Crime and Criminals

Subterms

    More stories

    • 63 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Sweden’s Far Right Is Rising

      by

      STOCKHOLM — “Helg seger.”Those two words, spoken by Rebecka Fallenkvist, a 27-year-old media figure and politician from the Sweden Democrats, the far-right party that took 20 percent in Sweden’s general election last week, sent shivers down spines throughout the country. It’s not the phrase, which is odd and means “weekend victory.” It’s the sound: one letter away from “Hell seger,” the Swedish translation of the Nazi salute “Sieg Heil,” and the war cry of Swedish Nazis for decades.Ms. Fallenkvist was quick to disavow any Nazi associations. She meant to declare the weekend a victorious one, she said, but the words came out in the wrong order. Perhaps that’s true. But the statement would be entirely in keeping with the party Ms. Fallenkvist represents which, after a steady rise, is now likely to play a major role in the next government.For Sweden, a country that trades on being a bastion of social democracy, tolerance and fairness, it’s a shock. But perhaps it shouldn’t be. Steadily rising for the past decade, the Swedish far right has profited from the country’s growing inequalities, fostering an obsession with crime and an antipathy to migrants. Its advance marks the end of Swedish exceptionalism, the idea that the country stood out both morally and materially. There’s no doubt about the party’s Nazi origins. The Sweden Democrats was created in 1988 out of a neo-Nazi group called B.S.S., or Keep Sweden Swedish, and of the party’s 30 founding fathers, 18 had Nazi affiliations, according to a historian and former party member, Tony Gustaffson. Some of the founding fathers had even served in Hitler’s Waffen SS.Step by step the party changed its image — in 1995 uniforms were forbidden — but the core ideology remained: Immigrants should be persuaded to go home, Swedish culture should be protected and neither Jews nor the Indigenous Sami people were to be considered “real Swedes.” Not even the soccer star Zlatan Ibrahimovic secured the party’s approval, although he was born in the country and is the national team’s record goal scorer. The stances of the current leadership, which has sought to sanitize the party’s reputation, are equally worrying.Take Linus Bylund, the party’s chief of staff in the Swedish Parliament. In an interview in 2020, he declared that journalists for the national public service radio and television ought to be “punished” if their reporting was biased. Such people, he stated previously, would be “enemies of the nation.” Proximity to power hasn’t softened his views. The day after the recent election, a reporter asked him what he now looked forward to. “Journalist-rugby,” he replied.Jimmie Akesson, the party’s leader, also surprised a television audience in mid-February when he refused to choose between Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin. It’s of a piece with the party’s accommodating stance on Russia: The Swedish Parliament was so concerned about a journalist who used to work in the party’s office and had contact with Russian intelligence that it denied the journalist accreditation. Add in a cohort of representatives more prosecuted for crimes than any other, organized troll campaigns against opponents and even attempts to undermine faith in the electoral system, and you have the image of a deeply unsavory party.Even so, the Sweden Democrats’ rise is an impressive right-wing success story. The party entered the Parliament in 2010 with just over 5 percent of the vote — but, under the leadership of Mr. Akesson, it built an efficient, nationwide organization. It more than doubled its share of the vote in 2014 and, after Sweden admitted over 160,000 Syrian refugees, grew even more in the 2018 election. But it’s in this vote that Sweden Democrats secured a sought-after breakthrough with a stunning 20.6 percent of the votes, surpassing the conservative Moderaterna, which had been Sweden’s second-biggest party for over 40 years. Now only the Social Democratic Party, Sweden’s historic party of government, has more support.This monumental rise is thanks to the dramatic changes in Swedish life over the past three decades. Once one of the most economically equal countries in the world, Sweden has seen the privatization of hospitals, schools and care homes, leading to a notable rise in inequality and a sense of profound loss. The idea of Sweden as a land of equal opportunity, safe from the plagues of extreme left or extreme right, is gone. This obscure collective feeling was waiting for a political response — and the Sweden Democrats have been the most successful in providing it. It was better in the good old days, they say, and people believe them. Back to red cottages and apple trees, to law and order, to women being women and men being men.For opening this door, the major parties have themselves to blame. Bit by bit, the traditional parties have adopted the point of view and rhetoric on crime and immigrations of the Sweden Democrats Party — but this strategy hasn’t won back any votes. On the contrary, it seems to have helped the far right. In a little more than 12 years, Sweden Democrats has managed to compete with the Social Democrats for working-class voters, with Moderaterna for the support of entrepreneurs and with the Centre Party among the rural population.The media is culpable, too. In an attempt to protect traditional Swedish democratic values, the mainstream media has often shunned and canceled Sweden Democrats officials and supporters, especially in the party’s early years. But now it seems that this response actually might have had the opposite effect. Individuals leaning toward the Sweden Democrats for various reasons have felt stigmatized: Some haven’t been invited to family gatherings, and in a few cases have even lost their jobs. This has not only fed the party’s self-image as a martyr, but also nurtured even more loyalty among its supporters.One could argue that the traditional parties have had their part in creating the perfect storm. The Social Democratic party has named the Sweden Democrats their main enemy in the election campaign, making other alternatives almost invisible in the public debate. Us or them, was the strategy. Many, predominantly male Swedes, chose the Sweden Democrats. As for a conservative party like Moderaterna, they have seen their voters abandon them for Sweden Democrats and so Moderaterna reacted by emphasizing the similarities between the two parties until it reached a point where it became hard to distinguish any differences at all. The result is now plain to see. The Social Democrats, though the largest party, are unable to form a government. Instead, a conservative bloc, led by Ulf Kristersson from Moderaterna, will attempt to take office — as long as it has the support of the Sweden Democrats. Effectively a kingmaker, the party is now one of the most successful far-right parties in Europe since World War II.It’s a terrifying truth. But we must bear in mind that the majority of the country’s population is not among the Sweden Democrats’ ranks. These people want solutions to real problems — such as a worrying spike in gang and drug-related shootings in several cities — without recourse to ethnic blame games and the vilification of “un-Swedish” culture. As a liberal democrat I will never approve of a party that celebrates its success with references to Hitler’s Nazi ideology, no matter the claim that only by sheer coincidence was the exclamation “Helg Seger” just one letter apart from a Nazi war cry. Elisabeth Asbrink is the author of “1947: Where Now Begins,” “Made in Sweden: 25 Ideas That Created a Country” and “And in Wienerwald the Trees Remain.”The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Law Enforcement Funding Package Splits Democrats Ahead of Midterm Elections

