Posted on October 25, 2022

How Black Crime Maintains Black Political Power

Joseph Kay, American Renaissance, October 25, 2022

Racial politics abounds with riddles, and among the most baffling is why black leaders are soft on crime that victimizes their own voters. What candidate would possibly run on a platform “Vote for me and I’ll ignore neighborhood crime”? It makes no sense to us, but it is a rational strategy both for the office-seeker and at least some constituents. Crime pays, and not just for the perpetrators.

We must start by recognizing that political power in the United States is geographically based. With few exceptions, elections occur in districts — you vote along with those around you to choose leaders who represent a geographically defined constituency. It is also a winner-take-all system; a strong second-place finish gains nothing.

Our political vocabulary reflects the centrality of geography. A “Hispanic district” is one where Hispanics live and thus dominate elections. If these Hispanics were scattered, their political clout would be sharply diminished. Battles over redistricting and gerrymandering reflect this geographical importance, as rivals try to draw boundaries to include as many potential supporters as possible.

It makes a huge difference whether a black voter lives in Baltimore, Maryland, or Butte, Montana. The vote of the black Montanan counts for zero in helping to elect a fellow black, because blacks don’t run for office in Butte. If this black voter moved to Baltimore, he could help a black secure the election of a fellow black. Clustered residency is essential to identity politics.

The demographic composition of electoral districts shifts over time. Typically, poor immigrants group together and vote as a bloc to elect one of their own, but upward mobility will eventually change the district. Over decades, for example, once-German-dominated election districts in New York City were taken over by Eastern European Jews. These Jews were then replaced by newly arrived Hispanics. Political change comes with economic progress.

How can a black elected official survive demographic change that could scatter his supporters? The answer is black crime. Crime and mayhem do not guarantee that blacks won’t move out — many will — but “blackness” will keep others out. Creating an undesirable neighborhood is equivalent of establishing an ethnic homeland. Black elected officials may complain about a Soros-designated district attorney who opposes cash bail — but not too loudly.

Credit: A Syn via Flickr. CC BY-SA 2.0

This race-related disorder can be viewed as anti-gentrification. So, just as whites follow statistics on murder and shootings, black leaders may be alert to “threats” to their geographical domination: the spread of over-priced gourmet coffee shops, trendy art galleries, and fashionable boutiques catering to young white “settlers.” Indeed, the sight of a jogger in a designer tracksuit sounds the alarm and may require putting a few more drug dealers on the street corner as deterrents.

Flooding the neighborhood with police could bring the demographic shift that undermines black political power. With safe streets and trash-free parks, adventuresome whites may move in. Rents will rise, and developers will buy up cheap slum property, evict the tenants, and renovate. A critical mass of white families could follow. There goes the neighborhood, and with fewer blacks, a political shift is inevitable. New residents will elect officials more worried about global warming than “white supremacy.” Gentrification undermines black political power.

Local, majority-black schools play a key role in keeping whites out since almost no white parent will send junior to a violence-plagued school where learning is impossible. Nor can most potential homesteaders afford private school tuition or have the leisure needed for home-schooling.

Likewise, violence-prone youngsters can ruin “white” businesses if these establishments “invade” their turf. Good luck to an organic grocery or feminist bookstore if rowdy youngsters decide they don’t like it. Mobs of looters are combat units for repelling white invaders.

While elected black officials are the chief and most obvious beneficiaries of racial clustering, they are not alone. There are many benefits that upscale whites mistakenly think are problems. The poorest blacks benefit from de-policing and the absence of “white” standards because in police-free neighborhoods, they can drink and smoke weed in public, gamble, solicit sex, play loud rap music, ignore traffic rules, shoplift and re-sell stolen loot openly, and otherwise engage in lower-class black behavior. Small-time street peddlers needn’t worry about competition from cheaper white-owned big-box stores. This freedom comes at a price — occasional shootings — but the trade-off appears to be acceptable, judging from the hostility to gentrification and to the police when they intervene.

Keeping whites out is a bonanza for blacks in education. Few whites will work in dangerous schools, and low test scores guarantee jobs for blacks thanks to endless calls for “investing in the children.” Nor is there any need to relax employment standards to ensure a “culturally competent” staff.

It is even good to have unmanageable students because fear keeps out pesky whites. Without them, blacks can run the schools however they like and don’t have to compete with whites for jobs. Perpetual disorder is the recipe for lifetime tenure. Even if white do-gooders complain about dismal outcomes, black teachers can always blame systemic racism, under-funding, and all the other excuses clever white leftists come up with for them. Tolerating school chaos is win-win both for the teachers and for students who don’t care about school.

It isn’t just violence that keeps out white teachers. Few whites want a government job in a neighborhood with aggressive panhandlers and angry-looking groups of teenagers. Black neighborhoods don’t offer nice sandwich shops for lunch or Irish bars for after-work drinks, let alone places to shop before heading home.

This is why the chains such as Walmart or Whole Foods that still survive in black areas are almost entirely staffed by blacks. Whites don’t want to work there. The same is true for hospitals and clinics. Dealing with blacks is a chore and it’s sometimes dangerous. By contrast, not even white women are likely to refuse a good job at a bank in a Chinese neighborhood or even an improving Hispanic neighborhood. Whites might feel distant from fellow workers or local shopkeepers, but wouldn’t worry about safety.

Black crime means controlling territory, with criminals serving as border guards. Thanks to crime, black elected officials have near lifetime employment. Rampant crime is a tax on residents, but the proceeds of this “tax” pay for benefits to a wide range of recipients. This is why black leaders and their white Democrat allies are indifferent to the cry that black-on-black crime destroys black neighborhoods. It maintains black neighborhoods. Black office holders need not worry about losing elections no matter how bad the carnage.

I will not speculate as to the extent to which black leaders consciously follow this strategy, but it certainly helps keep them in control.