If you were to do a simple internet search for the cities in the United States with the highest crime and murder rates, several thousand websites – with crime statistics going as far back as the15th century Ottoman Empire – would be returned. If you had the time to delve into the topic further and build your own data table of murder and crime rates in the largest US cities, you would notice a pattern revealing itself: many of the same cities keep popping up year after year with increasingly higher rates of violence. It’s almost as if crime is a way of life in these places.
Upon further investigation, two more patterns run parallel with the crime rates in these cities. The first is that black Americans comprise more than 55 percent of the population of these crime ridden cities. Could you infer that black Americans in the inner city equate to higher crime rate? Perhaps. But let us dig further.
Along another parallel we see that in each of these cities a Democrat holds the mayorship, and from the point the crime rates began to climb, Democrats were in control. I surmise from this that either black Americans are voting for people who are tolerant of crime since there has been no change other than a consistent or raising rate of overall violence, or liberal policies, weak leadership and an agenda that ensures a Democratic voting base from a poverty stricken underclass, will allow crime to flourish.
Let’s just clear the air for a minute. A great majority of black American’s, unlike the citizens of Ferguson, Missouri who have taken up the sport of looting businesses in protest of a shooting in which very few facts have been revealed, do not like crime. But regardless of what I say, one can clearly come to the conclusion that the opposite is true. And while Democrats see this demographic as a firm, reliable voting block, for Republicans, I see opportunity.
Republicans do not pander to any individual race. For the most part, Republican politicians run on a platform of lower taxes, job creation and less government intrusion. And maybe people take for granted that both the Democrats and Republicans would work to reduce crime, but I have rarely heard this specific point as a conservative battle cry on the local level. Ineffective law enforcement invites crime. Businesses leave towns, taking their jobs with them. Thus, both unemployment and crime spike. Property is devalued and only pawn shops and payday lenders dare move their ventures into these areas. A low quality political candidate shuffles into the mix, gets elected, and there he sits on his throne barking lies about the ‘Republican racists’ until Ragnarok!
The inner cities are ripe for a conservative intervention. “But blacks have not voted for Republican’s in any significant number since Reconstruction,” you say. True. But since there is a direct correlation between crime and poverty, what does the GOP have to lose by running Republican candidates in urban areas on a platform of crime reduction and job creation? The argument seems to make itself.
This year, the United States celebrated it’s 50th year of fighting a war on poverty that can never be won until some attention is given to reducing crime. Falling crime rates introduces an atmosphere where businesses feel safe and can thrive, and create jobs. Jobs help to pull the poverty stricken into the middle class, and possibly beyond. However, the war on poverty has done its job exceedingly well: to create a permanent, Democratic voting underclass where any persons seeking to leave poverty will be punished with a reduction in government benefits and a progressive federal income tax.
When crime is significantly reduced in these urban centers, poverty rates will decrease as well, and 18 year-old’s will be less likely to steal cigars from local businesses.