      by

      A measure to provide more money for local police departments has become mired in a long-running debate among Democrats about the politics of crime, as Republicans step up attacks.WASHINGTON — Legislation to increase funding for local police departments has hit a snag on Capitol Hill amid deep Democratic divisions, as progressives balk at steering more money to law enforcement and moderates clamor for action that could blunt Republicans’ efforts to paint them as soft on crime ahead of the midterm elections.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pledged for weeks to bring up a package of bills that would provide funding for hiring more police officers, increasing salaries, investing in officer safety and training and body cameras, as well as mental health resources for officers.But the measures, championed by vulnerable Democrats from conservative-leaning districts, have become mired in a yearslong internal feud about the politics of crime, leaving the party without an answer to Republican attacks and some of its members livid.“I have heard a whole host of reasons for people wanting to excuse inaction,” said Representative Abigail Spanberger, Democrat of Virginia, who is in a difficult re-election race in a competitive district that includes the suburbs of Richmond, and is a lead proponent of the legislation. “The sort of generalized excuses — I’ve heard it a lot. Tomorrow it will be, ‘It’s raining.’”Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who pressed successfully for the package to include measures to strengthen accountability for police misconduct, have also pushed to move ahead with it.A spokesman for the caucus said that the issue remains a priority for the group.Yet a small group of progressives has so far refused to back the legislation, leaving Democrats short of the votes they would need to bring it up. House Democratic leaders do not want to put their party’s divisions on display at a time when the political map is looking more favorable for them than it did just a few months ago. So Ms. Pelosi has been holding off on announcing any vote, as lawmakers continue discussions with those withholding their support.Representative Pramila Jayapal, Democrat of Washington and the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has positioned herself as the principal roadblock to the legislation, arguing that it would provide a blank check to police departments.“The answer is not just putting more money in,” Ms. Jayapal said. “I’m not sure that this has a chance of moving forward, given all of the challenges around it.”Because of Democrats’ slim majority in the House, the opposition of Ms. Jayapal and just three other liberals would be enough to block it from proceeding to a vote. Talks among her, moderate Democrats and party leaders were continuing on Monday, according to a person familiar with the negotiations, with some still hopeful for a potential breakthrough.Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the majority leader, has been pushing for a vote on the measure this week, a second person familiar with the talks said.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.Echoing Trump: Six G.O.P. nominees for governor and the Senate in critical midterm states, all backed by former President Donald J. Trump, would not commit to accepting this year’s election results.Times/Siena Poll: Our second survey of the 2022 election cycle found Democrats remain unexpectedly competitive in the battle for Congress, while G.O.P. dreams of a major realignment among Latino voters have failed to materialize.Ohio Senate Race: The contest between Representative Tim Ryan, a Democrat, and his Republican opponent, J.D. Vance, appears tighter than many once expected.Pennsylvania Senate Race: In one of his most extensive interviews since having a stroke, Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, the Democratic nominee, said he was fully capable of handling a campaign that could decide control of the Senate.Yet time is running short for Democrats to act before the midterm elections, in which Republicans have once again made crime a major point of attack. With the legislation languishing, vulnerable Democrats are losing out on a potential political boost from passing a pro-police bill. There is little time remaining before November to campaign on such a vote or to produce an advertisement attempting to claim credit.Republicans have tried for years to portray Democrats as soft on crime and bent on defunding the police — a mantra that many progressives embraced amid a series of high-profile cases of excessive violence by law enforcement, particularly against people of color.The Republican criticism has sharpened around election time, including in recent weeks, as gas prices have fallen and the party has searched for other ways to tarnish Democrats in the eyes of suburban voters, such as spotlighting the dysfunctional immigration system and the continuing toll of inflation..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.Before the 2018 midterm elections, President Donald J. Trump branded Democrats the “party of crime,” even though crime rates had risen in cities with leaders of both political parties. Since 2019, murders have spiked by nearly 40 percent, and violent crimes, including shootings and other assaults, have increased overall.The drama that is playing out now is the latest chapter in a long-running fight about the issue among Democrats. After the party’s disappointing results in the 2020 midterm elections, as Democrats bickered internally about what had gone wrong, Ms. Spanberger privately vented her frustration about progressive colleagues who had embraced the “defund the police” movement, arguing that Democrats had to push back much more forcefully against Republican efforts to caricature them as anti-law enforcement.At the time, progressives including Ms. Jayapal angrily rejected the criticism, arguing that they had helped to turn out the party’s liberal base by speaking to the issues that animated core supporters, including people of color, allowing Democrats to hold the House majority.Those pressing to pass the legislation this year argue that it goes beyond politics and would make communities safer by helping police departments focus on community-oriented approaches. And they have tried to address broad concerns among Democrats about including meaningful police accountability measures.Representative Josh Gottheimer, Democrat of New Jersey, has introduced the Invest to Protect Act, which would direct the Justice Department to award grants to local or tribal governments with fewer than 200 law enforcement officers to improve recruitment, purchase body cameras and provide de-escalation training.Police officers in a school active shooter drill in Oriskany, N.Y.Juan Arredondo for The New York Times“We have to make it clear to the country that we’re a party that’s tough on crime and supports protecting our communities and those who do,” Mr. Gottheimer said.Mr. Hoyer said in a recent letter to Democrats that the House would be “ready to consider” the legislation this month.“Democrats are not for defunding the police,” Mr. Hoyer told reporters, adding that party members had voted for police funding. “We voted for it in the last budget, the budget before that, and every budget since I’ve been here to make sure that law enforcement have the resources it needed.”Civil rights groups including the N.A.A.C.P. are also pressing for passage of the legislation, making the case that additional police funding should be paired with accountability measures.“A wealth of evidence supports the fact that certain preventative measures, such as violence prevention programs and other community investments, can dramatically improve safety outcomes,” the organization wrote in a letter to Democratic leaders last month.But with the legislative calendar dwindling, many pressing for action said they remained skeptical there would be any real effort to move forward.“I keep hearing from leadership, ‘We really want to bring these bills,’ ” Ms. Spanberger said. “And yet.”Democrats had originally hoped to vote on the police funding bills over the summer and were planning to pair them with legislation to ban assault weapons that passed in July, before lawmakers left Washington for their August recess. But when disagreements emerged about accountability measures in the police bills, Ms. Pelosi chose to move ahead with just the assault weapons ban and revisit the law enforcement legislation in the fall.Now the House is back, but the police funding issue has not yet been settled.Representative Yvette D. Clarke, Democrat of New York, said she recognized the need for additional police funding, but still had reservations that the measures lacked sufficient accountability measures for law enforcement, which she described as “a tacit acceptance of abusive behaviors.”“It’s important that we have the personnel in place to make sure that our cities are safe,” Ms. Clarke said. “We also need to make sure that there’s the proper training in place, so that communities of color feel like they’re in partnership with their police departments.”Jonathan Martin More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      What’s Behind the Success of the Far-Right Sweden Democrats?

