My process is to start with an outcome that varies by the variable of interest and then explore possible causal pathways from the variable to outcome. In these posts, crime rates are the outcome, mayor’s political party is the variable of interest, and the possible causal pathways are policies and their cascading effects. For example, if Republican-led cities were more likely to meet police staffing goals than Democrat-led cities and they also had higher crime clearance rates and higher clearance rates were associated with lower crime rates, then we have a possible causal pathway. This is a gross simplification of course: whatever happens is likely the result of multiple interacting causal pathways. And even that is a gross simplification. I won’t elaborate further. Let’s just say it’s complicated. But complexity never stopped medical progress. Why should it stop progress in governance? Knowledge advances one baby step at a time.
“There was a time, in these United States, when a candidate for public office could qualify with the electorate only by fixing his birthplace in or near the "log cabin". He may have acquired a competence, or even a fortune, since then, but it was in the tradition that he must have been born of poor parents and made his way up the ladder by sheer ability, self-reliance, and perseverance in the face of hardship. In short, he had to be "self made". The so-called Protestant Ethic then prevalent held that man was a sturdy and responsible individual, responsible to himself, his society, and his God. Anybody who could not measure up to that standard could not qualify for public office or even popular respect.” - Frank Chodorov
Large American cities are usually run by Democrats, but a few have Republican mayors. I’m assuming a Republican presence within a city’s political leadership will have some effect on local policies and policy-related outcomes. Someday I’ll tackle the causal pathways from city politics to policies to outcomes. In this post, I’ll focus on one particular outcome: the violent crime rates of cities with Republican and Democratic mayors.
Republicans often assert that cities run by Democrats are more crime-ridden than those run by Republicans. Democrats often counter there’s no evidence of that. Neither side presents evidence one way or another, other than the anecdotal sort. So I decided to look into the matter, using cities with Republican mayors as a proxy for cities that are not completely dominated by Democrats or progressives. My sample included all the cities with Republican mayors on Wikipedia’s list of mayors of the 50 largest cities in the US, of which there were ten with Republican mayors. I also chose ten cities with Democratic mayors from Wikipedia’s list and then looked up the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) 2019-2020 figures for homicide and aggravated assault crime rates, et voila!. Here is what I found….
My take on why the 26 phrases are considered dog whistles (main objection only):
Racist or Xenophobic: Community Violence, Urban Violence, Urban Crime, Black-on-White Crime, Tough on Crime, Law & Order, Food Stamps, Anti-China, Islamic Terrorism, Illegal Immigrants Promotes interests of corporations and the rich: Job Creators, Tax Cuts, Big Government (as a criticism), Increase Military Spending….
1. A coded message communicated through words or phrases commonly understood by a particular group of people, but not by others. Merriam-Webster.com … 10. An ”intriguing tool of hermeneutics in which you can accuse anyone of saying anything even if they didn't say it because you can always hear the dogwhistle if you yourself are a canine with hypersonic hearing.” Steven Pinker, quoted in “Steven Pinker Beats Cancel Culture Attack”
I got to musing about the OECD out of frustration, after spending hours looking for a comprehensive analysis comparing environmental policies across the US states. I was especially curious whether the rather cold-hearted Republican rhetoric about non-human species was matched by cold-hearted state policies. That turned out to be too big a project, so I settled for info on state environmental budgets (available on Balletopedia).
Which got me thinking…How do we know what someone means when they say something? How do we know what they’re thinking of when they say things? Or, even harder, what unconscious cognitions are behind their words?… Can words be true, valid, useful, insightful, demeaning and hurtful all at the same time? If so, how do we deal with it? What counts as evidence that certain expressions are dog whistles? What counts as definitive evidence?
But it’s not going to happen without the cooperation of farmers. And that’s not an easy task, given that farming is a low margin, high-risk affair. Now consider that sustainable and intensive farming practices often require high initial investment with uncertain or delayed payoff. Most farmers don’t have the luxury of waiting years for a return on investment - they can hardly think past this year’s harvest. So how can governments make it easier for farmers to adopt practices and technologies that protect the biosphere? Here are some ideas…
Confident and optimistic? The machinery will tilt towards images of success and triumph, but not dwell on them because no preparation is required for what may come. We already know we can handle whatever is thrown our way, and it will be good.
Unfortunately, farmers often resist new ways of doing things, especially poor farmers in developing countries. Who could blame them? Farming is full of risk and uncertainty, between the weather, pests, volatile markets, bad policies, lack of storage facilities, and inadequate infrastructure. Sustainable farming requires an investment of time, labor and capital, and the return on this investment may take years. Small farmers in particular may not have the luxury to think past the current harvest.
At the present time, almost 33% of the earth’s total land area is used for agriculture. Let’s reduce that by a fifth, from roughly 49 million to 38 million square kilometers: close to the amount of agricultural land in 1950. Sounds crazy, but it’s doable, considering that agricultural productivity has already improved to the point that to produce the same amount of crops as in 1961, we need only 30% of the farmland (Our World in Data).
Granted, the Living Planet Index doesn’t cover most species but it’s a pretty good proxy for the health of the land-based biosphere. And from this chart, it’s clear that the relation between regional population growth and biodiversity is complicated.
A recent study identified 101,583 square kilometers (km2) of mining operations across the globe, based on the latest satellite imagery (Maus, Giljum, da Silva et al, 2022). This figure includes open cuts, tailings dams, waste rock dumps, water ponds, processing plants, and other ground features related to the mining activities. To put that number in perspective, agricultural land covers over 47 million km2 worldwide. However, the amount of land devoted to mining increases every year - thanks in large part to the growing market for renewal energy and electric vehicles.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, agricultural land includes croplands, pastures, orchards, vineyards, and flowering shrubs but excludes trees grown for wood or timber. Almost 33% of the earth’s total land area is used for agriculture. The rest goes to forest/shrub ( 37%), glaciers (10%) barren land such as deserts (19%) and a minuscule 1% for human urban areas and built-up land…Expanding wild habitat is mostly about taking from agriculture and giving to forests and shrub lands.
High perceived control tends to soften the blows of outrageous fortune by activating action plans to make things better. Low perceived control sharpens the sting of adversity because it makes us feel helpless and hopeless. Individuals who chronically lack a sense of control tend to become angry and disengaged: there's nothing I can do to make a difference, so why bother?
In prepping for a previous post on social justice, I came across a great meta-analysis on the research and theory of "relative deprivation", which the authors define as "the judgment that one is worse off compared to some standard accompanied by feelings of anger and resentment" (Smith, Pettigrew et al, 2011, p 203). According to this meta-analysis, the experience of relative deprivation can be applied to the self or ingroup and requires…
Grievance involves feelings of deprivation, shame, humiliation, impotent anger, and being the victim of injustice. Grievance demands payback. Deep grievance demands big payback and may not be satisfied until the payback is proportionate to the harm done. Which may take forever.
Politicians want to be leaders and so need followers. To make someone a follower, you need to convince them you have the Right Stuff, which includes supreme self-confidence that you have the Answer. If you’re elected, you have to deliver. If you don’t deliver, then you have to counsel patience or make excuses (ideally, blaming the Other Side). You can’t say you were wrong and then suggest a fix - at least, not if you want to be reelected.
Commitment to an ideology imbues it with a “sacred value”, or “roughly, a value that is held particularly fervidly and that one is incredibly reluctant to relinquish” (Clark and Winegard, 2020). The ideologically committed are therefore akin to True Believers; they’re all in.