Will voting for Democrats increase violent crime?

These are the facts:

Since 1990, violent crime in the United States is down at least 33 percent.

Violent crime decreased the most over two periods during the last 30 years:

1) Between 1992 and 2000 (1.9 million violent crimes in 1992 down to 1.4 million violent crimes in 2000), and
2) Between 2007 and 2015 (1.4 million violent crimes in 2007 down to 1.2 million violent crimes in 2015).

You can see these and other U.S. violent crime statistics here.

Over the same period, violent crime in U.S. cities also decreased at a sharp rate. For example: Violent crime in cities like Los Angeles, New York City, and Washington, D.C., dropped between 75 and 87 percent from its peak in 1991. For more statistics on violent crime in U.S. cities, go here.

Note: The two periods in which violent crime dropped the most in the last 30 years coincide with Democratic presidential administrations.

I use the word “coincide” on purpose. A president cannot claim too much credit. Most of the credit belongs to local government.

However, any claim that electing a Democrat to the presidency would lead to an explosion in violent crime simply ignores the facts. Those facts show that, over the last 30 years, Democrats presided over the biggest drops in violent crime.

Republicans deserve credit, too. Violent crime held steady during the George W. Bush administration and it dropped slightly in the first two years of the Donald Trump administration. Republicans controlled Congress for more than half of the last 30 years.

Here is my point: A person has to ignore the facts if he or she wants to claim that electing Democrats will increase violent crime.

Plenty of credit is due to both Democrat and Republican elected officials–local, state, and federal–for the remarkable decrease in violent crime since 1991. Most of the credit is due to nonpartisan bureaucrats, community leaders, front line workers, nonprofit leaders, criminal justice and law enforcement professionals, and scholars who do the day-to-day work of preventing violent crime. Federal policy is important, but local action is key.

For a closer look at 16 theories for why crime dropped so much in the last 30 years, read this article from Vox.

If we want to keep violent crime on the decline in the United States, we have to first arm ourselves with facts. Violent crime is a “wicked problem”, so there is no way to really “solve” it forever. The best we can do is try things, observe what happens (facts), and make adjustments as we go.

What does this mean?

First, it means we need to follow the facts rather than whatever story political partisans make up. Buying into a partisan political fantasy will cause us to ignore facts. And those facts are crucial to helping us find real solutions to the problem.

Second, if we really care about decreasing violent crime, we have to admit that both sides likely have some claim to the truth. People who lean left tend to say that law enforcement is not the only way to decrease violent crime. We need to address crime’s root problems. People who lean right tend to say that the law is the law and we need to equip and support those who enforce it (otherwise people lose respect for the law).

We need to let ourselves see that both sides are right.

Third, we all want the same thing. I don’t know anyone who wants to be a criminal or who wants to live among criminals. From the inner city to small town America, just about everyone wants to be a productive member of society and to live in a safe place.

As a nation–Democrats, Republicans, and everyone in between–we can be proud and thankful for how we decreased violent crime over the last 30 years. Let’s not throw away what got us here.