      by

      Campaigning on issues like immigration, religion, crime and the cost of environmental rules, the Sweden Democrats, a party with neo-Nazi roots, grew its support.STOCKHOLM — Magnus Karlsson, 43, works in information technology and is about to start his own company. Articulate and thoughtful, he follows the news carefully, both in Sweden and globally.But fed up with what he considers the complacency of the Swedish political establishment toward issues of immigration, crime and inflation, he voted last week for the Sweden Democrats for the first time.The party, which was founded in 1988 and has roots in the neo-Nazi movement, won 20.5 percent of the vote in Sunday’s election, giving it the second-highest number of seats in Parliament, after the center-left Social Democrats. It is the largest party in the right-leaning coalition that is expected to form the next government, gaining more votes than the more traditional center-right Moderates party, whose leader, Ulf Kristersson, is expected to become prime minister.Despite their showing, the Sweden Democrats will not take cabinet posts, in large part because another coalition partner, the smaller Liberal Party, rejected the possibility. But the Sweden Democrats and its leader, Jimmie Akesson, are expected to have a major influence over government policy. The party is stringently anti-immigrant and is also expected to demand changes in policing, criminal justice, social benefits and environmental regulations.From Mr. Karlsson’s point of view, immigration is the key issue. “We have been naïve as a country — that makes us Swedes, it’s in our DNA — and we think the best of people,” he said, referring to migrants and refugees. “But, if those people take advantage of us and our welcome, we might have to change our views.”Sweden, with a history of openness to political refugees, accepted more migrants and asylum seekers per capita than any country in Europe, including Germany, in the 2015 mass migration crisis, most of them from Muslim countries. But the center-left Social Democrats, who have governed for the last eight years, failed, in many eyes, to assimilate the newcomers, while the far right has made strides by tying the longstanding issue of gun crime to immigration.Flags strung across a road in Filipstad, Sweden. The community of 10,000 people was home to 2,000 refugees from a number of countries in 2019.Nora Lorek for The New York TimesOther European countries with similar levels of immigration have not experienced the same rise in gun violence, however, and researchers say more study is needed to determine whether there is any link.Nonetheless, Mr. Karlsson is adamant. “Swedish society is great and open, but it is eroding,” he said, citing “the gang violence, the shootings, the nonexistent integration policies and the open borders.”“We need a change,” he added, “and I think the Sweden Democrats are more aligned with my points of view.”In Staffanstorp, a suburb of Malmo, where the crime rate is higher than in any other Swedish city, Maria Celander, a 42-year-old podiatrist, also voted for the Sweden Democrats.“We have taken in too many refugees, and it’s turned things upside down here,” she said. “We can’t afford to take care of everyone.”She denied any bias against immigrants. “It’s not that we are racists, those of us who have voted for them,” she said. “We’re regular people who want law and order. I want a safer country.”She said she believed that the Sweden Democrats would push for lower energy prices and less restrictive environmental controls. “We have a good approach to the environment here, but it won’t help if we stop driving cars or cut down on things if they’re not doing it on the other side of the planet,” she said.Police officers patrolling Rinkeby Square in Stockholm in June. Gun violence was a top political issue in this year’s election.Ilvy Njiokiktjien for The New York TimesBut both Mr. Karlsson and Ms. Celander fear that the party will fail to get new policies implemented, falling into what they consider the usual pattern of coalition governments that produce bland compromise and little change. And both would prefer if the party were actually in the government, with ministerial jobs, rather than just trying to influence it.“I hope they want to stand for what they say they stand for,” Ms. Celander said. “You can’t go out and tell everyone that you’re going to do this and this, and not help to govern.”Mr. Karlsson, too, who in 2018 voted for the Moderates, wants the Sweden Democrats “to walk the walk.” He understands the coalition complications but, he said, “We have to let them into government and see what they can do — either they can manage it or they’re just another bunch of people getting together to complain about things.”Christian Sonesson knows something of what giving the Sweden Democrats a share of power might mean. He is a Moderate and has been mayor of Staffanstorp since 2012. In 2018, he created a local coalition with the far-right party, having decided that their policies on taxation, governance, school, crime and the economy were close to his own. It created a fuss in the national party, but the coalition has worked well on the local level, he said.“I noticed that these people were not the monsters the media presented them as,” he said. “They were very close to us,” he added: “Keep taxation as low as possible. Don’t let gangs get a grip.” The local coalition installed surveillance cameras and hired security guards; the result was a significant reduction in violence and disturbances, Mr. Sonesson noted, adding that citizens’ sense of safety had gone up.Also noteworthy, he said, was that local support for the Sweden Democrats had dropped a bit, while votes for his Moderates had increased.“People don’t like it when they see a party at 20 to 30 percent that has no power,” he said. “That’s unfair in people’s minds.”Pictures of confiscated guns at a police station in the Rinkeby neighborhood of Stockholm in June.Ilvy Njiokiktjien for The New York TimesLeaving the Sweden Democrats out in the cold, he suggested, would help the party grow. “They become so big that they can govern by themselves,” he said. “But if you take them in as a coalition partner and they are forced to take responsibility, then they grow or drop in popularity based on their own actions,” he said.Many worry about normalizing what has been such an extreme party, one that has played cards of fear and racism — especially through its online magazine, Samtiden, and the YouTube channel it controls. The Sweden Democrats support closing the country’s borders entirely, have urged the banning of halal meat in schools and have criticized the previous center-left government for being soft on migrants, crime and Islamist extremists.Mr. Akesson, the Sweden Democrats leader, has said in the past that Muslim migration to Sweden is “our biggest foreign threat since the Second World War.”But there is also a growing belief that ostracizing the party simply lets it play the role of critic without responsibility.Anders Falk, 64, a manager in a construction company, sees danger in the Sweden Democrats influencing from behind and would prefer them to take responsibility in government. He cited the experiences in Denmark, Finland and Norway, where far-right populist parties either moderated in government or failed and lost support.The Social Democrats, he said, deserved to lose, because “integration didn’t work,” while there seemed to be “a taboo” among established politicians about discussing problems such as crime and unemployment. “I think the rest of Europe is laughing at us,” he said, referring to the fallout from the migrant crisis, adding that other countries “were much more restrictive about immigrants, and we took full responsibility.”Counting ballots in Stockholm last week.Jonathan Nackstrand/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesErik Andersson, 25, works in television and film. He said he was frustrated with the difficulty of getting real change from coalition governments. Although he disagrees with and did not vote for the Sweden Democrats, they should be allowed to rule — and fail, he said.“People will realize that they can’t do anything,” he said, “and they will fall off a cliff.”But there is a lesson for Sweden in their rise, Mr. Andersson added. The Sweden Democrats “spoke about things that should be looked into, but because of the taboos, no one wanted to discuss them.” Now, he said, the results can be seen.“You need to be able to talk about problems openly, because if you don’t, extremism will grow,” he noted. “You have to be able to talk openly and challenge the extremists.”Steven Erlanger More

