Latest news with #nationalize
Washington Post
11-08-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
What does Trump's takeover mean for D.C.?
You're reading the Prompt 2025 newsletter. Sign up to get it in your inbox. Welcome to the martial state! On Monday, President Donald Trump announced that he would nationalize the D.C. police and deploy the D.C. National Guard in the city, an extraordinary escalation in his attempt to confront what he calls the 'complete and total lawlessness' inside the nation's capital. I'm joined by my colleagues Megan McArdle and Jason Willick to discuss this moment in D.C. history. — Robert Gebelhoff, editorial writer 💬 💬 💬 Robert Gebelhoff Trump probably has the legal power to do this (pulling from authority laid out in the Home Rule Act of 1973, which gave D.C. limited autonomy). So, let's talk about whether he should be doing this. Is it justified, or just political theater? Megan McArdle Crime in D.C. is falling, but it is still outrageously high. That has enormous costs not just to victims, but to the people who have to take precautions against it, whether installing an alarm system, as we did last year, putting bars on their windows, or avoiding certain areas. It also takes a toll on the city's economy, driving tourists away and encouraging suburbanites to get out of the city after dark. So, I'm very sympathetic to Trump's desire to get things under control. That said, I am skeptical that deploying the National Guard is a solution, and the way Jeanine Pirro was talking about the problem — charge more teenagers as adults! Lock 'em up and throw away the key! — recaps the failed anti-crime politics of the 1990s. Jason Willick I'd also note that some people might dispute his legal authority here. The statute requires that he make a finding that an emergency exists. If crime is at its usual levels (even if too high), one could argue that it is not an emergency. I wouldn't be surprised if D.C. sues. But I think Trump will prevail, because the way the law is written hinges on his discretion. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Rob That's a fair point, Jason. And I'm similarly skeptical about whether this will work, Megan. I do think having military members with guns walking around deters crime, but this is no long-term solution. Megan Yes, we have better ways to address crime than giving 14-year-olds adult sentences. We need to punish more consistently, not more harshly, which means more police on the streets and more state capacity to deliver quick justice. Jason I'd zoom out a bit. Police power is the most fundamental aspect of state sovereignty. Trump is making a display of taking control over D.C. I don't think he's thinking so deeply about the actual mechanics of crime control. In his proclamations implementing this, he basically says the federal government must have sovereignty over D.C. to function. That attacks the idea of 'home rule' implemented here in 1973. Rob Is he right? Should the federal government have more sovereignty over the city? Certainly many Republicans in Congress agree with that. Jason And Democrats think the opposite. D.C. statehood, of course, would prevent the president from taking control of the local police force. Trump is a genius polarizer. My guess is that this will cause Democrats to redouble their push for D.C. statehood — a national issue because it would change the power balance in the Senate. My view has always been that the best solution for D.C.'s quasi-self-government problem is to give the parts not directly around federal buildings to Maryland. Megan My preference would be for D.C.'s government to treat public order as the primary public good they provide. They've gotten better in recent years, but the levels of disorder and crime are still entirely unacceptable. If you don't have clean, safe streets, you don't have anything else: Your schools won't work, your economy won't work, your citizens will flee. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Rob On that point, city officials have been pretty indignant about Trump's moves. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson noted that crime in the city is at 30-year lows, and has been falling in the past few years. Are they wrong to be defensive? Jason It's a fair logical point, but it misses how Trump simply wants control. And that current conditions might be unpopular even if they are not an emergency. Rob That's certainly true. People don't care too much about the actual crime statistics. They see crime and disorder and don't feel safe. City officials can't wish that away. This is an issue that Democrats have struggled with for a long time. What should be their response strategy here? Megan In 2024, D.C. had 187 homicides. That is, thankfully, lower than 274 in 2023. But it is still extremely high! New York City, with more than 10 times D.C.'s population, had 382 during the same period. People rightfully resist this. Democrats should come up with a serious crime-control strategy that doesn't involve the National Guard and also doesn't involve promising, falsely, that crime will fall on its own after we've solved every other social problem. National Democrats have moved in this direction, as have mayors in blue cities facing voter revolts. Rob Does that mean Pirro is right? Democratic officials should go harder on offenders, including teens? Megan Criminals are what psychologists call 'hyperbolic discounters,' which is a fancy way of saying they don't think much about the future and just grab what they can in the present. Amping the possible punishment up from five years to 10 years doesn't get you much. What criminals do respond to is a very high likelihood of getting caught and punished right now. That's especially true of kids. D.C. is not giving them certainty of punishment, both because we don't clear enough crimes and because we tend to go light on kids who do get arrested. Jason Crime control is usually a political decision by states and localities. D.C. is more liberal than most places, so it decided on this more lenient approach to crime. Trump wants to overturn that decision because he doesn't like the balance D.C. has struck. He thinks the federal government's interest in an orderly city should take precedence over D.C.'s democratically expressed preferences. Rob One last question: How should Mayor Muriel E. Bowser proceed? This is a fraught moment for her politically and for the city's autonomy. There are a lot of residents who want her to resist Trump, but I doubt that's the wise path forward. Megan Ask for more money for more cops, zero tolerance for homeless encampments and public drug use, and get the D.C. Council to revise probation and diversion terms to require home monitoring and home confinement. Jason She has avoided the resistance tack thus far. But look where it got her! She will presumably need to oppose the commandeering of D.C.'s police while appearing to take crime seriously. That will take some finesse. And it will depend a lot on how well-executed Trump's takeover is.
