This is something I’ve thought about, but I didn’t have any data to test the theory. I’m not sold on it, but the data is interesting. Violent crime rates are down since the 2008 economic collapse, which does not follow the historic pattern. Violent crime in black neighborhoods is down sharply since Obama became president, despite the brutal downturn in the economic situation in our cities. So, what explains it?
Ohio State University’s Randolph Roth, author of the magisterial 2009 volume American Homicide, is so convinced Obama’s election has fundamentally improved black people’s outlooks, in spite of what may be their actual circumstances, he published an essay last year explaining the crime drop with the title “It’s No Mystery.” “The inauguration of the first black president and the passing of the Bush administration re-legitimized the government in the eyes of many Americans during the first few months of 2009,” he writes. “African Americans and other racial minorities, who live disproportionately in America’s cities, were more deeply affected than anyone else, and it is likely that their greater trust in the political process and their positive feelings about the new president led to lower rates of urban violence.”
Roth is tapping into a line of argument that has been gaining ground in criminology in recent years. Generally referred to as the “legitimacy” theory, it posits that the greater people’s belief in the legitimacy of social institutions and government, the greater their inclination to obey laws. Roth describes it this way: “If people believe that their government shares their values, speaks for them and acts on their behalf, they feel empowered, have greater self-respect and gain confidence in their dealings with people outside their families. When people feel that the government is antagonistic toward them and they question its legitimacy, especially on the national level, they can feel frustrated, alienated, and dishonored.”
The Yale sociologist Elijah Anderson, author of a new book on race relations, The Cosmopolitan Canopy, also agrees with the legitimacy argument, but he believes the psychological shift taking place in black people’s minds since Obama’s election is more profound. “Now we have a sense of future,” he says. “All of a sudden you have a stake. That stake is extremely important. If you have a stake, now there’s risk—you realize the consequences of compromising an unknowable future.”
Like I said, I am not totally convinced, but it’s hard to find a rival explanation that makes as much intuitive sense. It also helps explain the giant divide you see online between black and brown progressives on the one side and white progressives on the other. White progressives are feeling a lot less positive about American institutions at the moment, not because Obama is black but because those institutions aren’t functioning properly due to Republican extremism.
Interesting. But if this theory is correct, we’d expect to have seen a drop in crime in cities when they elected their first black mayors and appointed their first black police chiefs, and a drop in school delinquency or higher graduation rates with the first black principals. Maybe not as much, but at least some (holding everything else constant). I wonder if this was the case?
yeah, I don’t know the answer to your question, but it may be covered in the literature and studies cited in the liked article.
I don’t think that applies, for two reasons.
First, having a majority-black area elect a black leader isn’t that big a deal – which is the situation in most areas with elected black leaders.
The second is that the Presidency is the last ceiling. Over the last few decades we’ve seen a few blacks gain power in more and more settings. Black Generals in the military. Black CEOs of large, public corporation that don’t sell primarily to blacks. Black head coaches and GMs of sport teams. A few black senators. Each of these was a significant gain, but there was always something else beyond reach. In addition, there was always the sense, usually unspoken, that a few blacks would be allowed to attain the appearance of power as “tokens” – but that real power would not be allowed.
Then came 2008. The most powerful position in the world. And one key about Obama winning was not just that he won the vote, but also the sheer number (literally millions) of white folks who were working for his election.
Does this study have merit? I don’t know but I hope it’s true. I do remember many anecdotes in the months following the election of young black people changing their lives for the better due to being inspired by Obama’s victory.
The largest incentive out there to “play by the rules” and defer gratification by working hard is an impression that it will reward you in the long run. In poor neighborhoods like many in our inner cities there is little reason to hope for a brighter future earned by working hard and avoiding trouble.
You need positive role models to show by example what is possible. Amongst poor, urban blacks in our country there is little rational reason to believe that hard work will result in a stable, well paying job. Part of any reform in our communities has to include reasons to hope.
Or going the other direction, note all of the white christian male domestic terrorists since Obama was elected.
