Murder in New York

The New York Times has an article that takes a look at the continuing declines in New York City's murder rate over the past few years. I think understanding this is, among other things, an important part of how we understand Rudy Giuliani's legacy. Before 9/11, of course, his signature accomplishment was his association with the massive crime drop the city experienced during the 1990s, a tumbling in the murder rate that was paralleled in most other major American cities, but that happened to a much greater extent in New York than elsewhere.

Giuliani and his supporters would tend to argue that certain apparent black marks on his administration's record -- Amadou Diallo, Patrick Dorismond, Rudy's generally horrible relationship with the African-American community -- were all just part of the price you had to pay for his super-effective anti-crime measures. But then Bloomberg came into office, kept much of the same policy framework in place, but went out of his way to try to be a bridge-builder who got along with all sorts of people. And the poof is in the pudding -- this works just fine. Nothing about sound crime control policy required Giuliani to be acting like a jerk or a madman, he just did that stuff because that's who he is.

Comments

Giuliani and Bloomberg were canny enough to run a city during the time of an aging population. Very effective crime control policy.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 23, 2007 9:43 AM

The salient point is that Bloomberg kept the same police policies enacted during the Giuliani administration. The difference is that when the occasional unarmed black man gets shot by police (e.g., the recent one whose mother called the police when he started acting batshit; the pillars of the community who were shot after trying to run over an undercover cop outside of a Queens strip club), Bloomberg makes conciliatory noises in his nasal voice but doesn't order any substantive changes in police procedure.

The NY Times's Op/Ed page's affirmative action hire, Bob Herbert, is less sanguine about this status quo than you are. He laments the way young black males are eyed with suspicion by the NYPD, how they are continually targeted for stop-and-frisk, etc. Of course, the biggest beneficiary of these police policies is the black community itself, since blacks are the most frequent victims of crimes by black perpetrators.

Posted by Fred | November 23, 2007 9:46 AM

"And the poof is in the pudding -- this works just fine."

I agree with your basic point, but you aren't ever allowed to say this ever again. THE PROOF IN THE PUDDING IS IN THE EATING. FUCKING SAY IT!

Posted by Reality Man | November 23, 2007 10:08 AM

The poof is in the pudding? How did he get there?

Posted by Daniel Koffler | November 23, 2007 10:14 AM

Well, I certainly agree that "better policing methods" and such have been a major factor in the drop of NYC's murder rate. But from what I've seen, roughly similar drops in the murder rate have occurred in most other large cities across America, some of which followed similar policing methods and some of which didn't.

I'd be a little interested if Matt or someone could dig up a graph showing the per-capita imprisonment rates for NYC, which I suspect have grown enormously during this same approximate period, since they have throughout America.

Now it seems to me that if you put enough killers or prospective killers in prison, the murder rate will probably drop quite a lot, though if it doesn't then you have a real problem...

Posted by RKU | November 23, 2007 10:19 AM

so the suggestion is that we should separate the improved policing policies from giuliani's trademark thuggishness. you don't need to be an authoritarian nut-case in order to have crime-stats drop.

the problem is, matt, that giuliani's supporters would rather have the authoritarian nut-case with no drop in crime, than the drop in crime without the authoritarian nut-case.

for the bush dead-enders who are considering switching to giuliani, the thuggishness, hate-mongering, and incipient fascism are not an accidental blemish on the picture. that's what they *like* about the guy.

Posted by kid bitzer | November 23, 2007 10:31 AM

My father used to say that if you knew a man whose opinion you could predict about every subject, that man wasn't worth listening to. I'm trying to imagine if there was any situation, any situation at all, where Fred would condemn a white police officer killing a black man. I'm quite certain that situation doesn't exist. I imagine a cop could ride around through the South Bronx on Medgar Evers coffin wearing Klan robes and draped in a Confederate flag while being fellated by the ghost of Marge Schott, blasting Lynrd Skynrd on the radio and shooting anyone with a complexion darker than a marshmallow, and Fred would say that they all deserved it.

And, of course, Fred has no evidence that Herbert is an affirmative action hire, and there is simply no evidence in the world that would compel him to think otherwise.

Posted by Freddie | November 23, 2007 10:33 AM

I always thought the drop in crime had much more to do with gentrification than anything else. My rent payment finally went up to $1,800 per month for a studio apartment in Manhattan. Nothing remotely fancy. You have to be a pretty serious drug dealer to afford that. That is not to say that if you create a police state atmosphere there won't be a drop in crime -- of course there will. I bet the crime rate in Pyongyang is pretty low. But Giuliani takes way too much credit for simple shifts in demographics.