Forbes
23-07-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Economics And The New Left
Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani seriously proposes disastrous policies. The election of Zohran Mamdani as the Democratic candidate for mayor of New York City has conventional Democrats reeling, and most of the rest of the world greatly puzzled. Mamdani calls himself 'socialist.' He has mused that we might be better off without private property, that it might be desirable for government to own all the housing, and that we should probably nationalize the 'means of production.' Given the disastrous experience with these ideas in the 20th century in Russia, China, North Korea and Cuba, how could anyone in the 21st century seriously consider them? Here is some background. There are almost no Marxists in the world today who have a basic understanding of mainstream economics. It's not just that they haven't bothered to master the discipline. It's worse. They don't believe in economic theory at all. With few exceptions, they view mainstream economics as little more than an apology for capitalism. It was not always so. Marx himself was a rigorous student of economics – who was heavily influenced by such classical economists as Adam Smith and David Ricardo. In the early 20th century, many economists treated socialism as a workable economics system. In 1929, Fred Taylor, in his American Economic Association presidential address, laid out the conditions under which a socialist economy could, in theory, achieve an efficient allocation of resources. These ideas were championed by such economists as Abba Lerner and Oscar Lange, among others. For the first half of the 20th century, economists rejected the Marxist view of the world. But a great many of them viewed socialism as a system that could actually work. As the century moved on, we began to get examples of socialism in practice. These were systems governed by dictators who were too busy maintaining power by killing their enemies to be bothered by achieving 'an efficient allocation of resources.' According to the best estimates, the Nazi government killed close to 21 million civilians. Roughly 70 million citizens were killed in the USSR, mainly by Stalin. And 35 million Chinese were killed, mainly by Mao Tse-tung. R. J. Rummel estimates that close to 170 million people were killed by their own governments in the 20th century. The vast majority of all these deaths were the crimes of socialist governments. How did the economies of these systems work (when people weren't being killed or starved to death)? In Marx's view of capitalism, the capitalists captured a surplus value created by workers. The capitalists then lived in luxury while the workers lived at the subsistence level. Ironically, this is exactly what happened in socialist systems, except it was not the capitalists who were living in luxury. It was the socialist rulers. This pattern of rulers living in luxury, while the populace as a whole lives in poverty, and rule is maintained by threats of torture and death has been repeated in this century under socialist regimes in North Korea, Cuba and more recently Venezuela. Meanwhile, people on the left have long since lost interest in the efficient allocation of resources or in any other idea that would cause them to master basic economic concepts. Poll the people who attended the last Democratic National Convention, and you would probably find that most of them think that if a price is too high the government should push it down and nothing bad will happen. Similarly, they think that if a price is too low, the government should push it up and nothing bad will happen. After all, if you think that the reason for high prices or low wages is greed, when government pushes back the only thing that will suffer is greed itself. Put differently, the modern left does not think market prices serve any socially useful function. As for Mamdani, he has advocated specific reforms that any freshman taking Econ 101 should be able to see through in a jiff. Among them: rent control, a doubling of the minimum wage to $30 an hour and government-run grocery stores. The economist Paul Krugman, a well-known liberal, has noted that economists are virtually unanimous in believing that one of Mamdani's key proposals, rent control, reduces housing opportunities and leads to deterioration in the quality of housing units. (Check out his textbook on the issue.) Krugman's textbook is also quite good in explaining why minimum wage laws destroy job opportunities. While some economists believe that small increases in the minimum wage may not be that harmful, almost no economist believes that large increases won't cause unemployment. In what appears to be the largest increase in history, California recently raised its minimum wage from $15 to $20. The result: a loss of 18,000 fast food jobs. And you don't need to take a course in economics to know that the idea that government can run a grocery store more efficiently than the private sector is self-evidently silly. The real puzzle is not why there are candidates espousing foolish ideas. The real puzzle is: Why aren't economists more vocal in their condemnation of ideas that defy what all economists know? Following the New York City primary, Paul Krugman wrote, 'I was enormously cheered by Mamdani's victory.' Go figure.
