January 31, 2008
Wisely is the operative word there. In other words, the battle for America’s safety must surely be joined - but on terms that the Americans who are paying for it must understand and in ways that don’t unnecessarily deplete the capital we need for other investments. It was not an accident or stroke of political luck that I opposed the war, Obama essentially told voters; in fact, it’s because I want America to be as safe and resilient as possible that I oppose any decision that puts us at risk.
What does this have to do with mayoral politics and crime in your city, this year and next? Imagine a stump speech that attempts to reframe these local issues in the careful and empathetic ways that Obama spoke about Iraq. It might go something like this:
“Everyone should feel safe, all the time, no matter where they are in our community. As a parent, I'm always thinking about keeping my family safe and making sure my kids don’t get into situations that could spiral out of control. That's actually why I don't agree with some of the really strict policies my opponents in this race are suggesting. It's not because I don't want a safe and peaceful city, but their ideas are more like distractions than real solutions.
“If they were genuinely focused on reducing crime in our city, they'd be talking about strategies that actually reduce crime. Instead, we just hear about approaches that have been shown, time and time again, in our city and every city, that cost more money and actually make crime worse.
“You deserve a mayor who understands what this problem will take, will look you straight in the face and tell you what it requires, and will follow through on the steps that actually make a difference - not mislead you with failed ideas that sound good while actually making things worse and bankrupting us in the process.
“If we all work together and support a plan that saves the toughest punishments for those who truly deserve it, while also addressing the root causes of why people commit crimes in the first place, we can tackle this problem from both sides.”
In times of chaos, people want certainty - that’s how strongmen get and keep power. Certainty need not necessarily emanate from the most reductive or reactionary policies, however. It can and should come from showing that you trust people by speaking plainly about the things that concern them and telling them what they can do about it.