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Donald Trump Is Not Above the Law

      by

      Over the course of this summer, the nation has been transfixed by the House select committee’s hearings on the events of Jan. 6, 2021, and how or whether Donald Trump might face accountability for what happened that day. The Justice Department remained largely silent about its investigations of the former president until this month, when the F.B.I. searched his home in Palm Beach, Fla., in a case related to his handling of classified documents. The spectacle of a former president facing criminal investigation raises profound questions about American democracy, and these questions demand answers.Mr. Trump’s unprecedented assault on the integrity of American democracy requires a criminal investigation. The disturbing details of his postelection misfeasance, meticulously assembled by the Jan. 6 committee, leaves little doubt that Mr. Trump sought to subvert the Constitution and overturn the will of the American people. The president, defeated at the polls in 2020, tried to enlist federal law enforcement authorities, state officials and administrators of the nation’s electoral system in a furious effort to remain in power. When all else failed, he roused an armed mob that stormed the Capitol and threatened lawmakers.The Justice Department is reportedly examining Mr. Trump’s conduct, including his role in trying to overturn the election and in taking home classified documents. If Attorney General Merrick Garland and his staff conclude that there is sufficient evidence to establish Mr. Trump’s guilt on a serious charge in a court of law, then they must indict him, too.This board is aware that in deciding how Mr. Trump should be held accountable under the law it is necessary to consider not just whether criminal prosecution would be warranted but whether it would be wise. No American president has ever been criminally prosecuted after leaving office. When President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, he ensured that Nixon would not be prosecuted for crimes committed during the Watergate scandal; Ford explained this decision with the warning that such a prosecution posed grave risks of rousing “ugly passions” and worsening political polarization.That warning is just as salient today. Pursuing prosecution of Mr. Trump could further entrench support for him and play into the conspiracy theories he has sought to stoke. It could inflame the bitter partisan divide, even to the point of civil unrest. A trial, if it is viewed as illegitimate, could also further undermine confidence in the rule of law, whatever the eventual outcome.The risks of political escalation are obvious. The Democratic and Republican parties are already in the thick of a cycle of retribution that could last generations. There is a substantial risk that, if the Justice Department does prosecute Mr. Trump, future presidents — whether Mr. Trump himself or someone of his ilk — could misuse the precedent to punish political rivals. If their party takes a majority in the House of Representatives after the midterm elections, some Republicans have already threatened to impeach President Biden.There is an even more immediate threat of further violence, and it is a possibility that Americans should, sadly, be prepared for. In the hours after federal agents began a court-approved search of Mr. Trump’s residence in Palm Beach, based on a warrant investigating possible violations of three federal laws, including one that governs the handling of defense information under the Espionage Act, his most fervent supporters escalated their rhetoric to the language of warfare. As The Times noted, “The aggressive, widespread response was arguably the clearest outburst of violent public rhetoric since the days leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.”Mr. Garland has been deliberate, methodical and scrupulous in his leadership of the Justice Department’s investigations of the Jan. 6 attack and the transfer of documents to Mr. Trump’s home. But no matter how careful he is or how measured the prosecution might be, there is a real and significant risk from those who believe that any criticism of Mr. Trump justifies an extreme response.Yet it is a far greater risk to do nothing when action is called for. Aside from letting Mr. Trump escape punishment, doing nothing to hold him accountable for his actions in the months leading up to Jan. 6 could set an irresistible precedent for future presidents. Why not attempt to stay in power by any means necessary or use the power of the office to enrich oneself or punish one’s enemies, knowing that the law does not apply to presidents in or out of office?More important, democratic government is an ideal that must constantly be made real. America is not sustained by a set of principles; it is sustained by resolute action to defend those principles.Immediately after the Jan. 6 insurrection, cabinet members reportedly debated privately whether to remove Mr. Trump from power under the authority of the 25th Amendment. A week after the attack, the House impeached Mr. Trump for the second time. This editorial board supported his impeachment and removal from office; we also suggested that the former president and lawmakers who participated in the Jan. 6 plot could be permanently barred from holding office under a provision of the 14th Amendment that applies to any official who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or given “aid or comfort” to those who have done so. But most Republicans in the Senate refused to convict Mr. Trump, and Congress has yet to invoke that section of the 14th Amendment against him. As a result, the threat that Mr. Trump and his most ardent supporters pose to American democracy has metastasized.Even now, the former president continues to spread lies about the 2020 election and denounce his vice president, Mike Pence, for not breaking the law on his behalf. Meanwhile, dozens of people who believe Mr. Trump’s lies are running for state and national elected office. Many have already won, some of them elevated to positions that give them control over how elections are conducted. In June the Republican Party in Texas approved measures in its platform declaring that Mr. Biden’s election was illegitimate. And Mr. Trump appears prepared to start a bid for a second term as president.Mr. Trump’s actions as a public official, like no others since the Civil War, attacked the heart of our system of government. He used the power of his office to subvert the rule of law. If we hesitate to call those actions and their perpetrator criminal, then we are saying he is above the law and giving license to future presidents to do whatever they want.In addition to a federal investigation by the Justice Department, Mr. Trump is facing a swirl of civil and criminal liability in several other cases: a lawsuit by the attorney general for the District of Columbia over payments during his inauguration ceremonies; a criminal investigation in Westchester County, N.Y., over taxes on one of his golf courses; a criminal case in Fulton County, Ga., over interference in the 2020 election; a criminal case by the Manhattan district attorney over the valuation of Mr. Trump’s properties; and a civil inquiry by New York’s attorney general into Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization.The specific crimes the Justice Department could consider would likely involve Mr. Trump’s fraudulent efforts to get election officials in Georgia, Arizona and elsewhere to declare him the winner even though he lost their states; to get Mr. Pence, at the Jan. 6 congressional certification of the election, to throw out slates of electors from states he lost and replace them with electors loyal to Mr. Trump; and to enlist officials from the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security and Defense to persuade officials in certain states to swing the election to him and ultimately stir up a mob that attacked the Capitol. The government could also charge Mr. Trump with seditious conspiracy, a serious charge that federal prosecutors have already brought against leaders of far-right militia groups who participated in the Capitol invasion.The committee hearings make it clear: Mr. Trump must have known he was at the center of a frantic, sprawling and knowingly fraudulent effort that led directly to the Capitol siege. For hours, Mr. Trump refused to call off the mob.The testimony from hundreds of witnesses, many of them high-ranking Republican officials from his own administration, reveal Mr. Trump’s unrelenting efforts, beginning months before Election Day and continuing through Jan. 6, to sow doubt about the election, to refuse to accept the result of that election and then to pursue what he must have known were illegal and unconstitutional means to overturn it. Many participants sought pre-emptive pardons for their conduct — an indication they knew they were violating the law.Other evidence points to other crimes, like obstruction of Congress, defined as a corrupt obstruction of the “proper administration of the law.” The fake-elector scheme that Mr. Trump and his associates pushed before Jan. 6 appears to meet this definition. That may explain why at least three of Mr. Trump’s campaign lawyers were unwilling to participate in the plot. People involved in it were told it was not “legally sound” by White House lawyers, but they moved forward with it anyway.Cassidy Hutchinson, a top aide to Mr. Trump’s last chief of staff, Mark Meadows, provided powerful evidence that could be used to charge Mr. Trump with seditious conspiracy. In her public testimony at a Jan. 6 committee hearing, she said that Mr. Trump was informed that many in the throng of supporters waiting to hear him speak on the Ellipse that day were armed but that he demanded they be allowed to skip the metal detectors that had been installed for his security. “They’re not here to hurt me,” he said, according to Ms. Hutchinson. “Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here.”If Mr. Garland decides to pursue prosecution, a message that the Justice Department must send early and often is that even if Mr. Trump genuinely believed, as he claimed, that the election had been marred by fraud, his schemes to interfere in the certification of the vote would still be crimes. And even though Mr. Trump’s efforts failed, these efforts would still be crimes. More than 850 other Americans have already been charged with crimes for their roles in the Capitol attack. Well-meaning intentions did not shield them from the consequences of their actions. It would be unjust if Mr. Trump, the man who inspired them, faced no consequences.No one should revel in the prospect of this or any former president facing criminal prosecution. Mr. Trump’s actions have brought shame on one of the world’s oldest democracies and destabilized its future. Even justice before the law will not erase that stain. Nor will prosecuting Mr. Trump fix the structural problems that led to the greatest crisis in American democracy since the Civil War. But it is a necessary first step toward doing so.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p,
      article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p{
      text-transform: uppercase;
      font-size: 18px;
      font-weight: 600;
      letter-spacing: 0.5px;
      line-height: 26px;
      letter-spacing: 0.05em;
      }
      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p:after,
      article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p:after{
      content: “The Editorial Board”;
      display: block;
      color: white;
      }