Posted by jim | November 23, 2007 10:42 AM

The people in the WTC weren't murdered?

Posted by Matt B | November 23, 2007 10:44 AM

Wait a minute, Jim. What do Manhattan apartment prices have to do with street crime? Criminals can use the subway too, and I'm pretty sure most of them are smart enough not to commit crimes in their own neighborhood. You'd have to gentrify the entire city for this to work.

Posted by AlanC9 | November 23, 2007 10:55 AM

"certain apparent black marks "

I would have avoided that phrase . . .

Posted by Dan S. | November 23, 2007 10:56 AM

"The salient point is that Bloomberg kept the same police policies enacted during the Giuliani administration."

No he didn't. The infamous "Street Crimes Unit" was disbanded shortly after Bloomberg took office.

Posted by Njorl | November 23, 2007 11:02 AM

"My father used to say that if you knew a man whose opinion you could predict about every subject, that man wasn't worth listening to."

Freddie,

Is this your way of telling us that your father didn't listen to you?

"I'm trying to imagine if there was any situation, any situation at all, where Fred would condemn a white police officer killing a black man..."

"And, of course, Fred has no evidence that Herbert is an affirmative action hire"

I have at least as much evidence as Bob Herbert does that Clarence Thomas was an affirmative action hire (a great example of Herbert throwing rocks from the porch of his glass house). Here's my evidence:

1) Bob Herbert's pre-NY Times resume is weaker than that of the other columnists.

2) Bob Herbert is black and the NY Times editors are biased in favor of blacks.

3) The quality of Bob Herbert's columns is weak; his columns usually rely on emotion and avoid analysis of issues.

4) Even liberals who share Bob Herbert's biases find his columns tedious. There was a comment thread about that on this blog a few months ago, if memory serves.

"and there is simply no evidence in the world that would compel him to think otherwise."

If Bob Herbert started writing at the level of, say, John McWhorter, that would compel me to think otherwise.

Posted by Fred | November 23, 2007 11:06 AM

You have to be more of a ball buster to initiate reform than to maintain it once it has been put in place. One could argue that Rudy could have toned down his confrontational style once he made the changes that needed to be made, but you have to recognize that Rudy and Bloomberg were in different positions at the start of their terms.

Posted by Thursday | November 23, 2007 11:06 AM

I find Herbert's column tedious. The difference is, I find about 90% of columnists at major newspapers tedious. I just don't take them for affirmative action hires because of that fact.

Is this your way of telling us that your father didn't listen to you?

Touche.

Posted by Freddie | November 23, 2007 11:07 AM

The quality of Bob Herbert's columns is weak; his columns usually rely on emotion and avoid analysis of issues.

When you're talking about an op-ed page that employs Friedman, Dowd, and Brooks, this is a ridiculous charge.

Posted by Matt Weiner | November 23, 2007 11:09 AM

And anyway, Fred, why the hell do you feel the need to call Bob Herbert an "affirmative action hire" in this context anyway? It's just not relevant to the topic at hand, and it's extraordinarily ugly that you can't mention a black columnist without insulting him based on his race.

Posted by Matt Weiner | November 23, 2007 11:13 AM

Not to defend Giuliani, in general or specifically for this, but it's harder to bring down the rate than to maintain it once it's reduced.

Posted by Rich | November 23, 2007 11:16 AM

Is it too much to ask the usual pontificators to actually read the linked article, in which it's stated quite clearly that New York's homicide rate both dropped at a greater rate than other large American cities during the 1990s and has continued to drop even as homicide rates have rebounded in most other cities? Something's happened in New York crime that can't be explained by demographics alone, and it's in everyone's interests to understand what it is. Matt's echoing the standard mainstream thinking on the issue, which is that the key factor in the reduction wasn't Giuliani's brutality and vindictiveness but the advanced data collection methods and rapid responsiveness put into place by Kelly and then Bratton. It's instructive that Bratton has been able to achieve a lot of the same success in Los Angeles under a liberal mayor (and with a much smaller police force) that he was in New York with a conservative one.

Posted by Hank Scorpio | November 23, 2007 11:23 AM

Matt Weiner,

I can't say I'm a fan of Friedman, Dowd, or Brooks, but Friedman and Brooks occasionally write something insightful (Dowd is content to stick with snark). My charge isn't ridiculous at all. Consider a recent column by Herbert where he lamented the high unemployment rate of black teens in Trenton, NJ. Did he analyze why they might have a high unemployment rate (could it have something to do with another group competing with them for low-skilled jobs?)? Not really. A competent op/ed columnist would have at least addressed the studies by Harvard Prof. George Borjas about the effect of unskilled immigration on black unemployment, even if only to attempt to refute them, but Herbert didn't. His point was essentially: lots of black teens are unemployed. That's too bad.