While there may be some legitimacy to this theory, it seems a bit of a stretch to attribute the continuation of a trend to something that happened 15 years after it began.
I think the biggest cause of declining crime in this country is better urban policy. Urban renewal schemes, massive anti-human public housing projects, and urban highway projects did great harm to our cities, ripping apart established systems that made cities work and imposing cruel landscapes and patterns of life that are guaranteed to increase anti-social behavior and ruin local economies. This happened at the same time that our core cities were undergoing deindustrialization.
In the late 80s, and especially in the 90s, this began to turn around. We stopped urban renewal and highway schemes, we started learning lessons about how cities work, and we started implementing policies to heal the damage.
Crime is going down because our cities are recovering from the post-war damage we inflicted on them.
that makes sense, too, and I think you make good points. However, there is this, from the article:
So, it’s not just a continuation of a trend. It’s a major dip in the curve.
Like I said, it’s certainly possible that there is an “Obama Effect” that is further driving down crime rates below where they would otherwise be, but the general shape of things is best understood as the result of longer-term factors.
You and I are not living in the same America, evidently:
That does not sound like a recipe for reducing violent crime. Nor does this:
Okay, that’s an extreme case, but our cities are falling to pieces and our public safety workers are being laid off in droves, partly because the sweet contracts they signed during the boom are unaffordable during the bust, and partly because no one wants to pay taxes in this country anymore. Crime should be surging, but it’s not.
I’m not sure what the shot about “living in America” is supposed to mean. There’s nothing in anything you wrote that contradicts anything I’ve written.
Your anecdata doesn’t really have anything to do with my observation that falling case loads are resulting in police departments that are increasingly able to keep up with the crime in their communities, where they were overwhelmed ten or twenty years ago. If you compare staffing levels between now and ten years ago to the crime rate, you’ll find that most places have seen a greater reduction in crime than in police over that period. While the recent cutbacks have been severe, they’ve also only been going on for a couple of years, whereas crime has been declining for the entire decade. Yay, compound interest!
I don’t agree with your assertion that crime rates “should be” skyrocketing. We’re still very much on the downslope of the crime bubble that started in the 60s and peaked in the early 90s and has been declining since then – a much larger, much longer-term trend than the wobbles associated with a bad economy (which is a weak correlation anyway). Crime “should be” declining, as it is. I’m living in an America where the crime rate is doing exactly what I thought, and I’m not the slightest bit surprised by its trend. You?
The lesson you should be learning from this is that law enforcement resources aren’t nearly as important as the existence of functioning urban cores when it comes to crime rates. Think about what crime rates were like in the worst projects even when they were saturated with police. The number of cops isn’t the important variable.
That’s interesting, I wonder if the reverse holds true and that is why the Tea Party is getting so surly, they obviously don’t accept President Obama as legitimate. It could explain so many people jumping on the scorched earth bandwagon, including some white liberals who may harbor some racism. Thanks for posting that.
is not something I share
White progressives are feeling a lot less positive about American institutions at the moment, not because Obama is black but because those institutions aren’t functioning properly due to Republican extremism.
On the contrary,I think their despair is due to Obama being black. They cannot imagine a black man is an effective leader and they also cannot imagine that they are infected by racism. A toxic mixture.
Most white progressives support the president. Don’t go by what goes on on the internet. I have yet to find one in “real life” who doesn’t – the disparity between the people I meet online and the people I meet in person is utterly bizarre.
There is, in my view, a racial issue with the more hard core, online-active progressive set – the people who sneered at gore and Kerry seem to have about twice as much energy to sneer at obama. But the average white progressive is supporting him. As I do.
point.
I think you are way overstating the case.
I have a few acquaintances who probably fit that description despite being progressives and not overtly racist in any way. But they are a tiny, tiny minority of the white progressive community.
And 99% of the bitching you’re seeing is related to either actual policy (dropping EPA recommendations or drone-killing an American without due process) or about strategy (he’s giving away the store!).
