3 ms·

Don’t agree.. The rights main argument to reduce crime is to promote stable family units as stats consistently show that controlling for single motherhood, chi

by onos 4y ago

Don’t agree.. The rights main argument to reduce crime is to promote stable family units as stats consistently show that controlling for single motherhood, children of all races show similar rates of criminal activity. This is not popular with some on the left, which is generally committed to a view that people should be free to do what they want in their relationships. This is N example where the right is pursuing a view consistent with the data and the left is not. There are of course many examples going the other way.

scarface74 4y ago
When it came to drug use in the “inner city” that was the right’s talking point. But when drug use started happening in “rural America” it was a “disease”. But one of the largest cause of the lack of the cohesive family unit is the “War on Drugs” that was statistically more harshly applied to minorities. But when it comes time for police reform and criminal Justice reform, the right bristles. Yes I know that the Clintons were the major architects of the tough on crime movement in the 90s.
Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
I think you are being a bit disingenious. I do not think anyone on the left is defending single motherhood as the best environment to raise children, specially when many of those single mothers do not do it by choice. Considering about 50% of black amle americans spend time in jail (most of which for drug offenses) and the drug war is a complete and utter failure, I would argue that the lefts proposed solutions of decriminisalising drugs like weed, and encouraging inner city rehab programms would have a better and faster return on investment to stop "single mothers" than "promote stable family units" which has no policy attached to it other than add more christianity in school. Thats just my view point.
- onos 4y ago
  The drug war argument is compelling. If this is the main driver we have a pretty unpleasant trade off to consider: accept drug addiction which ruins lives or send people to jail which also ruins lives. Some drugs aren’t so bad so the trade off is not there. Definitely one suggestion from the right is promote their view of social morality, Christianity but also a la carte statements: no infidelity, no sex out of wedlock etc. Another of their arguments is that welfare payments from the state have made it easier for the poor to not stick together and this has been a driver of single parent households. Ie however well motivated there is a potential harmful unintended consequence here.
  - Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
    > the right is promote their view of social morality, Isn't it patently obvious that their view of social morality is relativistic? Considering they endorsed multiple men who have openly paid for abortions, cheated on all their partners etc. If you believe in social morality you do not put a man like Hersel Walker anywhere near a ballot. Or you would suspend candidates with serious allegations like Gaetz being investigated over dating a minor. If the proposal is social morality, why not lead by example? > no sex out of wedlock etc if the right wing view about economics is that the right incentives will fix the market. Having tax benefits for married couples is already an economic incentive, therefore either their economic policy is wrong, or they shouldn't complaint about this as time will correct the market. > Another of their arguments is that welfare payments from the state have made it easier for the poor to not stick together and this has been a driver of single parent households. This might hold water on paper. But in reality every country with stronger social nets has lower crime. Even small experiments with universal credit have been fairly promising in lifting everyones living standards. In my opinion the lip service to "strong on crime" and "welfare disincentivices people working harder" is done because the consequences on those policies reinforce the status quo. They do not want more police or less welfare because its good for society, they want it because it keeps social mobility from happening. And considering how many people in the right are investing in rent-seeking instead of aggresive and innovative capitalistic ventures I think their actions speak louder than their words. If the entire Republican party moved to back AI and venture investment, and put forward absolute paragons of business with large perfect families I would believe them. But so far all I see is sketchy car used salesman energy millionaries with legacy degrees promoting business loans and rescues for companies that haven't been competitive in 3 decades.
    - onos 4y ago
      Plenty of people on the right do not support walker et al. The right isn’t any more of a monolith than the left. Absolutely they’d support tax incentives for married couples. As for stronger social safety nets decreasing crime, sounds good. And yet, the claim I’ve read is that in the USA increases to this have not correlated with improved outcomes to eg household wealth among black Americans (since the 60s). Of course we have a complex system here so hard to make any conclusions.

by onos 4y ago

scarface74 4y ago

When it came to drug use in the “inner city” that was the right’s talking point. But when drug use started happening in “rural America” it was a “disease”. But one of the largest cause of the lack of the cohesive family unit is the “War on Drugs” that was statistically more harshly applied to minorities. But when it comes time for police reform and criminal Justice reform, the right bristles. Yes I know that the Clintons were the major architects of the tough on crime movement in the 90s.

Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago

I think you are being a bit disingenious. I do not think anyone on the left is defending single motherhood as the best environment to raise children, specially when many of those single mothers do not do it by choice. Considering about 50% of black amle americans spend time in jail (most of which for drug offenses) and the drug war is a complete and utter failure, I would argue that the lefts proposed solutions of decriminisalising drugs like weed, and encouraging inner city rehab programms would have a better and faster return on investment to stop "single mothers" than "promote stable family units" which has no policy attached to it other than add more christianity in school. Thats just my view point.

onos 4y ago
The drug war argument is compelling. If this is the main driver we have a pretty unpleasant trade off to consider: accept drug addiction which ruins lives or send people to jail which also ruins lives. Some drugs aren’t so bad so the trade off is not there. Definitely one suggestion from the right is promote their view of social morality, Christianity but also a la carte statements: no infidelity, no sex out of wedlock etc. Another of their arguments is that welfare payments from the state have made it easier for the poor to not stick together and this has been a driver of single parent households. Ie however well motivated there is a potential harmful unintended consequence here.
- Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
  > the right is promote their view of social morality, Isn't it patently obvious that their view of social morality is relativistic? Considering they endorsed multiple men who have openly paid for abortions, cheated on all their partners etc. If you believe in social morality you do not put a man like Hersel Walker anywhere near a ballot. Or you would suspend candidates with serious allegations like Gaetz being investigated over dating a minor. If the proposal is social morality, why not lead by example? > no sex out of wedlock etc if the right wing view about economics is that the right incentives will fix the market. Having tax benefits for married couples is already an economic incentive, therefore either their economic policy is wrong, or they shouldn't complaint about this as time will correct the market. > Another of their arguments is that welfare payments from the state have made it easier for the poor to not stick together and this has been a driver of single parent households. This might hold water on paper. But in reality every country with stronger social nets has lower crime. Even small experiments with universal credit have been fairly promising in lifting everyones living standards. In my opinion the lip service to "strong on crime" and "welfare disincentivices people working harder" is done because the consequences on those policies reinforce the status quo. They do not want more police or less welfare because its good for society, they want it because it keeps social mobility from happening. And considering how many people in the right are investing in rent-seeking instead of aggresive and innovative capitalistic ventures I think their actions speak louder than their words. If the entire Republican party moved to back AI and venture investment, and put forward absolute paragons of business with large perfect families I would believe them. But so far all I see is sketchy car used salesman energy millionaries with legacy degrees promoting business loans and rescues for companies that haven't been competitive in 3 decades.
  - onos 4y ago
    Plenty of people on the right do not support walker et al. The right isn’t any more of a monolith than the left. Absolutely they’d support tax incentives for married couples. As for stronger social safety nets decreasing crime, sounds good. And yet, the claim I’ve read is that in the USA increases to this have not correlated with improved outcomes to eg household wealth among black Americans (since the 60s). Of course we have a complex system here so hard to make any conclusions.