The Future Of Crime In America Remains Much The Same, Part II

Until something fundamentally transforms in our society, we’ll just never find the guts to make America a safer place.

You could restore a lot of order in America with a crowd like this. But do we want it? Source

This is the second and last entry in a two-part series. You can read the first entry here.

Today, we wrap up a two-parter on what the present says about the future of crime in America. Let’s jump right into it.

Culture Of Disorder

Harvard Law School Professor Adrian Vermeule explains how crime is half the problem:

The whole crime discourse is annoying because some people are talking about crime in the strict legal sense, and some are talking about pervasive social disorder which does not necessarily result in any “crime” in the strict legal sense - in part because under disordered conditions, those who are at risk of becoming victims of crime take extraordinary precautions in disordered public spaces or simply avoid them altogether. The first group then recites statistics about crime in the strict sense, overlooking that the second group is talking about ambient social disorder, and that the distortion that arises from such disorder is itself deeply corrosive for communities and the common good.

Crime shouldn’t be a politicized issue. But it is in America. Who “wins” the debate depends on whether one is talking about crime in a strictly legal sense, as Vermeule puts it, or looking at the total picture by considering disorder as well.

If we’re talking strictly crime rates, the Left probably wins. If we’re talking about both crime and disorder, the argument shifts in favor of the Right. Disorder is a much more pervasive problem than crime, interrelated as they are. Disorder is a wannabe influencer menacing total strangers in public for clicks and clout. Disorder is a “youth” riding a wheelie through a crowd of people just to prove to the world they’re the top dogs. Disorder is having crazy homeless scream threats at you daily as you walk by. Most of us will be fortunate enough to not be victimized by crime, but we’ll all be victimized by disorder many times throughout the course of our lives.

America has become a safer country over the last few decades, safe enough that it’s pretty much a sure thing the average person will go their entire lives without being directly involved in a premeditated criminal act, such as murder or robbery. But this doesn’t mean crime isn’t something you’ll never need to concern yourself with or that violence won’t somehow find you.

Basically, it’s not Bryan Kohberger, the Idaho serial killer you need to worry about. It’s this guy:

Source

This guy is probably a criminal. The thing is, you don’t need to be a hardened criminal, or have a record at all, to be a troublesome character. All you need is a bad attitude. America has plenty of people with bad attitude, no? The law can deal with criminals. But only a society that values orderliness can deal with people with bad attitudes. I think the argument that our society breeds criminals does have some merit; an orderly society will reinforce a culture of orderliness, while a disorderly society will incentivize bad behavior and, as a consequence, create more people who go as far as to break the law.

The leftist prescription, of course, is to simply ignore disorder. They’re not breaking the law, therefore, they’re not hurting anyone, therefore, why do you care? Or so goes the logic. It’s not entirely correct, of course. Disorderly conduct is a crime, after all. So is menacing. Liberals don’t see it that way, because to them, it’s never potentially criminal unless someone puts their hands on another person. It also depends on the Marxist principle of Who? Whom? A White person - the proverbial “Karen” - acting disorderly can be a problem; a Black person acting disorderly is simply making up for lost time due to years of racial injustice.

More from Vermeule:

This point is crucial: actual crime may never occur, but only because people take exceedingly costly precautions to avoid it. And those costs are themselves the problem.

Though demographics is most responsible for crime coming down nationwide over the last 30 years, lifestyle practices are a big reason why they’ve stayed down. Criminals comprise a smaller share of the population today and most of us don’t share living spaces with them. The reason why people increasingly live so far away urban centers isn’t just cost of living, though it’s certainly a huge part of the equation. It’s also because of safety.

There are variations, but a saying goes that our whole society is built around trying to avoid Black people and the consequences of the Civil Rights Act. It’s not an inaccurate statement. It’s easy to be sympathetic to Black people and the downtrodden when you don’t have to live with them. Tell any liberal who laments her “White privilege” to go live with the oppressed and be prepared for the unbearable screeching you receive in response. Never let them draw a distinction between “bad people” and “bad neighborhoods,” however. Neighborhoods are nothing if not the people who live there. If it’s a bad neighborhood, it’s probably because lots of bad people live there.