      @media screen and (min-width: 1024px){

      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > h1:before,
      article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header > div:nth-of-type(2) h1:before{
      content: ” “;
      width: 72px;
      unicode-bidi: normal;
      display: block;
      margin: 15px 0px 20px;
      height: 1px;
      background-color: #fff;
      }

      }

      @media screen and (max-width: 1024px){

      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p a:link, article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p a:visited {
      color: #D0021B;
      letter-spacing: 0.07em;
      font-size: 15px;
      }
      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p,
      article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p{
      font-size:15px;
      color: #D0021B;
      }
      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p:after, article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p:after {
      color: #000000;
      font-size:15px;
      margin-top: -5px;
      }

      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > h1:before,
      article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header > div:nth-of-type(2) h1:before{
      content: ” “;
      width: 72px;
      unicode-bidi: normal;
      display: block;
      margin: -5px 0px 22px;
      height: 1px;
      background-color: #e2e2e2;
      }

      } More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Adams Won’t Let Up on Bail Reform, Putting Pressure on Hochul

      by

      Mayor Eric Adams is calling forcefully for another round of changes to state bail law, putting pressure on Gov. Kathy Hochul as she runs for a full term in November.Hours before Mayor Eric Adams held a news conference on Wednesday to argue that an “insane, broken system” allowed repeat offenders to keep getting arrested and then released without bail in New York City, Gov. Kathy Hochul issued something of a pre-emptive strike.Four months ago, the governor and the State Legislature tightened New York’s bail laws for the second time in three years, making more crimes bail-eligible and giving judges additional discretion to consider both the severity of a case and a defendant’s repeat offenses when setting bail.But the mayor, dissatisfied with the city’s crime rates, was again putting the ball back in her court.At her own news conference, the governor, visibly peeved, brought up the recent bail law revisions. “I’m not sure why everybody intentionally ignores this,” she said. “But people are out there and, you know, people trying to make political calculations based on this.”She did not mention Mr. Adams, a fellow Democrat, by name, or, for that matter, her Republican opponent in November, Representative Lee Zeldin. But both Mr. Adams and Mr. Zeldin have hammered the governor on the state’s approach to bail and have made similar claims about how the bail laws have affected crime rates.Mr. Adams, who has based much of his mayoral platform on reducing crime, even made use of physical props on Wednesday to illustrate his point. He made his remarks next to poster boards detailing the crimes of individuals he said were some of the city’s worst recidivists. (Mr. Adams said his lawyers forbade him from releasing the individuals’ names.)Mayor Adams gave examples of how some repeat offenders had committed multiple crimes after being released without bail.Natalie Keyssar for The New York TimesThe mayor and his police officials also unleashed a litany of statistics they said demonstrated the severity of the problem.“Our recidivism rates have skyrocketed,” Mr. Adams said. “Let’s look at the real numbers. In 2022, 25 percent of the 1,494 people arrested for burglary committed another felony within 60 days.”He added: “In 2017, however, just 7.7 percent went on to commit another crime.”In 2019, state lawmakers rewrote bail law so that fewer people awaiting trial landed behind bars because they could not afford to post bail. Law enforcement agencies have furiously fought the law, whose implementation came at the beginning of the pandemic, during which gun crime rose in cities around the country.After a wave of criticism, lawmakers agreed upon a set of changes in 2020 that added two dozen crimes to the list of serious charges for which a judge could impose cash bail.The second revisions to bail law came earlier this year, after Mr. Adams demanded further changes, angering many lawmakers.But Mr. Adams said tougher revisions are still needed. He called on the state to allow judges to more frequently take dangerousness into account when deciding to set bail, and to have some juveniles’ cases play out in criminal court rather than family court.He insisted on Wednesday that he was not trying to target the governor, his ostensible political ally whom he endorsed less than two months ago. Ms. Hochul, likewise, chose to highlight the programs she and the mayor had worked on together, and the ways they were “in sync.”The mayor and governor have made a point of projecting political comity, a new tone after years of public feuding between their predecessors, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio.But the uptick in crime and Mr. Adams’s laserlike focus on the issue threatens to strain their relationship.Murders and shootings are down slightly this year, but major crimes including burglaries have risen more than 35 percent.Mr. Adams, a former police captain, sometimes turns to hyperbole to describe the situation. In May, he said he had never seen crime at these levels, despite serving as a police officer in the 1980s, when crime was far, far higher. Today’s murder rate, for example, is roughly on par with 2009, when Michael R. Bloomberg was mayor.But Mr. Adams ran for office on the premise that he would bring down crime, and his political imperatives threaten to collide with Ms. Hochul’s, who has every incentive to cast herself as firmly in control of the situation.Many left-leaning advocates, as well as some political leaders, have pushed the state to not undo changes made to the bail laws in recent years.Cindy Schultz for The New York TimesLegislative leaders in Albany have recoiled at Mr. Adam’s recent comments. When a reporter last week asked the mayor if he wanted a special session to address bail reform, and the mayor responded in the affirmative, Michael Gianaris, the deputy majority leader in the Senate, compared him to Republicans.“It’s sad Mayor Adams has joined the ranks of right wingers who are so grossly demagoguing this issue,” Mr. Gianaris said. “He should focus less on deflecting from his own responsibility for higher crime and more on taking steps that would actually make New York safer.”When Mr. Adams pressed for the second wave of changes to the law earlier this year, Ms. Hochul adopted the cause as her own, expending significant political power to do so. The effort met with fierce opposition in the Legislature, with one lawmaker going on a hunger strike to oppose the Hochul plan.And while Ms. Hochul was ultimately successful in winning alterations, the effort left a stain on her relationship with the Legislature.Among other things, the 2022 revisions made more crimes eligible for bail, and gave judges additional discretion to consider whether a defendant is accused of causing “serious harm” to someone, or has a history of using or possessing a gun. The new changes did not, however, impose a dangerousness standard that Mr. Adams is now pressing for, which criminal justice advocates argue is subject to racial bias.Mr. Adams’s decision to push for even more changes has created an opening for Mr. Zeldin, who last week held a news conference to voice support for Mr. Adams’s calls for a special session to address bail reform.“I believe that judges should have discretion to weigh dangerousness and flight risk and past criminal records and seriousness of the offense on far more offenses,” Mr. Zeldin said.A poll this week found that Ms. Hochul has a 14-point lead over Mr. Zeldin — “an early but certainly not insurmountable lead,” according to the pollster at Siena College.Gov. Hochul said that judges and prosecutors had the “tools they needed” to improve public safety, but had not deployed them effectively.Anna Watts for The New York TimesThe mayor on Wednesday took pains to insist that he and Mr. Zeldin were not, in fact, joined at the hip.“We must have a broken hip, because he clearly doesn’t get it,” Mr. Adams said of Mr. Zeldin. “He has voted against all of the responsible gun laws in Congress.”The Legal Aid Society, the main legal provider for poor New Yorkers, said in a statement on Wednesday that the Adams administration was trying to “cherry-pick a handful of cases to misguide New Yorkers and convince them that bail reform is responsible for all of society’s ills.”Ms. Hochul was more circumspect in her criticism, instead focusing on the recent revisions to the bail laws. She said that the changes gave judges and district attorneys “the tools they need” to improve public safety and suggested that those who failed to utilize them should answer to voters.“I believe in accountability at all levels,” she said. “And you know, people can’t just be saying that they don’t have something when they do have it.”Jonah E. Bromwich More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      We Are Living in Richard Nixon’s America. Escaping It Won’t Be Easy.