"And anyway, Fred, why the hell do you feel the need to call Bob Herbert an "affirmative action hire" in this context anyway?"

Perhaps you have noticed I'm not a fan of affirmative action. So I can't resist pointing out an obvious beneficiary of it.

"It's just not relevant to the topic at hand, and it's extraordinarily ugly that you can't mention a black columnist without insulting him based on his race."

Actually, John McWhorter is a black columnist (and professor) whom I complimented implicitly by comparing Bob Herbert invidiously to him in my previous comment. I think it's extraordinarily ugly that you would assume McWhorter isn't black, just because I mentioned him as an example of a good columnist.

Posted by Fred | November 23, 2007 11:27 AM

I agree with your basic point, but you aren't ever allowed to say this ever again. THE PROOF IN THE PUDDING IS IN THE EATING. FUCKING SAY IT!

Posted by Reality Man | November 23, 2007 10:08 AM

Look, if you're going to be pedantic, it's "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".

Posted by anonymous | November 23, 2007 11:29 AM

Bratton's data-collection and rapid-response methods have got to be part of it, but let's not forget what makes the giant police force and its labor-intensive methods possible: the HORKING big taxes NYC residents pay.

Posted by Jackmormon | November 23, 2007 11:36 AM

"let's not forget what makes the giant police force and its labor-intensive methods possible: the HORKING big taxes NYC residents pay."

Actually, only about 6% of NYC's budget is spent on the police department (~$3.6 billion out of ~$60 billion), so taxes in NYC could conceivably be reduced without cutting the NYPD.

Posted by Fred | November 23, 2007 11:53 AM

Friedman and Brooks occasionally write something insightful

If you're content with an occasional good column, then I'll put Herbert's columns on Tulia up against anything Friedman and Brooks have ever written.

Perhaps you have noticed I'm not a fan of affirmative action. So I can't resist pointing out an obvious beneficiary of it.

But it's not obvious. The evidence that you've provided is extraordinarily weak. So, I can only conclude that when confronted with a black columnist who you don't find ideologically congenial (I know who McWhorter is and what his race is, thank you), your first instinct is to play the race card. As I said, it's ugly.

Posted by Matt Weiner | November 23, 2007 11:55 AM

Not to defend Giuliani, in general or specifically for this, but it's harder to bring down the rate than to maintain it once it's reduced.

Don't worry about it, since this reasoning wouldn't be a defense of Giuliani; it would be a defense of Dinkins, who was mayor when the decline began, who first hired Ray Kelly, and who expanded the police force by something like 25%.

Posted by mds | November 23, 2007 12:08 PM

No one has mentioned the NY city economy and the unemployment rate. I've always assumed that employed people are less likely to be criminals. The 1990s were boom years for the US and especially NY. Since 2000, unemployment in NY has remained low and the financial folks have made zillions and contributed greatly to the city and state economy.

I suspect that if the financial industry begins to tank and/or unemployment rises we'll see a reversal of the NY crime trends. Although police policies and practices may play a role, I suspect it is minor.

Posted by cube | November 23, 2007 12:18 PM

"If you're content with an occasional good column"

Who said I was? There's no Times columnist I feel compelled to read regularly.

"The evidence that you've provided is extraordinarily weak."

Not really. As I said, it's at least as strong as Herbert's evidence that Clarence Thomas was an affirmative action hire (in my view, both men were). Herbert isn't in the same league as the other columnists you mentioned. Friedman and Dowd have four Pulitzers between them and were long-time reporters for the NY Times before becoming columnists; Herbert has a Meyer Berger award and wrote for the Star-Ledger and the Daily News. David Brooks was an editor at the Wall Street Journal and has been published in prestigious magazines such as the New Yorker and the Atlantic. Brooks graduated from the University of Chicago; Herbert from Empire College.

"So, I can only conclude that when confronted with a black columnist who you don't find ideologically congenial (I know who McWhorter is and what his race is, thank you), your first instinct is to play the race card. As I said, it's ugly."

I can "only conclude" that when presented with an obvious and prominent example of an affirmative action hire your first instinct is to play the racist card. Ugly indeed. For the record: I mentioned McWhorter not because of his ideology, but because he is the first truly brilliant black columnist whose name came to mind.

Posted by Fred | November 23, 2007 12:27 PM

I think this whole discussion indicates a profound and inherent weakness in Rudy's candidacy that no one much talks about - namely, his entire political experience consists of being a mayor.

