July 12, 2016

Trump's law-and-order appeal will be real, but not as high as Nixon's

With the return of 1960s-level civil conflict, various people are comparing Trump's law-and-order appeal to Nixon's in 1968 and '72. They are similar, but different enough to not get our hopes up about this issue giving Trump as much popularity as it did to Nixon.

There are two separate cycles going on: 1) societal cohesion, where periods of collective violence alternate with periods of collective harmony; and 2) individual opportunistic crime, where we see rising and falling rates of homicide, rape, etc.

Peter Turchin has described the cycles in societal cohesion, which show a 50-year period between high points (and between low points). The last low point was circa 1970, when there were race riots, students descending on the Pentagon to blow it up, labor strikes, and so on and so forth. The previous low point was circa 1920, which also saw even worse race riots, labor wars, and violent anti-war activism. Before that, it was the Civil War and Reconstruction Era of circa 1870.

That suggests a new low point will be reached circa 2020 -- of course, it could happen a little sooner or a little later. But we're already seeing the outlines of it, with black racial grievances taking collective and violent form against the government, although no real youth / student movement, no anti-war movement, and no labor uprising. Leading up to the November election, there won't be nearly the same level of collective civil conflict that there was by November 1968, let alone '72.

As for the rate of violent crimes that are individual and opportunistic (rather than collective and ideological), it has been falling steadily since a peak in 1992. It looked to have plateaued in the 2000s, but has dropped continually through this decade. The same goes for property crimes (burglary, theft, etc.).

In 1968, by contrast, violent and property crime rates had been soaring for nearly a decade.

Nixon was therefore appealing not only to those who were sick with how close the society felt to civil war, but also to those who were sick of having to watch their back when they left the house to run errands, and coming home to find it burglarized.

In 2016, the rise of ethnic group violence from blacks lashing out at the white government is becoming more and more worrisome to normal voters. If more of the Islamic terrorists turn out to be American residents rather than 9/11 style invaders, then that too will provide another example of collective violence by aggrieved ethnic minorities.

Still, it hasn't spread to students and anti-war activists setting off bombs, or striking workers defending their picket lines with force against scabs. And people have never felt safer from crime -- they have almost no stories about robbery, burglary, let alone rape and murder, that are circulating through their social circles, compared to how commonplace it was during the last crime wave.

Trump's appeal to law-and-order themes will be real, especially when running against someone who is not only weak on this issue, but broadcasts and even brags about her weakness -- which normal people will interpret as only likely to worsen the situation, as the violent groups smell fear among political leaders and really go in for the kill.

But we shouldn't think that these themes will be as important for voters now as they were in 1968 and '72, when the situation was a lot worse for both individual and collective violence.

20 comments:

  1. Probably right, but we'll see how things are by November. I lived through the late 60's - early 70's, and this is all looking awfully familiar. Crime probably won't go as high this time, because society is much more hardened against it, what with security systems, concealed carry, mobile phones and the like, (in the mid-1960's as the Great Crime Wave really got going, there was actually a PSA telling people to take the keys out of their car's ignition when they parked it! I'm not making this up, suburban whites really were that naive), but it will go higher, and mass immigration, not really an issue in 1968-72 will add a new dimension. Interseting times ahead...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fleshing out more what violence was like 100 years ago would be helpful because I have an incredible strong sense that the Big Money liberal ruling class is trying to recreate the 60s, but are failing because it isn't the 60s.
    They saw some things that reminded them of those halcyon days* like, for example, rising black nationalism (but ignoring all the other nationalisms which was very NOT 60s).

    To that specific point of racial animosity, as has been said elsewhere, BLM is at least Soros-funded to the tune of at least 33 million. And of course, other parts of the Progressive Inc. machine are helping, like the media.
    Best I can tell, they've achieved exactly the opposite of their goals with regards to the police, sending cop-support levels into the stratosphere. The only thing it looks like they've accomplished for themselves is even stronger sanctification and more glorified hagiography of Blacks amongst liberals.

    *Jeffrey Goldberg even went so far as to say BLM would be remembered like the civil rights activists of the 60s... Girls getting bombed in church and Churched-black folks having hoses turned on them not exactly what I'm reminded me of, lol!

    Back to the original point, the 60s didn't have any Battle of Blair Mountains and once again liberals are making a huge mistake seeing (and trying to recreate) the 60s.

    ReplyDelete
  3. BioCultBeamDelta7/12/16, 9:48 AM

    That's too bad. We need things to get as bad as possible. That's the only way Americans will start listening to us. We need to be able to say, "we told you so."

    ReplyDelete
  4. A sober perspective. I don't remember the 1960s-1970s insurgency, so this is new and exciting. The altered demographic picture today may prove a key variable in the current situation. We'll see how it plays out.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I wonder how the Bernvictims feel about his endorsement of crooked Hillary.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I've hypothesized today that the Left actually might be --in certain pockets, mind you, not en masse--actually be agitating for increased black violence this summer, for several separate reasons.