Remember, too, that PUMA progressives were a rare breed, and nowhere near a majority of the white progressive community. If you had a big racial hangup about Obama, you would have found some reason to support Clinton.
Nobody SAYS they are motivated by race, but if you persist in calling an obviously super smart, tough, black man stupid,naive, easily manipulated, unqualified, easily rolled, spineless, and so on long enough, it kind of gives the game away.
We don’t see policy disagreements, we see “that unqualified spineless coward failed again”. And when you ask why they cannot disagree respectfully, you get vitriol. That’s racism.
Meh. If you take a guy like our own brendan, who is pretty much relentlessly negative and whose mind seems to not register the good stuff (or, conversely, he simply forgets when I’m a harsh critic), there is absolutely no racial component to what he’s saying and doing. It’s how he’s wired. A lot of progressives are wired that way.
I’m not picking on brendan. And he doesn’t need defending. A more extreme case is Calvin, but I don’t know him personally. I think it’s a personality trait more than anything else. And, in Calvin’s case, he does the same thing to Harry Reid or pretty much any other Democrat. It’s his default to find the fault in any situation, even if no such fault actually exists.
I don’t say all white progressives are motivated by race or even that most are motivated primarily by race, but it’s a factor and a big one.
Go to http://pragmaticobotsunite.blogspot.com/ or some other primarily AA political site and ask what people think.
I don’t know. I have no problem with the idea that white reactionaries are bothered by Obama’s race, but white progressives? Some counterarguments:
Just let me note that (3) is a textbook example of racism – they mean “Obama does not fit my idea of how a black guy behaves”. When Michael Moore says he voted for the black guy, but got the white guy, he’s essentially saying “I know how black people behave and Obama is not living up to my prejudices”.
As for (2) – I disagree. I never heard that Clinton was stupid or naive or that he was controlled by Dick Morris or that he was a spineless ball-less coward. I heard a lot of angry remarks – but if you look for example at Robert Kuttner’s Clinton era complaints and compare them to the Obama era complaints, the level of condescension has gone through the roof. And even when Peter Edelman quit, there was not a huge outcry for a primary – and that was over very substantial policy issues.
(1) – see comments on (2) and (3)
At least part of the reason for the greater vitriol with Obama than with Clinton is that the stakes seem higher now and people are more directly personally affected by the economy going south. I’ll bet you anything that anyone who got foreclosed on during Clinton’s years and thought he could have helped them but didn’t would be spitting just as indiscriminately.
Bob Kuttner has not lost his house.
Matt Stoller neither. Nor David Sirota. etc.
Is the rhetoric from bitter lefties actually more virulent now than it was in the 1990s?
Or do you just see it more, because the internet has given a public platform to a little fringe that, 15 years ago, was sitting in a room in the student center with a half dozen like-minded people?
I went back to read Kuttner’s comments just to make sure.
And it doesn’t account for the white liberals who don’t give any credit to the President for progressive policies he has accomplished. The lack of credit bothers me more than criticizing him for compromising with the Republicans. If they were at least intellectually honest, it wouldn’t be so frustrating.
I’m not going to rule out what you’re talking about entirely, but I’ll note that these same white progressives had no problem seeing him as an effective leader in 2007 – early 2009.
Actually, the progressive disappointment narrative was in full steam before inauguration. If you look in the OpenLeft archives you’ll see that chickenshit, cowardly, naive, stupid Obama was having his strings pulled by a the manipulative conspiring evil Rahm Emanuel according to progressives, during the cabinet selection process. In real life, I suppose it is possible that a black man might actually be a puppet of a shady jewish guy, but if your racism detectors don’t go off when you hear a story like that, you need to get the batteries replaced.
I think a lot of people have been affected by this narrative without even recognizing it – but the absolute angry unwillingness of the netroots white progressives to ever consider the possibility of their own racism, even when urged to do so in the most kindly manner by people like Melissa Harris Perry, tells you something.