Yes, he was mayor of the biggest city in the country, which keeps him from being laughed out of the primaries. But that just means there is a difference in the scale of his job as compared, say, to the mayor of Seattle.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Rudy gets all the credit for NYC's crime drop. Then what? There is no analogue here to the presidency. Even if Rudy was the best mayor ever at cleaning up urban crime, that tells us basically nothing about what kind of president he would be, unless you think that the "war on terror" involves the same basic techniques as the war on squeegee men, in which case you're an idiot.

Posted by Jason C. | November 23, 2007 12:41 PM

the racist card

Whatever, dude. People can look at the comments you've made about black people (including on the interminable genetics threads, as well as this insistence on injecting affirmative action where it's completely irrelevant) and judge you for themselves.

Posted by Matt Weiner | November 23, 2007 1:36 PM

"Whatever, dude."

Not the most gracious concession, but I'll take it. Certainly a better decision for you than to keep playing the weak hand of asserting that Bob Herbert isn't an affirmative action hire.

Posted by Fred | November 23, 2007 3:13 PM

"Jerk or a madman," Matty? Why can't he be both?

Posted by Jamey | November 23, 2007 3:19 PM

I have at least as much evidence as Bob Herbert does that Clarence Thomas was an affirmative action hire (a great example of Herbert throwing rocks from the porch of his glass house). Here's my evidence:

1) Bob Herbert's pre-NY Times resume is weaker than that of the other columnists. (No it's not; for example, Daily News staff have won as many reporting Pulitzers in the past decade as NYT)

2) Bob Herbert is black and the NY Times editors are biased in favor of blacks. (Link to supporting data, Fred? Yeah, that's what I thought.)

3) The quality of Bob Herbert's columns is weak; his columns usually rely on emotion and avoid analysis of issues. (Again, link to supporting data? I happen to think Herbert's columns are logical and anylytical. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree ...)

4) Even liberals who share Bob Herbert's biases find his columns tedious. There was a comment thread about that on this blog a few months ago, if memory serves. (So that's the standard, what some supposed liberal so-called columnists may have been quoted as having said? Glad you're not MY law-talking guy, Fred.)

Fred, even you should know that subjective statements aren't admissible as "evidence."

Wait, strike that ...

Posted by Jamey | November 23, 2007 3:34 PM

And, of course, Fred has no evidence that Herbert is an affirmative action hire, and there is simply no evidence in the world that would compel him to think otherwise.
Posted by Freddie

Other than Hebert being a dumb predictable moron and a bad writer.
Even fellow black newspaper and radio columists question how he ended up with the plumb job at the NYTimes.

************************
JasonC - Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Rudy gets all the credit for NYC's crime drop. Then what? There is no analogue here to the presidency. Even if Rudy was the best mayor ever at cleaning up urban crime, that tells us basically nothing about what kind of president he would be.

I think you need to understand what executive leadership is. Budgeting, leadership in problem-solving, dealing with and compromising with the opposition because things must get done, essential services provided, crisis dealt with and the budget balanced in the end.
Most of our Presidents were governors, military leaders, VPs before taking office. Rudy has more executive experience than Hillary!, Edwards, Obama - though nothing like the executive success track Romney has. Plus, he has a solid executive leadership as a mob-boss and Wall Sreet Kleptocrat nightmare as US Attorney for Southern NY.
But still, even as mayor, he had more challenges and complexity than the goverors of certain backwater states like...err..Arkansas that became President. And as NYC is a major, if not THE major hub of international diplomacy, global finance, international media, Israel-lovers, and terrorist wish list targets - Rudy has more international experience dealing with those leaders than most of the people that have run for President. (Certainly more than any frontrunners in this pack of candidates. Obama - "I lived as a kid in a foreign country and studied foreign relations in college before going into the law instead"....Hillary! - "I lunched with the wives of leaders in over 70 foreign countries I visited."

Rudy also did a hell of a job cleaning up NYC with Bratton and saw their techniques copied in city after city.
The self-annointed "Black Leaders in Charge" hated him for it. They were still in the 60s mentality - demanding more entitlements or things would get even worse for New Yorkers with the black thug problem unless more money was coughed up. He leargely ignored them and went about locking up the thugs, throwing the panhandlers and squeegee people off the street, busting young toughs jumping subway turnstiles.
Backing up his cops, preferring to err on their side rather than hug outraged mothers of thugs when their "good son who was just holding a pound of crack for a friend" was marched off from the Projects hog-tied and headed for Rikers.
The more he did, the safer NYC got, the more the "black spokespersons" and the NY Times screamed "racism! racism! racism! racism!" and Rudy's poll numbers went up.
Once the accusation of racism was enough to paralyze and instantly win any debate for the "victim" playing the race card, and give them what they wanted. Rudy told the "Head Negroes" that it was the 90s, get with the program, or get out of his way. And eventually, even liberals and other blacks chimed in that NYC black activists were making fools out of themselves by pushing tired grievance and identity group politics.
The Daillou shooting was a big mistep because Rudy should have, in most people's opinions, played that as a tragedy and shown more sympathy. But he's a prick. Fortunately for him, people would rather back a prick on their side that a prick siding with the liberties and rights of thugs (Sharpton, Pinch Sulzberger, etc.)