It’s not all a matter of race, of course. America, very generally, has a culture of disorder. Sure, we all want order in our own lives. But when it comes to anyone or anything else? Who cares? This culture of disorder is rooted in a seemingly kind-hearted, but so very wrong-headed principle that the best we can do for our fellow citizens is to allow them to live their lives exactly the way they want to at all times. This is a belief antithetical to civil society, but America has allowed it to become our operating principle. It’s an act of courage nowadays to say that people should obey the law and that you want to live in an orderly society. Such sentiments have become right-wing-coded and associated with fascism, and nobody wants that, right? Strange time we live in.

As for the highly contentious matter of crime statistics, I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again: they don’t matter. Now, let’s contextualize that. Of course they matter. But as far as your life goes? Not really. If you become a victim of crime, the fact that it happened to you is what’s most important, no matter what the numbers say. The severity of a crime doesn’t go down because the country is a less dangerous place than it was when the oldest Millennial was barely 10 years old.

Here’s Ana Kasparian on Her Take explaining how crime statistics as reported by the government don’t tell the whole story and how unreliable they can be [just click and play]:

Even from a policymaking standpoint, crime stats have their limits, because the government’s top priority is always law and order. This is the fundamental purpose of government, why we even have it in the first place. The belief that the government’s mission is to guarantee outcomes in life is, in the grand scheme of history, a very recently-developed concept. Yes, state’s have a range of priorities, and focusing all its resources on law and order can be detrimental. There’s always a point of diminishing returns, after all. But if there’s any duty the state can never outsource responsibility for, if there’s any area of governance it can never be derelict in, it’s law and order.

It’s important not to misunderstand what’s being said here. Crime stats absolutely do matter with respect to risk management and preparedness. Nobody want to live in a dangerous neighborhood, everyone ought to be aware of the ambient threat level everywhere they go. However, crime numbers can never be the end all, be all. Yes, in a truly safe society, such as Japan, you don’t need to be as hyper-vigilant as you might be in Brazil. But you still need to be aware and tuned in to what’s going on around you. Your safety is always your responsibility.

In any case, remember: “historic lows in crime” in America is still very high compared to much of the world. Yes, gun ownership has a lot to do with this. So does demographics. The U.S. has lots of dangerous, violent people. Demanding Americans to not worry about crime because our crime rates are lower than they’ve ever been is like telling a person suffering from obesity to not worry about losing weight any longer because they dropped from 300 to 250 pounds. A 50-pound drop is huge, yes. But 250 pounds is still a lot of weight.

Besides, what’s the point? What’s the argument being made here? To back off on enforcement? To get everyone to put their guards down? That’s what it sure seems like. In fact, it’s pretty obvious that’s what liberals want. It’s why they smear anyone concerned about crime as a Karen, anyone who owns a gun, has a concealed carry license, or even takes part in self-defense training as “paranoid.” A defenseless population is a suppressed population, after all.

Still, it doesn’t change the fact things are better today than they have been. Pointing this out is about informing one’s risk assessments. It’s not about lobbying for less law enforcement, courting disorder, or putting down of anyone’s guards. There’s always a need for preparation, but you can at least rest assured your preps will be more effective in a safer society than in a more dangerous one.

Disorder isn’t something preparedness can adequately address, however. Disorder is a culture. It can happen anywhere, even where crime is low. Disorder is something only the state can address, requiring a recognition of the problem and a willingness on both state and society to order its priorities differently. For one, you never just allow people to enjoy things anywhere and everywhere, and you certainly don’t make that determination based on their place on some sort of “oppression hierarchy.” It means a willingness to put people in their place - nobody’s more special than anyone else - and to treat disorderly behavior as seriously as crime. Criminals don’t start with murders, after all. They start with the smallest behavior they can get away with, and work their way up from there.

If there’s anything all criminals have in common, it’s a willingness to assert dominance in public. Some people might call it a stretch to consider this criminal behavior, but the moment he collides with someone, it’s now a problem right?

Source

America’s tolerance for disorder creates more criminals. It’s that simple.

The Uber-ization Of Policing

One of the prevailing trends today and for the foreseeable future is the necessity of paying extra out of your own pocket for even a modicum of decent service. That extends to the public domain as well.

Look at this:

Source

Brentwood, Beverly Hills, Bel Air, Holmby Hills, and Malibu, huh? What do all these places have in common? Well, for one, they’re home to some of the wealthiest people in America. We’re not talking about only high incomes - that’s a separate category altogether - we’re talking big bank accounts and ownership of high-value properties.

That’s not all. These places are also home to some of America’s most committed Democratic voters and donors.¹ These are the people who vote for politicians and policies which yield to crime and disorder, along with higher immigration. On that last point, note that despite their affinity for diversity and multiculturalism, these areas are decidedly lacking in diversity and overwhelmingly White. Non-Whites who living in these areas are still highly affluent, far more than the average American, Whites included.

