The decline of lead poisoning in children eventually led to a huge reduction in crime rates between 1990 and 2010. It took a while for prison populations to follow suit, but eventually they did too. Rick Nevin sends along the latest numbers for teen incarceration rates among males:
The overall incarceration rate for teen males is down 81% since 2001. You can click the link for more data on other age groups.
This is yet more good news that most people are probably unaware of, and it's one of the things that makes our massive political polarization so inexplicable: it's happening during an era that's been almost uniformly outstanding, but no one quite seems to realize this.
I blame Fox News for much of this, but I'll acknowledge that liberals engage in an awful lot of trash talking too. When both parties are dedicated to telling everyone how terrible things are, I guess it's no big surprise that people end up thinking that things are terrible.
snark
Nonsense! Violent crime is increasing, particularly among the young folks! No street or country road is safe anymore! Better get you a gun and carry it with you at all times! And give to Republicans, who will keep telling you how bad things are, and getting worse!
And let's not mention the "bla" word. That's racist.
/snark
I blame applications like Nextdoor and the proliferation of security cameras.
it's one of the things that makes our massive political polarization so inexplicable: it's happening during an era that's been almost uniformly outstanding...
The rise of polarization seems to track pretty closely to the breakdown of what Krugman refers to as the "Great Moderation" — the roughly three decade period after WW2 when, not only was the country growing wealthier at a brisk pace, but, (critically) the gains were widely shared.
US capita GDP growth slowed down after the first oil shock (1973) — precipitously so after 2000. And this has been accompanied by an increase in wealth/income stratification: we've seen very weak gains in wages at the median over the last 40-50 years, especially for the non college-educated.
So, although a lot of things are indeed better, and the overall material standard of living has continued to inch upwards (more phones, more laptops, wider TV screens, better cancer drugs), my sense is the economy over most of the last half century has left the bottom half (or maybe more) of the population feeling less secure and more stressed. This, in turn, has triggered the need for someone to blame, and so we've seen a rise in racially-tinged small mindedness, selfishness and animus. (Let's not forget: immigration reform in the 1960s precipitated a big increase in the diversity of the US population. This has coincided with the aforementioned increase in economic inequality.)
Anyway, throw Fox News and Madisonism* into the mix and I'm not really seeing what's so inexplicable about our current predicament. It's one part constitutional dysfunction, one part increasing economic insecurity, one part financial incentive (Fox News) and one part political incentive (GOP). A perfect storm, really.
*I know I beat on this particular drum frequently, but I personally think it's obvious America's veto point-laden constitution translates the popular will into policy much less efficiently than the parliamentary model. In short, the majority can't get what it wants (universal healthcare, low-cost college, affordable childcare, overall economic security, etc). This lack of progress undermines support for government in general, and embitters and alienates increasingly large numbers of Americans, who feel they have no stake in the system writ large.
"I personally think it's obvious America's veto point-laden constitution translates the popular will into policy much less efficiently than the parliamentary model."
You refer to our system as Madisonian. For the sake of having some terminology on hand, fine. But I would point out that this ongoing debate between a Madisonian and a Parliamentary system of government is a) fascinating, and b.) very far from settled.
After all, there will never be a perfect system of government (or any other kind of perfect system) in this world. So, a sober analysis of the situation requires us to look at the pitfalls as well as the benefits of our own system, while also acknowledging the pros as well as the cons of other systems.
And, one aspect of our own system/country that I think we tend to take for granted is that - no matter how strained it is at the moment - our continuing union is possibly an unprecedented miracle. Have their been any previous democracies of similar (large-scale) size, population, and diversity as ours that somehow managed to remain a single entity? Some better historians than me may jump in with more detailed responses to that point, but I would ask what it is about our system that has enabled us to survive and to preserve our free society while incorporating an enormous amount of both ideological as well as racial/ethnic diversity.
Also, we know that donald trumps can arise in Madisonian as well as Parliamentary systems: we see Boris Johnson in England, Modi in India, and (until recently) Netanyahu in Israel. And there is no end of lamentation (on the Left) regarding the fact that trump was elected in the first place (even though he lost the vote), or that he still received more votes than expected in 2020 (while still losing the vote again). But I would ask, instead, how we managed to get rid of him so quickly? India may very well be stuck with Modi until he dies or resigns. Israel was stuck with Netanyahu for well over a decade. And there are many other similar examples out there. Getting rid of authoritarians who have assumed control of the government is profoundly difficult. And, of course, I am aware that we are not out of danger yet, and there may very well be another right wing coup attempt in the USA; nevertheless, how did we manage to be so successful at thwarting our own authoritarian so far? Does that, in fact, indicate some benefit to the Madisonian style of government/federalism that we live under? Or should credit go somewhere else entirely? One thing seems pretty clear at this point in world history: once Parliamentary systems get stuck with authoritarians, they tend to stay stuck with them.
