The Case Against Imposing Middle Class Values Robert Weissberg
A strange debate over policing is currently occurring in many large cities. On one side are defenders of “broken windows” policing—cracking down on “little things” like public urination, aggressive panhandling, graffiti, sleeping in doorways and multiple similar offenses which will ultimately reduce more serious offenses. Specifically, a would-be armed robber feels free to commit his crime when he sees a neighborhood rife with vandalism, garbage on the street etc. Moreover, arresting those who don’t pay their bus or subway fares or otherwise commit minor crimes helps apprehend miscreants wanted for more serious offenses.
Nevertheless, crime reduction successes aside, there is growing pressure to roll back broken windows, especially in poor black and Hispanic neighborhoods. In some instances the call is for less aggressive policing—cops should just ignore sleeping drunks in doorways and reduce “stop and frisk.” In New York City, however, the anti-broken windows sentiment focuses on the laws themselves. The police currently ignore those possessing 25 grams or less of marijuana. And further reductions are in the works as the City Council debates downgrading several “quality of life” laws, notably public urination, excessive noise and littering, into civil, not criminal offenses and with reduced penalties.
One argument against aggressive enforcement is that it over-burdens the courts while multiplying potentially troubling resident/police encounters. But more pressing is that “nuisance” law enforcement disproportionally penalizes blacks and Hispanics. After all, few rich whites deal pot in public parks or jump subway turnstiles. In a sense, enforcing broken windows policing is part of a larger effort to equalize an allegedly racially unfair judicial system, for example, reducing the stiff penalties for crack cocaine (favored by African Americans) versus lighter punishment for the powdered cocaine used by whites.
Why would anybody prefer a disorderly environment that breeds more serious criminal behavior? Who wants to stroll through a park filled with small-time drug dealers, snoozing drunks and confrontational beggars?
Let me suggest an awkward, almost unspeakable answer to this question: “quality of life” standards differ across American society and an insufferable public nuisance for some is tolerable for others. Arguing about broken windows is part of our ongoing culture war debate. In particular, critics of broken windows insist that the policy, as currently applied, rests on white middle-class values and they are correct. One only has to observe life in cities populated by large numbers of underclass African Americans, e.g., Detroit, Newark, and East St. Louis among others. Here there is no clamor for broken windows policing and it almost seems that resident want to live in an environment filled with low-level crime, graffiti, open drug dealing and all the rest targeted by broken windows policing. Conversely, enforcing broken windows is irrelevant in upscale largely white communities like Scarsdale NY.
That many blacks and Hispanics are unenthusiastic about aggressive policing hardly suggests a preference for this disorder. Rather, law enforcement inexorably involves trade-offs and given a choice of witnessing corner drug deals versus incarcerating scores of locals for lengthy prison terms, the former typically outshines the latter. This preference can be rational– if every law were enforced in these poverty stricken neighborhoods, many residents might risk frequent unpleasant police confrontations.
Now for the large and politically awkward issue: enforcing laws against petty offenses reflects only one of many deep cultural differences. But, admitting this fact opens a Pandora’s Box of the first order.
For example, should every child satisfy tough middle-class educational standards? Yes, a solid education offers considerable economic pay-off, but surely schooling is not particularly central for millions of Americans. Why else must we spend millions on anti-drop-out efforts? Similarly, why should Washington insist that everyone heed its advice on living a healthy life-style, resisting obesity or otherwise imitate behavior largely embraced by the educated middle class? Nor is there a prima fascia case that everyone should adhere to middle class morality regarding illegitimacy or illegal drugs use. This out-of-sight live and let live mentality is hardly new–many cities have historically tolerated illegal prostitution and gambling but only in certain clearly defined districts
The basic argument here is that Washington has increasingly wasted billions on futile efforts at social engineering whose moral justification reflects only a middle class perspective and failure only begets even greater fiscal wastefulness. The parallel might be squandering billions on nation building—transforming Afghanistan into Switzerland. This is not a celebration of libertarianism per se; the argument is a practical one: there is no point in trying to alter tenacious—conceivably genetically hard-wired– habits that have successfully resisted countless government programs.
As government lurches from one failed social engineering program from the next it might be helpful to remember a similar failed enterprise from the 19th century—assimilating millions of Native Americans following the multiple Indian Wars in which every Indian tribe lost. The consensus back then was that “something should be done” about these defeated, often demoralized warriors and Washington tried everything from harsh efforts at assimilation (Indian schools) to the benign neglect of tribal reservations. Alas, failures at coerced assimilation into the dominant (white) culture far out-numbered successes and government eventually surrendered to reality. Many Native Americans now live in squalor and disproportionately suffer from alcoholism and mental illness, but these conditions—as horrible as they are—are largely ignored in today’s politics. They are accepted as largely intractable—Native Americans are not malleable human clay who can be fixed up with yet one more government intervention.
In short, the resistance to broken windows policing offer a lesson on the limits of imposing behavior on people who reject many middle class norms. Yes, stamping out public drunkenness enhances “quality of life” for many but not for all and perhaps it should be tolerated in some neighborhoods but not others. It is foolish and financially wasteful to force-feed people an alien culture. It may be painful to admit, but the Big Apple’s City Council radicals have a point about rolling back failed social engineering. If locals don’t mind their neighbors drinking beer in the park or asking for handouts, let it be.
Comments are closed.
