A Democratic perspective - Crime: Two Views on Handling a Hot Campaign Issue

The growing sense of anger, and more importantly, fear, about the level of crime and violence in society looks to be the hot button issue of 1994. All candidates, from gubernatorial on down to city council, will offer tough sounding anti-crime platforms. Consider these results from some recent polling:

* Thirty-one percent of Americans cite "combating street crime and violence" as the most pressing issue facing the federal government, nearly double the next highest priority, education (NBC News/Wall Street Journal);

* Fully 85 percent of Americans say that crime affects their lives (CBS News/New York Times);

While these findings are striking evidence of the public's concern, they nonetheless fail to adequately reflect the deep apprehension and palpable sense of personal insecurity that many Americans feel. In essence, crime registers such high concern because the threat to personal safety is not just confined to the distant Big City, but is also in suburban and rural schools, neighborhoods, and even homes. As one character noted in a recent episode of NBC's drama series "Homicide," the average citizen is no longer asking "Why me?" but "When me?"

Further evidence that crime is likely to dominate 1994 campaigns is the plain fact that neither political party "owns" the issue. The bipartisan Battleground '94 national poll shows that voters are split as to whether the Democrats (35 percent) or Republicans (32 percent) are better when it comes to dealing with crime and drags. Political candidates will be working in overdrive to stake their claim to the "tough on crime" mantle before their opponent can.

Democratic candidates formulating their anti-crime platform should consider the following broad principles:

Gun control is viewed as a sensible step in the fight against crime. A candidate's stand on gun control legislation, such as the Brady Bill and the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons, can potentially become an important point of distinction to voters. For example, in one state, voters said by 59 percent to 10 percent that they would be more likely to support a candidate who favors a national five-day waiting period for hand-gun purchases. Moreover, 74 percent of Americans in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal national survey said that "the Brady law is good, but more gun control laws will be needed to reduce crime." While voters do not believe -- and candidates should not claim -- that gun control legislation is the definitive answer to stopping crime, such measures are definitely viewed as a step in the right direction.

The growing popularity of proposals like "three strikes and you're out" reflects the public's belief that the rise in crime is caused by the failure to keep violent criminals in jail. The kidnapping/murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas in Petaluma, California by a drifter with a long rap sheet is likely to be the evidence used by proponents of measures for mandatory life sentences of criminals who commit three violent felonies. Fully 75 percent of the public believes such action will make a major difference in reducing violent crime, compared with 57 percent who think placing 100,000 more police officers on the streets will make a major difference. While some experts view "three strikes and you're out" as counterproductive, the bottom line is that it speaks to the public's demand for tougher penalties against criminals.

Finally, the broad theme of personal responsibility and family values is an important component in any anti-crime platform. It is clear, from focus groups across the nation, that while the crime issue obviously is important in and of itself, the fervor it generates is tied to another set of concerns about the strains of America's moral fiber. People view the rise in violent clime as added evidence that today's society is out of control, particularly with regard to the breakdown of the family. There is the sense that no one is "in charge," and that the values of decency, restraint, and responsibility are no longer being taught to our kids. We have been struck by voters; realization that major problems like crime ultimately cannot be solved without involving the family, the community, and society as a whole. President Clinton's November speech in Memphis, in which he decried the violence in the black community and called for personal responsibility, speaks directly to this broader set of concerns.

Democrats have become very good at dealing with the "hardware" of crime (guns), and not so good on the "software" (values like personal responsibility). A truly credible and effective "get tough on crime" policy must involve both elements.

Fred Yang is vice president of Garin-Hart Strategic Research Group, a Washington, D.C.-based Democratic polling firm.

COPYRIGHT 1994 Campaigns & Elections, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group