Bill Clinton On Crime Is Far from the Truth

Bill Clinton attributes declines in crime and murder rates to political legislation he promoted and signed. Studies say otherwise. One study:

“What Caused the Crime Decline? examines one of the nation’s least understood recent phenomena – the dramatic decline in crime nationwide over the past two decades – and analyzes various theories for why it occurred, by reviewing more than 40 years of data from all 50 states and the 50 largest cities. It concludes that over-harsh criminal justice policies, particularly increased incarceration, which rose even more dramatically over the same period, were not the main drivers of the crime decline. In fact, the report finds that increased incarceration has been declining in its effectiveness as a crime control tactic for more than 30 years. Its effect on crime rates since 1990 has been limited, and has been non-existent since 2000.

“More important were various social, economic, and environmental factors, such as growth in income and an aging population. The introduction of CompStat, a data-driven policing technique, also played a significant role in reducing crime in cities that introduced it.

“The report concludes that considering the immense social, fiscal, and economic costs of mass incarceration, programs that improve economic opportunities, modernize policing practices, and expand treatment and rehabilitation programs, all could be a better public safety investment.”

Crime rates are a heavily researched subject. Many hypotheses exist. Cross-country data sometimes are helpful in rejecting some explanations. Cross-state data can be useful. Even Clinton’s bill included several components, and each could have different effects.

Bill Clinton appears to be uninterested in truth on the issue of crime. He’s apparently uninterested in studying crime as scholars do. He’s interested in defusing anti-Hillary sentiment and retaining the black vote. It seems to me to be highly probable that he prepared an answer and some statistics beforehand so that he could defend against accusations that his crime bill did more harm than good. He’s clever that way. That’s what politicians do nowadays, and maybe always have. Consequently, their credibility is extremely low. Their promises made to get elected are followed frequently by opposite actions.

Political campaigns and politics-as-we-know-it are both a total waste. Worse, they simply perpetuate hopelessly backward systems, ideas and policies that produce massive injustice and retard any notion of progress one might care to subscribe to.

Bill Clinton’s state of mind, it seems to me, is that he actually attaches a fairly high degree of belief to what his defense of his crime bill was. He believes to some extent in crude statistics and crude inferences drawn from them. He’s probably quite ignorant of the complex causation at work in crime and other matters. However, as president he no doubt went through the motions of assembling experts and producing written support for his ideas. That kind of process is common but deeply flawed. It is easy to manipulate the outcomes to magnify or reinforce the biases of those who hold the power.

At the same time, to the extent that both Clintons are aware of the deficiencies in their guiding theories, I believe that they slough them off, on the grounds that they are pragmatically useless. They would paralyze their uses of power or shift it in unpalatable or politically difficult directions. They know enough to recognize that all government policies have downsides, but they are after what they claim are the larger upsides. They believe in their own capacity to judge complex matters, assess social utility and create a judgment and a policy that makes the world better, on net. And they love having the power to be able to do that. A degree of megalomania is virtually a qualification for becoming a high-ranking and powerful person in government. The system is really screwy.

Substitute the name of any candidate, if you will. Hillary is typical of the class. She has an inordinate belief in her decisions. She can’t see their flaws that she’s responsible for even when they have been huge, as in the case of Libya. Obama has taken to blaming others for his errors of judgment. All of them love to hide behind blaming deficiencies in the system, as when Bush and other neocons blame defective intelligence for their decision to invade Iraq.

When Bill Clinton takes the credit for reducing crime rates, this is just the other side of the megalomaniac coin. Blame others for what you’ve done that turned out badly, and take credit for things that you have not done that turned out well.

The Best of Michael S. Rozeff