    First, most basically, parts of the Left believe that a Great Proletariat Revolution is just around the corner, and it only needs a spark to ignite it. Black violence---the Most Oppressed, according to the Left--should lead it, and therefore pushing black violence will hasten Marxist End Times/Paradise.

    But, more deviously, I think some Leftist operatives are worried that Trump will win, especially after Britain's Brexit showed that immigration is a election-carrying issue. So by encouraging black violence---not hard to do for the Soros-bought agitators----we take immigration off the front page, by making black crime, not Hispanci crime, and not Muslim terrorism, the #1 political issue of the election. That would neutralize Trump's big issues of immigration, national borders, immigrant crime (blacks are natives), and Islamic terrorism.

    GIves Hillary a bigger fighting chance, especially if Obama and she can set up a few photo ops of her holding hands with black leaders (all Dems) leading the protests, while Trump is seen being attacked/holding rallies during riots.

    The visual becomes: Hillary can calm racial tensions, Trump only exacerbates them.

    Call me cynical, but I see that as something Soros, the Clintons, Zuckerberg, Carville, Obama, Shaprton, et al. would be willing and able to do. They've already wrecked Chicago, Ferguson, Baltimore, et al. with their hate. Wrecking the rest of the country with black violence for a summer for a political win in November --that doesn't seem like something they'd be adverse to or incapable of.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The demographics have changed too much. I'm sure a lot of immigrants would normally be law and order voters, but I doubt they'd vote for the implicitly white party.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 'Call me cynical, but I see that as something Soros, the Clintons, Zuckerberg, 'Carville, Obama, Shaprton, et al. would be willing and able to do.'

    Good Lord, no one would call you cynical, of course they would. I mean Soros is already trying to blot out European civilization, you think that he would stop at a few hundred dead Americans? These people are utterly ruthless, and some of them hate us more than we can even imagine. Personally, I don't think that it will work, most actual black people think that BLM are a bunch of idiots, no matter how much they may resent the police, but certainly Soros et. al will try.

    ReplyDelete
  9. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/12/cnn_panel_devolves_into_shouting_when_blacklivesmatter_supporter_rejects_statistics_on_race_and_crime.html

    Must see TV. How dare actual facts be used in debate. "We" can't let reality disrupt the never ending struggle to make white people look and feel like complete crap at all times. The black "professor" (e.g. professional racialist and diversity mascot) demanded that the white ex-cop repent for his un-PC sin. Funny thing is, he used the word "intellectual" at the beginning. After he was piqued by the white guy, he didn't even bother engaging in a level-headed or rational rebutal of the white guy. Instead, he became combative and basically said that one cannot say on national TV that blacks are prone to crime. Period.

    Only the most glib white liberal would say that the black dude won. The white guy had facts (from a good source); the black guy shouted and tried to intimidate and suppress. Being used to white people acting like pussies, he must've been shocked that this white man turned hard ass and didn't back down.

    The host could've been a lot worse. He did defend the police to a degree, and instead of attacking the white man as a horrible racist, he more or less acknowledged the crime disparities albeit he clearly was establishing an "I'm not a racist" alibi by citing black poverty as a reason for crime rates.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "The demographics have changed too much. I'm sure a lot of immigrants would normally be law and order voters, but I doubt they'd vote for the implicitly white party."

    Sure, California (the greatest prize) is totally fucked. But America isn't South Africa or nothin'. Huge pockets of the US remain heavily white. Blacks are incapable of ever taking over anything outside Florida and the fevered lowland Deep South(blacks can't feed themselves or keep themselves warm in areas that fall below freezing habitually in Nov-March, which is what happens in 95% of America outside of California/Florida.

    Thus far, Asians seem fairly intimidated by the more rooted whites east of the Mississippi. A map was made from a survey, wish I could find it right now, that showed that the "least racist" (most cucked and rootless) whites were in the mountain states and Pac. NW. On the other hand, the plains and California were moderately "racist" while the South, the Rust Belt midwest, the Mid-Atlantic, and New England were the most "racist". Which areas voted for Trump?

    Mexicans are showing similar patterns as Asians. There are just too many whites outside Cali/Florida/Tex/the Deep South right now to justify having a defeatist attitude. Outside of the heavily non-white and liberal basket case of Cali., and the mountain flake belt, it wouldn't shock me to see the eventual passage/enforcement of laws designed to keep blacks in line. Also, anti crowding measures/employee dignity protections that would make it tougher for Asians/Mestizos to form swarms that swallow up whites and blacks who don't tolerate diseased and cruel conditions.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "What can’t be argued is that blacks have been hurt tremendously by the relentless importation of cheap labor for menial work. How ironic, then, that blacks are loyal to a Democratic Party that has robbed them of employment and dignity. Liberal immigration policies harm blacks more than anybody.

