Heterodox voices are never going to be the loudest voices, but by picking their battlegrounds carefully they can be the decisive ones. In this short essay, I seek to explore the use of Violent Crime and Policing as one issue which might be used in such a manner. In this, I was heavily influenced by Michael Shellenberger’s recent article in Quillette Madness for Decivilization, although many will find his recent podcasts on the subject of homelessness, addiction and mental illness more useful. I would also heartily recommend the Zaid Jilani article- it provides a basic diagnostic as to why America finds itself at its current juncture. This is really only an opening essay, I will explore the concept of using contentious issues to amplify heterodox viewpoints as my thoughts develop.
A great article, and could I just add that I’ve been watching several of Michael Shellenberger’s recent podcasts and am eagerly anticipating his upcoming book. It is by no means a popular opinion, but I believe that liberalism or progressivism can only really work when tethered to conservative scepticism. We need those with high trait Openness to New Experiences- they are responsible for almost all innovation in society and all social and economic progress. But whilst they are great at producing new ideas, they are terrible at vetting them.
Conservatives are ideal for this role- they are, for the most part, natural sceptics suspicious of new ideas and prefer the tried and tested- best encapsulated by their ongoing love affair with limited government. It is not by accident that those societies which were able to harness the natural friction which occurs when conservatives and liberals argue and debate races ahead during the Enlightenment, culminating in the unprecedented wealth produced first by Britain, and then by America.
The problem is that when one side of this fragile balance becomes dominant in the cultural narrative, society begins to stagnate. Worse, the side which wins in terms of culture begins to manifest some rather nasty authoritarian tendencies, and this can have a corrosive influence on our societal decision-making abilities. We saw it with Reagan and the emphasis on punishment and deterrence as the only effective means of promoting Law and Order, as well as the trampling of the private rights of citizens who happened to be different, in terms of sexuality. Now we see it in the way dissenters and heretics to the new orthodoxies of victimhood and oppression are silenced, vilified and distorted into gross caricatures of themselves for the purposes of cancellation and ostracism.
I am beginning to think that the battleground for heterodox voices looking to repair the dialogue between Left and Right is going to have to be Law and Order. Homelessness, addiction and mental illness are all a part of this equation, but there are larger issues at stake. As Zaid Jilani successfully argues in his Atlantic article Progressive Denial Won’t Stop Violent Crime everyone needs to look at the root causes of the uniquely American surge in violent crime.
But equally, few would want to see a return to the policies of the past. The key is in understanding the successes of the Scottish model of Public Health policing. With this approach proactive policing is not stopped or curtailed. Instead it becomes a means of early intervention when reform efforts are likely to be most successful. Every existing societal resources is utilised- from schools to re-tasked social workers, from Churches to traditional blue collar employers becoming actively involved in the provision of economic opportunity (such employees tend to be more loyal, and far less likely to press in pay negotiations, as they are grateful for the hand up). Modest sums are even spent upon things like community centres and sports diversion (like boxing or martial arts clubs)- and this is the one area where the often exorbitant charitable sums paid to fund activism could be better employed creating opportunities for disruptive youth, both in terms of diversion and employment.
And all the right ingredients are already there, to create an American model of youth reform-based policing. The horribly named Center for Policing Equity takes Police Departments own data to counteract the very human tendency to overestimate risks (to which even judges are prone), helping police to set policing levels and interventions which are commensurate with actual crime levels on the ground- it’s called COMPSTAT for Justice, C4J. Police find it appealing because it asks them to address their actions rather than some assumed racism, unconscious or otherwise, in their heads. They had a number of successes with several highly rated Police Departments (including the NYPD), before the American policing world went to shit. At the same time, Peter Moskos a former Baltimore cop and Harvard Graduate has created the Violence Reduction Project- which is, in many ways, an American version of the way the Scottish used the pioneering work of epidemiologist Gary Slutkin to combat violence as a social contagion.
In the past, the identification of wedge issues has been used by political operators to fuel partisan warfare, and more generally to aid in the drafting of almost uniformly terrible public policies. But if the heterodox want to have a chance of creating any form of meaningful reform- to amplify their more moderate voices above the louder din of those who speak with certainty and resort to romantic and overly simplified grand narratives, then they need to have their answers ready and to get there first. Bertrand Russell stated “The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” The only way to counteract this madness is be ready to speak with authority and knowledge on a subject before the demagogue has a chance to open their mouth.
It may seem as though that time has already passed- that America is beset by a plague of demagogues. But as the pendulum swings and politicians frantically look for answers which balance the needs of communities beset by violence with the demands of activists intent on dismantling police they will look for any answer which appeases as many people as possible. It is in the nature of those mad enough to want to climb to the top of a greasy pole that they don’t want to be dragged back down. The more cynical ones will simply resort to picking whichever demographic the pollsters tell them will deliver more votes in their district, but the smarter ones will care more about what independents think. This is the issue on which the heterodox movement might finally have its day, and usher in a new era of empirically-based policy making.
If your more moderate voice doesn’t lend itself to the frothing spittle of the loudspeaker, then choose a subject matter which is suitably controversial, contentious and liable to garner attention, to which neither side of the political spectrum really has a plausible answer with which ordinary people can live.
I dunno maybe you rearranged paragraphs but you introduce "the Zaid Jilani" article without linking to it or even specifying anything about it beyond that . . .
The way you laid out the eternal battle between the liberals and conservatives is clear, concise and convincing. If only those in power would listen! Good piece!
I dunno maybe you rearranged paragraphs but you introduce "the Zaid Jilani" article without linking to it or even specifying anything about it beyond that . . .
Oh, I love that! Yes, Maher is pushing hard; we'll see if it makes any difference whatsoever.
The way you laid out the eternal battle between the liberals and conservatives is clear, concise and convincing. If only those in power would listen! Good piece!
OutSTANDING, Sir Geary!