Also, popular will does not always become policy in parliamentary governments. And at this point I'm just going to go with memory (rather than looking anything up) and point out some hugely unpopular policies from India: a catastrophic demonetization program, a botched attempt at reforming agricultural laws, and an abysmal response to Covid that made Trump look like a responsible technocrat by comparison. Yet, in response to all of that suffering, economic loss, and death: Modi's government remains largely unshaken. The people over there have been devastated by his Parliamentary regime. Their country has officially lost its classification as a democracy. Their own best interests are obviously not being served. Yet their parliamentary system is not saving them.
So, I think this Madison vs Parliament question remains open.
Trump was the Jewish con man. Who conned single issue voters of the Obama coalition......Who were conned by him. What's the mystery??? Political shills con.
Capitalism is dying. Unlike what CRT believers want, European society was a science driven phenomenon that's ideas were implemented by bankers and workers. The change in "growth" from these ideas was a one timer. The fade was always coming. Now all that is left is debt liquidation and one hell of a pay cut. Small Towns will dry up. Suburbs will collapse. Quite a bit of beach front property will be cheap. Plus CO2 emissions will notably drop!!!!!!
I don't think it is a question of different large scale design. The devil rather is in the details: election systems and procedures matter. Most modern democracies (essentially all non-Anglosaxon countries) have proportional representation. This allows for multi party systems. A potential strongman then has to either take over more than one party or find coalition partners. This is an obstacle that Trump did not have to overcome.
If you look at examples of failing democracies you'll see that most of them are young: The Weimar Republic, Russia, Hungary, Turkey, even Israel. It is also good to remember that at the outset of WW2 there were only a small handful of democracies left in Europe, among the major countries only France and the UK, both of which had some long tradition of democracy (in very different ways).
It is true that every form of democracy has its weaknesses. But ours has an awful lot of them: Inequitable representation, the filibuster in the Senate, gerrymander, an openly political, overly powerful Supreme Court, you name them). It is also true that the institutions held up in spite of all this--on the Federal level at least.
I have a suspicion that the exclusion of black people from the franchise was the glue that held it together from the beginning into the 1960s: It provided a widely shared rationale (among the privileged whites) for the whole enterprise; a common ground for progressives and conservatives alike. That common ground disappeared (at least officially and in polite society) with the passage of Civl Rights legislation in the sixties. And the sixties are where the present problems originated. The first step was the "Southern Strategy", exploiting racist prejudices of whites as the way to a majority for the GOP--the seeds for fascism were there; it began with dog whistles and ended up with fog horns. It took 60 years of slow, constant erosion and now we have arrived. Not very flattering to the US but not implausible IMHO.
Fascism???? Try harder. Nope, plutocracy. Fascism is leftism. Period.
It was more than racial grievances junk. It was also the last great awakening in the late 70's to the 90's that converted many Democrats to Republicans as they tied it into prosperity gospel and Zionism. Amazing you miss that. Then we wonder why Dixiecrats even struggle to run nowadays.
no matter how strained it is at the moment - our continuing union is possibly an unprecedented miracle.
Why? Many democracies have managed to hold together for a long time. It's certainly not "unprecedented." When's the last time Canada had a civil war? How about The Netherlands? Or Australia?
Also, we know that donald trumps can arise in Madisonian as well as Parliamentary systems: we see Boris Johnson in England
Boris Johnson is no Donald Trump. He may be an ineffective PM, but there's little/no prospect he'll successfully subvert British democracy. Indeed, there was a flurry of news stories a couple of weeks ago reporting that his own party had read him the Riot Act—warning him he needed to immediately improve his administration or he'd be jettisoned. Sounds rather different from America's experience with Trump, don't you think?
Also, popular will does not always become policy in parliamentary governments.
Of course it hasn't. My argument isn't that the parliamentary model is perfect. My argument is that it's superior to the presidential model. There's been extensive poli sci research on this topic. Of particular note is the quite often disastrous record of the presidential model in developing or middle income countries.
https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNABJ524.pdf
"Why? Many democracies have managed to hold together for a long time. It's certainly not "unprecedented." When's the last time Canada had a civil war? How about The Netherlands? Or Australia?"
I am pretty clear, in my original post above, regarding what I am referring to when I ask: "Have their been any previous democracies of similar (large-scale) size, population, and diversity as ours that somehow managed to remain a single entity?"
Neither Canada, nor the Netherlands, and certainly not Australia match our population. A quick search through Google indicates that each of those countries also has white people making up a higher percentage of their population than we do. Australia, I believe, is somewhat notorious in that regard (with something like over 90% of their population made up of white people).