      by

      It seems so naïve now, that moment in 2020 when Democratic insiders started to talk of Joe Biden as a transformational figure. But there were reasons to believe. To hold off a pandemic-induced collapse, the federal government had injected $2.2 trillion into the economy, much of it in New Deal-style relief. The summer’s protests altered the public’s perception of race’s role in the criminal justice system. And analyses were pointing to Republican losses large enough to clear the way for the biggest burst of progressive legislation since the 1960s.Two years on, the truth is easier to see. We aren’t living in Franklin Roosevelt’s America, or Lyndon Johnson’s, or Donald Trump’s, or even Joe Biden’s. We’re living in Richard Nixon’s.Not the America of Nixon’s last years, though there are dim echoes of it in the Jan. 6 hearings, but the nation he built before Watergate brought him down, where progressive possibilities would be choked off by law and order’s toxic politics and a Supreme Court he’d helped to shape.He already had his core message set in the early days of his 1968 campaign. In a February speech in New Hampshire, he said: “When a nation with the greatest tradition of the rule of law is torn apart by lawlessness,” he said, “when a nation which has been the symbol of equality of opportunity is torn apart by racial strife … then I say it’s time for new leadership in the United States of America.”There it is — the fusion of crime, race and fear that Nixon believed would carry him to the presidency.Over the course of that year, he gave his pitch a populist twist by saying that he was running to defend all those hard-working, law-abiding Americans who occupied “the silent center.”A month later, after a major Supreme Court ruling on school integration, he quietly told key supporters that if he were elected, he would nominate only justices who would oppose the court’s progressivism. And on the August night he accepted the Republican nomination, he gave it all a colorblind sheen. “To those who say that law and order is the code word for racism, there and here is a reply,” he said. “Our goal is justice for every American.”In practice it didn’t work that way. Within two years of his election, Nixon had passed two major crime bills laced with provisions targeting poor Black communities. One laid the groundwork for a racialized war on drugs. The other turned the criminal code of Washington, D.C., into a model for states to follow by authorizing the district’s judges to issue no-knock warrants, allowing them to detain suspects they deemed dangerous and requiring them to impose mandatory minimum sentences on those convicted of violent crimes.And the nation’s police would have all the help they needed to restore law and order. Lyndon Johnson had sent about $20 million in aid to police departments and prison systems in his last two years in office. Nixon sent $3 billion. Up went departments’ purchases of military-grade weapons, their use of heavily armed tactical patrols, the number of officers they put on the streets. And up went the nation’s prison population, by 16 percent, while the Black share of the newly incarcerated reached its highest level in 50 years.Nixon’s new order reached into the Supreme Court, too, just as he said it would. His predecessors had made their first nominations to the court by the fluid standards presidents tended to apply to the process: Dwight Eisenhower wanted a moderate Republican who seemed like a statesman, John Kennedy someone with the vigor of a New Frontiersman, Johnson an old Washington hand who understood where his loyalties lay. For his first appointment, in May 1969, Nixon chose a little-known federal judge, Warren Burger, with an extensive record supporting prosecutorial and police power over the rights of the accused.When a second seat opened a few months later, he followed the same pattern, twice nominating judges who had at one point either expressed opposition to the integration of the races or whose rulings were regarded as favoring segregation. Only when the Senate rejected both of them did Nixon fall back on Harry Blackmun, the sort of centrist Ike would have loved.Two more justices stepped down in September 1971. Again Nixon picked nominees who he knew would be tough on crime and soft on civil rights — and by then, he had a more expansive agenda in mind. It included an aversion to government regulation of the private sector — and so one pick was the courtly corporate lawyer Lewis Powell, who had written an influential memo that year to the director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce advocating a robust corporate defense of the free enterprise system. Another item on Nixon’s agenda was to devolve federal power down to the states. William Rehnquist, an assistant attorney general committed to that view, was his other pick. The two foundational principles of an increasingly energized conservatism were set into the court by Nixon’s determination to select his nominees through a precisely defined litmus test previous presidents hadn’t imagined applying.Our view of the Burger court may be skewed in part because Nixon’s test didn’t include abortion. By 1971, abortion politics had become furiously contested, but the divisions followed demography as well as political affiliation: In polling then (which wasn’t as representative as it is today), among whites, men were slightly more likely than women to support the right to choose, the non-Catholic college-educated more likely than those without college degrees, non-Catholics far more likely than Catholics, who anchored the opposition. So it wasn’t surprising that after oral arguments, three of the four white Protestant men Nixon had put on the court voted for Roe, and that one of them wrote the majority opinion.Justice Blackmun was still drafting the court’s decision in May 1972 when Nixon sent a letter to New York’s Catholic cardinal, offering his “admiration, sympathy and support” for the church stepping in as “defenders of the right to life of the unborn.” The Republican assemblywoman who had led New York’s decriminalization of abortion denounced his intervention as “a patent pitch for the Catholic vote.” That it was. In November, Nixon carried the Catholic vote, thanks to a move that gave the abortion wars a partisan alignment they hadn’t had before.Nixon’s version of law and order has endured, through Ronald Reagan’s war on drugs, George H. W. Bush’s Crime Control Act of 1990 and Bill Clinton’s crime bill to broken windows, stop-and-frisk and the inexorable rise in mass incarceration. The ideological vetting of justices has increased in intensity and in precision.Mr. Trump’s term entrenched a party beholden to the configurations of politics and power that Nixon had shaped half a century ago. The possibility of progressive change that seemed to open in 2020 has now been shut down. The court’s supermajority handed down the first of what could be at least a decade of rulings eviscerating liberal precedents.Crime and gun violence now outstrip race as one of the electorates’ major concerns.Mr. Trump, in a speech on Tuesday, made it clear that he would continue to hammer the theme as he considers a 2024 run: “If we don’t have safety, we don’t have freedom,” he said, adding that “America First must mean safety first” and “we need an all-out effort to defeat violent crime in America and strongly defeat it. And be tough. And be nasty and be mean if we have to.”An order so firmly entrenched won’t easily be