Krugman: Trump’s made-up ‘Kamala crime wave’ not supported by data

I was mugged in Cambridge, Mass., back in 1979. I wasn’t hurt; I matter-of-factly handed over my wallet, and that was that. But I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t rattled, and from then on I was a bit more careful about where I walked, especially after dark.

I tell this story now only to say that I’m old enough to remember from personal experience what it was like when many of America’s cities really were dangerous — and I don’t need official crime statistics to know that they’re much safer now. I live in New York these days, and I never hesitate to strike out on foot or, say, take the subway home from a late-night concert at the Bowery Ballroom.

As it happens, though, the official numbers match my perception. In 2023, there were 83% fewer robberies in New York than in 1990. Murder declined by roughly the same percentage. Oh, and homicides have fallen substantially since 2021 despite a large influx of migrants. Violent crime trends at a national level haven’t been quite as pronounced, but overall the murder rate in 2023 was far lower than it was in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s.

Which brings us, of course, to Donald Trump.

False claims

The Republican National Convention devoted a whole day to the theme “Make America Safe Again.” Last week, as part of his effort at counterprogramming as the Democrats formally nominate Kamala Harris, Trump held an event near Detroit that was supposed to be devoted to crime and safety, in which he asserted that we’re in the midst of a “Kamala crime wave,” with crime at levels “nobody has ever seen before.” In big cities “almost all run by Democrats,” he claimed, “you can’t walk across the street to get a loaf of bread. You get shot. You get mugged. You get raped.”

Astoundingly false claims, even for him.

Also on Tuesday, The Detroit News reported that the Trump campaign had agreed to participate in an interview, but “after the newspaper began asking about the Michigan crime data before the event, a campaign aide said the presidential candidate no longer had time for an interview.”

It’s not hard to see why. Detroit’s homicide rate is much higher than that in New York, which despite its reputation is remarkably safe. But the homicide rate in Detroit was lower in 2021 and 2022 than it was in 2020, and it dropped sharply in 2023. Clearly, Trump would have found a data-driven discussion awkward.

OK, you may say, what else is new? Trump says a lot of things that aren’t true, so what’s different about his claims on crime?

Well, I’d argue that his crime fearmongering differs from his campaigning over inflation and immigration in at least two ways.

First, Trump’s views on crime aren’t merely distortions or exaggerations; they’re completely divorced from reality. There really was an inflation surge during President Joe Biden’s first two years in office; although inflation has subsided, Americans are still upset about high prices. There really was a surge in illegal border crossings, although those, too, have recently subsided.

But as for a spike in violent crime, it took place on Trump’s watch, then went away.

Second, Trump’s crime obsession has been especially long-standing. His 2017 inaugural address said nothing about inflation and less than you’d have expected about immigration. But its most memorable phrase, “American carnage,” was about a crime wave that, then as now, he misleadingly and almost gleefully hypes.

Competing visions

So where’s the crime alarmism coming from? I don’t think it’s just cynical politics.

There’s an element of racism, of course (remember Trump’s 2015 rant about Mexico sending us rapists?). But there’s also an attitude that doesn’t have a standard name, but which I — showing my age, I guess — think of as Rizzoism, after Frank Rizzo, the hard-line mayor of Philadelphia from 1972 to 1980, who was in some ways a proto-Trump.

The essence of Rizzoism, as I see it, is the belief that crime flourishes because we’re too lenient on criminals or people we think might be criminals, and that the way to make our cities safer is to treat criminals as harshly as possible. It leads to the belief that crime must be soaring if politicians aren’t being sufficiently punitive, whatever the numbers may say.

Now, Rizzoism didn’t really work in Philadelphia nor, as far as I know, is it the right formula elsewhere. Smart policing, not harsher punishment, seems to be how you reduce crime. But Rizzoism undeniably appeals to a significant number of voters.

I’ve heard commentators say that the Republican convention was about fear, while the Democrats have been talking a lot about hope. But I don’t think that quite captures it. What I see is that fear — specifically, fear that a Trump victory might signal the end of American democracy as we’ve known it — is, to a large extent, the secret of Democrats’ unusual unity.

The real difference, I’d argue, is between a party mainly interested in expanding the extent to which the government helps people and a party that, while it talks about American greatness, seems especially motivated by the desire to inflict more punishment on those it deems threats.

And I guess we’re going to find out in November which vision has the greater appeal.

Paul Krugman is a New York Times columnist.