    In theory, blacks can leave the heavy lifting, garbage and grease behind, attend college then glide into the financial or tech sectors of our “new economy.” They can follow the lead of Marvel’s new Iron Man, a 15-year-old black girl who is a tech genius and graduate of MIT. Outside the superhero universe, less competitive people of any color or age are lucky to snare a minimum wage job at McDonald’s or Chick-fil-A."

    Hey Obama, the real discussion we need to have on race is that Talented Tenth blacks and white liberals never acknowledge how disadvantaged blacks are in a very diverse society. Mexicans are more compliant and slightly smarter, Asians can grind their way to competence if not always excellence in fields not reliant on verbal judo (like law or entertainment) if society permits their presence.

    There would be enough tension with just blacks and whites. Why further complicate things?

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Sure, California (the greatest prize) is totally fucked."

    No, it's not. Huge swathes of California remain White, others remain totally empty. Silicon Valley and Silicon Beach are predominantly White. The Mexican population is transient.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Another crucial point about how less severe 2016 is compared to 1968 -- no assassinations of major political figures (knock on wood).

    MLK was shot in April, then Bobby Kennedy (promising Dem primary candidate) in June.

    Bernie narrowly avoided death-by-trap-door on that podium in New Hampshire. And a few people have tried to attack Trump at rallies. But no actual assassinations.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Sure, California (the greatest prize) is totally fucked."

    No, it's not. Huge swathes of California remain White, others remain totally empty. Silicon Valley and Silicon Beach are predominantly White. The Mexican population is transient.

    Electorally it is. Texas and Florida, though full of transplants and non-whites, are still reasonably conservative. A lot of conservative whites have fled Cali, which remains a primary destination for liberal strivers. Both Texas and Cali have historically had influxes of Mexicans, but the difference between the two is that Texas is much more religious and macho at present. Cali used to be more like this but massive waves of Democrat friendly non-regular Americans (be they striving white liberals, Asian drones, deep voiced men with gold chains from the middle East or ex-Soviet Union, or bottom of the barrel Mexicans) have totally flipped Cali to the Democrats.

    Not sure about your sports interest or age, but do ya remember Dan Gladden, who played for the Twins when they won the series in 1991 and whose drawl can be heard as a Twins annoucer? If not him, I'm sure you know who Mark McGuire is, right? Both of these guys are Okie type California redheads who represent old school Southern/Central Cali. There aren't enough of these guys left relative to the Democrat hordes that have invaded.

    It would take a really bold stand to somehow re calibrate the culture and demos of Cali. But I don't think any West Coast figure has it in them. We'd have to see federal intervention, I'm afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I wouldn't judge California too much by its electorate -- they have one of the lowest turnout rates for Presidential elections, therefore even more pathetic turnout for state / local elections.

    California is a latter-day plantation, both literally (agribusiness) and figuratively (Silicon Valley), with some of the most disgusting levels of inequality. In those conditions, it's the elites who have any interests being represented, and who will turn out to vote.

    The middle and working class are left in the lurch, and don't vote. They want populism that is either liberal or neutral on social/cultural issues. Dems don't deliver because they're corporate elitists, and so are Republicans but are also conservative to make matters worse.

    It's too bad Trump seems to be giving up on the West Coast -- there's real potential there, especially Oregon, and the risk is worth the reward in California. Maybe they agree but don't think there's enough time to get the attention of all those disaffected Californians, and then mobilize them on Election Day.

    That ought to be a major short-term goal over the next four years, then. There's no reason that it can't be flipped by 2020, particularly with all the illegals being deported in the meantime.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The Lutheran Belt is easier to judge by its electorate because turnout is so high (over 70% for Presidential elections). The class pyramid is more egalitarian, and the voters more representative of the population. Also much more racial homogeneity.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I've met some SE Asian types (here the Texas/LA gulf coast) who are fairly conservative, not sure if that has/will translate to voting patterns, we did have a Vietnamese immigrant Republican congressman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BioCultBeamDelta7/13/16, 9:06 AM

      I thought we didn't want America to become Latin America OR Asia.

      Delete
  18. "Another crucial point about how less severe 2016 is compared to 1968 -- no assassinations of major political figures (knock on wood)."

    Knock on wood, indeed. It's only July. Up until a week ago, you could have said "well, at least there have been no mass cop-killings, like back in '68". The situation is developing, and while it's not as bad as '68 yet, let us see what the Conventions bring.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "I thought we didn't want America to become Latin America OR Asia."
    No, we need to end immigration from both, but I don't mind the ones who are already here contributing.

    ReplyDelete

You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."