undone. It’s tempting to talk about expanding the court or imposing age limits. But court reform has no plausible path through the Senate. Even if it did, the results might not be progressive: Republicans are as likely as Democrats to pack a court once they control Congress, and age limits wouldn’t affect some of the most conservative justices for at least another 13 years. The truth is the court will be remade as it always has been, a justice at a time.The court will undoubtedly limit progressive policies, too, as it has already done on corporate regulation and gun control. But it’s also opened up the possibility of undoing some of the partisan alignments that Nixon put into place, on abortion most of all. Now that Roe is gone, the Democrats have the chance to reclaim that portion of anti-abortion voters who support the government interventions — like prenatal and early child care — that a post-Roe nation desperately needs and the Republican Party almost certainly won’t provide.Nothing matters more, though, than shattering Nixon’s fusion of race, crime and fear. To do that, liberals must take up violent crime as a defining issue, something they have been reluctant to do, and then to relentlessly rework it, to try to break the power of its racial dynamic by telling the public an all-too-obvious truth: The United States is harassed by violent crime because it’s awash in guns, because it has no effective approach to treating mental illness and the epidemic of drug addiction, because it accepts an appalling degree of inequality and allows entire sections of the country to tumble into despair.Making that case is a long-term undertaking, too, as is to be expected of a project trying to topple half a century of political thinking. But until Nixon’s version of law and order is purged from American public life, we’re going to remain locked into the nation he built on its appeal, its future shaped, as so much of its past has been, by its racism and its fear.Kevin Boyle, a history professor at Northwestern University, is the author of, most recently, “The Shattering: America in the 1960s.”The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 50 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Crime and Political Punishment

      by

      Results from Tuesday’s primaries in California suggest that crime may be a big issue in the midterm elections. In San Francisco, a progressive prosecutor was ousted in a recall vote. In Los Angeles, a businessman and former Republican who has run for mayor on the promise to be a big crime fighter made a strong showing.It’s not hard to see why crime has moved up on the political agenda. Murders surged nationwide in 2020 and ticked up further in 2021, although we don’t really know why. Right-wingers blame Black Lives Matter, because of course they do. A more likely explanation is the stress caused by the pandemic — stress that, among other things, led to a large increase in domestic violence.Despite the recent surge, the overall homicide rate is still well below its peak in 1991, and the geography of the political backlash doesn’t seem closely correlated with actual crime rates: San Francisco and Los Angeles both have less violent crime than, say, Houston. But rising crime is real, and voter concern is understandable.But will the public backlash against crime lead to positive results? I wish I could be optimistic.At the very least, we’ll need to get past some widespread misconceptions. And even then, talking about cracking down on crime is easy; actually doing something about it isn’t.First, we need to get past the idea that crime is mainly a big-city problem — an idea that is still very much out there, even though it has long since stopped being true. Last year J.D. Vance, now the Republican nominee for senator from Ohio — and definitely in the running for one of America’s most cynical politicians — tweeted to his followers: “I have to go to New York soon, and I’m trying to figure out where to stay. I hear it’s disgusting and violent there.” I think that was sort of a joke, but one that he knew perfectly well that many of his followers wouldn’t get.The truth, as Bloomberg’s Justin Fox recently documented, is that New York is remarkably safe, not just compared with other large U.S. cities, but also compared with small towns and rural areas. In particular, New York City has a substantially lower homicide rate than that of Ohio as a whole.This doesn’t mean that everything is fine in the Big Apple; Eric Adams was elected mayor in part because crime has risen sharply, and he took a get-tough-on-crime stance. But in a rational world politicians from the heartland wouldn’t be sneering at New York; they’d be looking at our biggest city, which also happens to be one of the safest places in America, and trying to figure out what it’s doing right.Another misconception we need to get past is the idea that rising crime is all about immigration. Vance, in particular, has based his campaign largely on demagoguery about immigration, and especially about immigrant crime — demagoguery that seems to work best in places with very few immigrants: Less than 5 percent of Ohio’s population is foreign-born, compared with 38 percent in New York City.Even if we can avoid the misconceptions, however, what can politicians actually do about crime?It would help if we knew what caused crime to fall so much between the early 1990s and the mid-2010s — a decline, by the way, that was accompanied every step of the way by Gallup polls showing a plurality, and usually a large majority, of Americans asserting that crime was rising. But my reading is that there’s no consensus on why that decline — which took place all across the nation, in red states and blue — took place.It would also help if there were a clear pattern to the crime wave of 2020-21. But like the earlier decline, it was pretty much universal across America; it hit states and cities run by conservative Republicans, centrists and liberal Democrats with more or less equal force.So complaining about crime is easy, but actually bringing it down is hard; in fact, New Yorkers already seem deeply disillusioned with Adams’s efforts.One thing that might help is better policing; the available evidence suggests that severe sentences for convicted criminals don’t do much to deter crime, but that an increased probability of being caught does. So “defund the police” was a stupid (and politically destructive) slogan; we probably need to devote more, not less, resources to law enforcement. But of course we also need the police who do their job — the story from Uvalde just keeps getting worse — and don’t abuse their position. If fear of crime is a real issue, so is minority groups’ fear of being abused by the people who are supposed to protect them, and we can’t simply trust the police to always do the right thing.Oh, and it would help matters if criminals weren’t equipped with military-grade weapons and body armor — and no, having everyone else heavily armed isn’t the answer. New York doesn’t have low crime by American standards because it’s full of good guys with guns.Anyway, like it or not, crime will be an issue in November. As I said, I wish I could be optimistic. But my fear is that the beneficiaries of the new focus on crime will be politicians who have nothing to offer but tough talk.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 163 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      What to Watch in Today’s Primary Elections in California, New Jersey and More