This isn’t an argument against such services. Private security has always been a major industry in America and those who can afford such services are entitled access to them. The issue is that there are a large number of people in this country who vote one way, while using their wealth to ensure they’re protected from the negative consequences of their choices.

The fact is, nobody wants to live with crime and disorder. Liberals are no different, their political convictions and conversational nonsense aside. It’s just that leftism makes demands of its adherents, demands leftists themselves aren’t willing to make, so they outsource responsibility for doing so to others: Middle American Whites, the guy living in a trailer park who, according to liberals, is the “hidden hand” of politics in America, rich people, as in those richer than them, the list goes on and on.

In fact, there’s very much a class component to this, even as America’s great divide is more cultural than anything else. For the liberals of Brentwood, Beverly Hills, Bel Air, Holmby Hills, and Malibu, it’s important to say “Black Lives Matter” and to make sure they keep the low-skill immigrants employed. It’s also important to make sure the lines never cross. Nobody wants to say it, but wealth and power aren’t maintained by breaking down walls. They’re maintained by maintaining them. I think even the poor understand this as well.

So while they remain a coalition, it’s a coalition tenable only because they have an enemy: White people as a construct and the Right. Without an enemy to unify against, it’s actually quite an unstable coalition over there on the Left.

I’ve gotten somewhat off-track, so let’s go back to talking about private security. While there’s nothing wrong with private security, the fact that the wealthy have access to such services, the fact such services are rising in demand, and the increasing insecurity of American society raises concerns about the future of the country. Crime rates have since fallen from the 2020-induced spike, but as I’ve explained time and again, crime in America is like a wildfire. It has a “seasonal” nature to it, coming and going in waves. 2025 has seen a dramatic drop in crime from 2024, but dramatic drops often follow dramatic rises. When you consider the fact that crime committed by Blacks drives the lion’s share of crime in America, it’s also easier to understand what’s happening: most Americans aren’t criminals.

At the same time, crime has risen since hitting a historic low in 2014, so anyone expecting this decline to be permanent is engaging in wishful thinking. Nothing has fundamentally changed in America and we’re still dealing with the long-term repercussions of 2020’s “Summer of Love.”

Here’s Ana Kasparian explaining how the post-2020 Los Angeles Police Department, under-funded and under-staffed, did what police departments routinely do under trying conditions: resort to officers working overtime:

It’s not just a matter of money. Just because a cop works overtime doesn’t mean they can do more policing. In the end, more is being paid to ensure the minimum level of service is being provided, meaning the ultimate impact itself is minimal to non-existent. Overtime is also expensive and there are limits to the extent to which departments can provide it.

For those who cannot afford to hire off-duty cops, they must instead rely on on-duty cops, some working overtime, some on their second or third straight shift in a row (yes, this is a thing in policing), for safety. They do so hoping the police will show up on time and will treat the incident with the regard it deserves. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of people out there and a lot of crime. If America continues to destabilize and sees another wave of higher levels of crime, which will eventually happen, demand for police will increase, but there won’t be anyone around to answer the call.

For many reasons, we’re not going to get quite as bad as Brazil or South Africa, as is so often the narrative on the Right. But some of our major metros will remain dangerous, especially those with a high concentration of Blacks. More important, anarcho-tyranny is still a reality, along with our society’s overall un-serious attitude towards crime. Until something fundamentally transforms in our society, we’ll just never find the guts to make America a safer place.

Remember: It’s Not All Bad

As we approach the end of this two-parter, I want to summarize that the summer of 2025 has been, thankfully, hot, but anything but long. Yes, we’ve had crime. Yes, we’ve had unrest. But it isn’t as bad as a lot of people anticipated. Since 2020, the summers have been serene by comparison. There’s still an intolerable level of violence and I’m not trying to downplay that. But as realists, we must also acknowledge that things haven’t been as bad as they could’ve been.

No matter how unreliable government crime statistics may be, we still live in a safer society today than we did before. I know, because I remember. Crime was a much bigger problem when many of us were children than it is today. It’s also true that crime back then wasn’t an overly-politicized issue, either. Part of the reason, I think crime has become more politicized isn’t just because of race, but because we live in a safer society than before.