And, yes, those factors are important. The more people there are who have to agree on things, and the more those people are broken up into different racial/ethnic groups, the more difficult it is to hold a country/culture together.
I've had this conversation before, and the responses are typically very similar to what you have said. It remains unclear to me why so many of us seem to overlook what appears to me like the obviously remarkable (if not unprecedented) miracle of our continued union under the unique circumstances we find ourselves in within this country.
Neither Canada, nor the Netherlands, and certainly not Australia match our population.
You throw in population as if it's a self-evident impediment to maintaining a healthy polity. It's not. You could just as easily make the case for smallness being a problem. Small countries have small economies and are thus vulnerable to politically destabilizing, exogenous shocks. Small countries are easy prey for large countries. And so on. It's amazing how well New Zealand has done!
It remains unclear to me why so many of us seem to overlook what appears to me like the obviously remarkable (if not unprecedented) miracle of our continued union
That's because there's nothing "miraculous" about it. Indeed, even a cursory glance at American history suggests it's been a relatively shaky affair. The US Civil War was, at the time, one of the bloodier wars in history (adjusted for duration and population). I am not suggesting that democratic governance isn't a very precious thing. And an extremely useful thing. It is! My comment is limited strictly to the country's Madisonian model (as opposed to the far more common parliamentary one). I believe it's highly likely the country would have endured, and would have grown into a rich and powerful state, under a Westminster-style system. Madion, after all, wasn't responsible for the country's huge agricultural potential, nor its large reserves of coal, iron ore, petroleum and timber, nor its position on the Atlantic ocean, nor its favorable climate; nor did Madison invent the Anglo Saxon traditions of property rights, criminal justice and common law: those were bequeathed to us by our parliamentary mother country. And I think it's very likely indeed a parliamentary republic—by nature a system with fewer veto points—would have dealt with the problem of slavery more expeditiously than the United States of actual history managed (thereby avoiding said war).
In brief, the shortcomings of America's Presidential/Madisonian system of constitutional governance grow more apparent by the day. The United States has enjoyed a lot of advantages, and this means the country has ben able to achieve wealth and power despite its (flawed) model. Not because of it.
Immigration reform in the 60's was irrelevant. There was immigration reform in 1951 that got the ball rolling and executive action in 1970. Since the 80's it's been rich foreigners buying debt in turn destroying their host country causing the scab effect. Educate yourself.
The post war boom was a bubble of massive defense spending meets exports in a war torn world. Total US growth was 2% between 1974-82.......yet total GDP between 1970-00 was essentially the same.
The unleadening of America's youth means that in fifty years we have gone from Charles Manson as the avatar of Appalachian born Race Warring to J.D. ANTIVAXXX filling that role.
Even our basest impulses have gotten more genteel. Uncle Charlie could still write a better song than the fake hillbilly from the shadow of the Latin Mass at the sanctuary on the Univesity of Dayton campus, though.
The difference between Charles Manson and J.D. Vance attributable to lead? Did you just say the quiet part aloud?
I'm glad I don't have to care about black crime and gun violence anymore.
Media outlets rarely focus on good news; there's far more money to made marketing fear. This has always been true, but in an era of heightened partisan politics, fear-mongering is not only profitable, but you can create a brand around it. So lots of media will filter any healthy trend out, and people who make that brand part of their identity will do likewise.
(this is snark)
Hey Kevin Drum
You misandrist dweeble
You can't say teen imprisonment is down using your chart - you can only say MALE teen imprisonment is down....../s
Keep it accurate Kevin !!!!!!
Heh. I recently read "The Gate to Women's Country" (Sheri Tepper). Your post struck a chord...
Call it pedantry, or perhaps fighting the telephone game, but absent figures showing teen male incarceration dwarfs that of female teens, indeed, Kevin has incorrectly generalized.
And what if female teen imprisonment?
Of…
Kevin- While lead is a plausible cause for this decline, there are a lot of other possible causes as well. Why did you state that it was the lead thing so unequivocally?
LOL! You must be new here.
But think of all those jobs lost if we close prisons!
/s
"This is yet more good news that most people are probably unaware of, and it's one of the things that makes our massive political polarization so inexplicable: ...."
Interesting. You think that political polarization, as far as it is attributable to race, is rational behavior?
The lead issue and the broad declines in the overall crime rate (until recently) are certainly part of this, but many states have also reformed sentencing guidelines for minors and created more diversion programs and alternatives to prison.
Including, going by Nevin's post, the Sentencing Project.
And if you show those figures to a conservative, they'll just say "See! Crime is so bad because all those liberal judge are lettig those negro teens go free!"