Posted by Chris Ford | November 23, 2007 3:40 PM

Rudy doesn't have more legitimate experience than Hillary. He held elected office for eight years, with no foreign policy experience -- irrespective of what you think of photo-ops with Togolese statesmen and Hong Kong financiers. Hil's been a part of the national legislature for more than seven years, with significant time served on Senate committees for armed services and EPW. Part of the reason NY loves her (she polled nearly 60% of the vote in last year's midterm elex), is because she fought to clean up the messes and health perils in The Pit, which Rudy helped to sweep under the rug on behalf of W's corrupt admin. (Plus she participated in hundreds of official state visits during her time as First Lady. Which happened to be a time when America WASN'T slouching toward international pariah status.)

Sorry, Chris. It's clear that you just like Rudy better. No shame in that; there must be dozens, maybe even hundreds of people across America who share your sentiments. But don't spout fantasies as though they were facts just because, "like ... err ..." Hillary's husband had sex and lied about it.

Plus, he has a solid executive leadership as a mob-boss and Wall Sreet Kleptocrat nightmare ...

Much as I loathe poking fun at others' writing, that one is just too hi-fucking-larious to ignore, Chris.

Posted by Jamey | November 23, 2007 4:10 PM

I think you need to understand what executive leadership is.

"Executive leadership" = two words that have such a broad scope of reference as to be irrelevant in this context.

It just doesn't follow that being in charge of one type of enterprise provides us with any idea of how someone would perform in charge of a different kind of enterprise. Would Bill Gates make a good mayor of Seattle? Would Tony La Russa do a good job as coach of the Lakers? Would Bill Clinton be a good high school principal? Who knows?

There are innumerable types of human enterprises; success at being in charge of one type doesn't really tell us anything about the prospects for success at another type. However, the more the enterprises that one has run in the past resemble the enterprise one wishes to run in the future, the better a predictor your past success will be. While we might hesitate to elect Bill Gates mayor, he might very well be a good choice to run a new software company. Etc.

I would argue that a governorship, in most states, is more like the presidency than a mayoralty is. Being mayor of NYC may be a lot harder than being governor of Arkansas, but that doesn't tell us much - being CEO of Microsoft might be more difficult than being POTUS, but that doesn't mean we should elect Bill Gates president.

At any rate, experience is overrated when it comes to presidential elections. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise - my point was that Rudy seems largely to be running on his record as mayor of NYC, a record which consists mostly of a drop in crime (which Rudy claims he caused, and others claim he witnessed) and seeming emotional when the WTC was attacked. Neither of these things gives us any reason to think he'd be a good president.

His problem, of course, is that it's all he really has. If elections were based on policy, he wouldn't make it out of the primaries (abortion, immigration) and even if he did he'd get plastered in the general (health care, Iraq). So he has to fall back on his mayoralty and the celebrity it bestowed upon him.

(Has any political figure in history been luckier than Rudy Giuliani? If not for 9/11, he would be all but forgotten by now. He certainly wouldn't be a plausible candidate for the GOP nomination.)

Posted by Jason C. | November 23, 2007 4:20 PM

The threads around here have really become incredibly unpleasant. Time for moderation maybe?

Posted by Mark | November 23, 2007 5:38 PM

Matt can just start banning people like his mentor Josh Marshall does.

Of course, it will be interesting to see who gets banned.

Will it be the raving lunatics like Ford? The genocidal anti-Palestinians like SLC? The torture fanatics like Mixner (and Ford again)? The rabid conservatives like Powell?

Or the "anti-Semites who despise Jews" (as Josh Marshall would call me), i.e., anybody criticizing Israel?

Or the people who complain about Matt's typos, incoherent posts, and piss-poor grammar or who criticize McMegan?

Inquiring minds want to know - or maybe not...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 23, 2007 9:56 PM

Go back to VDARE, Fred.

Posted by Peter H | November 24, 2007 7:07 AM

Richard, if Josh Marshall thinks you have a jew problem, that's probably pretty good evidence that you have a jew problem.

Posted by DRR | November 25, 2007 12:42 AM