I looked, and this seems to be the OpenLeft consensus immediately before inauguration: http://openleft.com/diary/10980/
It doesn’t seem wholly racist to me.
btw
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=10532
fascinating glimpse of before “Obama made the stimulus too small” became dogma.
Open-left is like citing myDD. Matt Stoller has always hated Obama, as has Jerome Armstrong.
And Paul Rosenberg is really, really stupid.
but he is a “white progressive” and one who spoke for many.
Well I mean even in his ideology. Let’s move beyond the politics. A lot of his ideological arguments made no sense. Half of the time I was trying to figure out what he was saying, and couldn’t figure it out (he’d also come to the wrong ideological conclusions based on academia, etc). Just an all around dumb person. Stoller isn’t stupid, per se, but yeah…always hated Obama, always will. The only reason I kept reading Open Left from 2008 and on was because of Chris Bowers. Well, he’s now at Daily Kos (and Open Left is dead anyway).
he reminded me of the otto character in “A fish called Wanda”.
O: Monkeys don’t read Aristotle
W: yes they do, they just don’t understand it.
It’s worthwhile to toss into the pot the cutting of law enforcement funds and perhaps making our police as a whole less effective. In other words, perhaps crime is higher than statistics portray but because police aren’t given the tools or manpower to catch all the criminals they never make it into the statisical mix.
And that’s not even touching the judicial side of things.
Crime data is based on reports, not arrests or convictions. The FBI does this deliberately, in order to account for the problems you’re talking about.
That’s interesting, I went to the FBI site but didn’t see that reporting of statistics necessarily included reports by civilians. What am I missing?
You’re not missing anything.
Police departments do provide the information to the FBI. I’m saying, they provide information about reported crimes, in addition to arrests and convictions, and the crime rate numbers are calculated using the former.
I don’t know the answer, but the decline in violent crime began, nationwide, long before Obama came along. You might want to read this:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2007/sep/01/how-much-credit-giuliani-due-fighting-cr
ime/
.
An obvious and universal truth … level of violence as a measure of a failed state.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
I’m extremely skeptical. However, a lot of my black friends did say they noticed a HUGE change in how their kids or their friends kids behaved in school following the election. They seemed to see a “new hope” or something. I wish I saved my friend Liz’s essay that she wrote about this very thing regarding her own community. Again, it’s all anecdotal, but she did seem very affirmative in her feelings like, “NO, for real…something has changed, and I don’t know what it is.”
My family watched the election returns together. The youngest was my 3-year-old nephew and oldest my 91-year-old uncle who served in WWII plus 30 more years of service in the Navy. Through all of the tears my then 15-year-old spoke what we were all feeling, “For the first time I feel like an American rather than just Black in America.” Since then we’ve all felt like we owed it to ourselves, the President, and the country to do better. Lately it just feels like someone played a cruel joke on us; that he and we were set up. I don’t think white liberals can ever understand the emotional or psychological impact it had and the exact reverse impact it will have if he loses. You just can’t .
And let be clear I’m in NO WAY suggesting that Black folks are going to riot or fuck white folks up nor saying that the impact to us should factor into anyone’s vote. I’m just telling you that it runs deep in a way you can’t fully understand.
Here was the one article that prompted my friend Liz to speak out about her own experience:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/education/23gap.html
That was from January 23rd, 2009.
Anecdote: My family went on a cruise in November 2008. I’d say that about 1/4-1/3 of the passengers were black, and every day, it was like a contest to see who could rock the most Obama gear. I’ve never seen so much red, white, and blue on black people in my entire life. You’d have thought it was an American Legion reunion.
Anecdote: A DC go-go band played the Lowell Folk Festival a couple years ago, and one of the songs they performed was “Party in the U.S.A.” I assure you, the DC go-go bands of the 1990s were not singing happy songs about being in the U.S.A. Maybe they were singing about being in Southeast. Maybe they were singing about being in DC – not Washington, ever, but “DC.”
So, I’ve definitely seen evidence of some kinds of Obama Effect. I’m just not sure it’s expressing itself through the crime rate.