      by

      Primary voters in seven states, including California and New Jersey, go to the polls on Tuesday to select their party’s candidates for statewide offices, like the governors of New Mexico and South Dakota; for mayor of Los Angeles, the nation’s second largest city, and for dozens of House seats.Crime is very much on the minds of Californians: San Franciscans are deciding whether to remove their district attorney, and Angelenos are weighing whether to elect as their next mayor a longtime Democratic insider or a billionaire former Republican who promises to crack down on crime and homelessness and clean up the city.Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, is not expected to have much opposition as he seeks an eighth term this November at age 89. Other races offer more drama.Here’s what to watch for in Tuesday’s contests in New Jersey, Mississippi, Iowa, South Dakota, New Mexico, Montana and California:A true battleground map comes into viewIn most of the country, congressional redistricting shored up incumbency for both parties. Tuesday will showcase much of the battleground that remains. Of the 53 House seats that the nonpartisan Cook Political Report sees in play, nine are in California, New Mexico and Iowa.And for once, Democrats will be watching districts where they can play offense: four Republican House seats in California, now held by Representatives David Valadao, Mike Garcia, Michelle Steel and Young Kim, and one in New Mexico, held by Yvette Herrell.If those races do not add a little suspense to the vote Tuesday, California’s unusual primary system could give political obsessives a very late night. Under the system, established under former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the top two vote-getters on primary night face off in November, regardless of party.Invariably, a few races end up with a Republican facing off with a Republican or a Democrat meeting a Democrat, leaving one party iced out. Some seats could be guaranteed to change hands based on Tuesday’s results.Democratic miscalculations and lost opportunitiesIn New Mexico, Democrats in full control of the state capital in Santa Fe took a chance, making a safe seat in the state’s picturesque north less safe by dipping the district’s boundaries south, in hopes of taking southern New Mexico’s Republican seat.But in a bad Democratic year, they may have overplayed their hand: Rather than hoping for a sweep of the state’s three House seats, Democrats now are worrying that Republicans could hold that seat and grab another.Redistricting in California was in the hands of a nonpartisan commission, which put Democrats into position to take some Republican seats and elect the first Hispanic representatives in the Central Valley.But Democrats could also lose some House seats, including the one held by Katie Porter, one of the party’s rising stars. Besides Ms. Porter, Representative Mike Levin on the Southern California coast is sweating his re-election, and a new seat in central California, the 13th District, should be Democratic in an ordinary year, but this is not that.Democrats had also hoped to make a play for the Iowa Senate seat held by Mr. Grassley. But Mr. Grassley opted to run for re-election, though he would be 95 by the end of his next term. And the Democrats’ favored candidate, Abby Finkenauer, 33, who served one term in the House, has struggled even to get on the ballot.Ethics lapses can be costly. Except when they aren’t.Representative Tom Malinowski, a New Jersey Democrat, had the makings of a foreign policy heavyweight in his party. He was the Washington director of Human Rights Watch before becoming a top human rights official in the Obama administration’s State Department.Mr. Malinowski turned his attention to electoral politics in 2018, beating a moderate Republican, Leonard Lance, in that year’s Democratic wave. In 2020, he edged out Thomas Kean Jr., the son and namesake of a popular former New Jersey governor, by 5,311 votes.Stock trades by Representative Tom Malinowski were the subject of an investigation by the House Ethics Committee.Pool photo by Graeme JenningsOn Tuesday, Mr. Kean is the odds-on favorite to win his party’s nomination to challenge Mr. Malinowski again, but this time, the Democrat is one of the most endangered incumbents in the House, thanks to three factors. Redistricting made his narrowly Democratic seat narrowly Republican.Despite Mr. Kean’s loss in 2020, the governor’s son is a strong opponent in a state where surnames matter (Robert J. Menendez, Senator Bob Menendez’s son, is the heavy favorite in the Democratic primary for another House seat). And Mr. Malinowski admitted he had failed to properly disclose thousands of dollars in stock trades, the subject of an investigation by the House Ethics Committee.On the other hand, another House candidate with a checkered ethics record, Ryan Zinke, is expected to win his G.O.P. primary and return to the House from Montana’s First District. Mr. Zinke left Washington in 2018 as Mr. Trump’s first Interior secretary under a cloud of conflict-of-interest investigations and questionable taxpayer expenditures.Trump’s swing and miss in South DakotaFormer President Donald J. Trump vowed to punish Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, for not sufficiently promoting the lie that Mr. Trump had won re-election in 2020. “South Dakota doesn’t like weakness. He will be primaried in 2022, political career over!” the former president declared on Twitter in December 2020, before he was barred from the platform.Senator John Thune at the Capitol in May.Shuran Huang for The New York TimesBut South Dakota’s governor, Kristi Noem, opted to run for re-election instead of for the Senate, and no serious challenger heeded Mr. Trump’s call to take on Mr. Thune. Consequently, Republican voters in South Dakota are likely to easily nominate Mr. Thune — dismissed by Mr. Trump as a “Republican in name only” and “Mitch’s boy” — for re-election, lifting him up as the heir apparent to Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate Republican leader.They will also put Ms. Noem in position to run for president or, if Mr. Trump runs, to make a play for vice president.Understand the 2022 Midterm ElectionsCard 1 of 6Why are these midterms so important? More