Again, you can disregard these stats all you want, but if you think this is all just part of a government cover-up, at least concede this cover-up goes back decades:

Source

If you still doubt these numbers, remember two things: our population is aging and crime rates in America are driven by the Black population. Aging populations commit less crime and it’s not possible for it to be so high when, at this point, it’s 13 percent of the population driving the crime. Even as they remain over 60 percent of the population, the most common age of a White person is 58. This is how old Americans, Whites specifically, have become. This isn’t a people who are going to be causing large amounts of trouble. Even the Black population is aging.

Our political leaders deserve no credit for any of the improvements, of course. Only the Trump administration deserves some credit for it’s hard-line policies against illegal immigration. But as far as crime goes overall, credit goes to demographics and those who show up every day - law enforcement officers, healthcare workers, sanitation workers - and stop the bad people where they can, save the lives they can, and clean up the messes made by the dredges of society. They’re the only reason why we have places still worth living in. For all the talk of America’s institutional failings, there manages to remain something incorruptible about them.

As stated earlier, acknowledging that life is safer today than before isn’t about lowering your defenses. It just means your preps will be that much more effective. It also means that you can be more reasonable in your preps, that you don’t need to break the bank to protect yourself, and that you can ease into it. You should be easing into preparedness, anyway. Besides, America has plenty of threats and properly diagnosing them is the most important prep of all.

Crime Is A Policy Choice

I don’t know anyone who actually likes crime. Sure, they may enjoy the thought of it happening to others, but nobody wants to live somewhere where carjackings, robberies, and shootings happen daily. If you ask Americans, everyone will say they want less of it.

The problem, again, is the ideology which has America in a death-grip which cannot be released. Call it liberalism, Marxism, Wokeism, or just plain leftism, but there’s a pervasive line of thinking which has afflicted the brains of Americans, making it impossible for any substantive debate on the topic to take place. Whatever the case may be, there is a large number of people in this country who seem committed to making this country, our home, as chaotic and disorderly as possible, as though the consequences of doing so will never affect them.

I don’t have a solution for this. Do you? What the Trump administration is doing in Washington, D.C., and is now fixing to do in other cities might temporarily restore order. But it cannot be a long-term solution. The only long-term solution is a cultural shift which values order over “vibrancy.” Ironically, you can have both, it’s just that in America, everything is so ideologized, order is a concept with a negative coding.

One big positive impact is that the Trump administration’s actions are forcing the hands of Blue state leaders to get serious about crime. It’s happening in California:

California is expanding @CHP_HQ teams in key regions to bring down crime.

We’ve seen what success looks like when investing in strategic community partnerships, and with this next phase, we're continuing the work to improve public safety throughout the state.

For all their opposition to Trump, they sure follow his initiative, don’t they? Of course, we know there will be no long-term pay-off, since officials like Governor Gavin Newsom will do this sort of thing only until the political heat dies down.

Even as the Overton window on crime shifts on the Left, stuff like this is why liberals can never be part of the solution when it comes to crime:

There clearly is a racial gap in crime in the United States but it’s also the case that white Americans are killing and being killed at unusually high levels — we have a violent country with tons of illegally carried handguns.

The author of that post, Matt Yglesias, isn’t entirely wrong in his assessment. Gun ownership is definitely part of the problem. However, who is shooting those guns? Criminals. He even says so - “we have a violent country”. Violence isn’t some cosmic, supernatural force. It’s human behavior. So unless you have a plan to deal with the problem people themselves, the fixation on guns is missing the point. Furthermore, race is very much a part of the problem, also, as Yglesias partly concedes, but his ideology says he can’t say anything about that. It does say, however, that he can always outsource blame to White Americans.

I could keep talking about this. I will keep talking about crime on my Substack for years to come. It’s literally the most endless topic imaginable. I’ll end this discussion arc with something you can laugh at:

Source

As X mutual Melissa Chen points out, it’s leftists who are always chastizing right-wingers and non-leftists for being uneducated and not traveling the world. But for all their education and all those stamps in their passports, it’s the liberals who still know so little, aren’t they?

It’s time to talk. What are your thoughts on the future of crime in America? Is it more of the same? Are we due for another major crime wave, or are those a thing of the past, and we’ve settled into an uneasy equilibrium of sorts? What are the trends in your area?

Share your thoughts in the comments.

Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.

If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!

1. In a surprising, under-reported twist, Beverly Hills went for Trump in the 2024 election by a margin of almost five percent. However, not only is this the first time in 45 years a Republican won Beverly Hills, Congressional representation remains Democratic.