With the entry of former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg into the race to be the Democratic Party presidential nominee, we have the inevitable. The other runners, and their supporters, are digging into his past to find any dirt they can to discredit him. The primary attack against him is the New York police’s use of the tactic “Stop and Frisk” when he was mayor. Basically, it meant that the police could stop anyone, any time, and frisk them for weapons. The searches were mainly for guns, but other things like knives and drugs were in their remit.
The major increase in the use of “Stop and Frisk” during the Bloomberg administration was successful in its goals. It was seen as a major contribution to the murder rate going down by more than half. However, it was not popular. Many saw it as racist as the majority suffering from the policy were people of colour.
Former Mayor Bloomberg is undergoing attacks for speaking in favour of “Stop and Frisk” as recently as last year. His support for the policy is changing now that he’s a candidate to be the Democratic Party presidential nominee. He’s publicly walking back that support and saying he was wrong to support a racist policy. I can understand why he’s doing that, but personally I don’t think it was a racist policy. (I’ll get to why not.)
Bloomberg’s Recent Comments on “Stop and Frisk”
ABC News reports Bloomberg as saying at a weekend rally in Richmond, Virginia:
“I’ve gotten a lot of grief for it lately, but I defended it for too long,” Bloomberg said of the policy, which he utilized during his long tenure as New York City mayor. “And because I didn’t fully understand the unintentional pain it caused young black and brown kids and their families, I should have acted sooner and I should have stopped it, and I didn’t, and I apologize for that.”
A Correction to the History of “Stop and Frisk”
Senator Bernie Sanders in particular, though he’s not the only one, is calling “Stop and Frisk”, “Bloomberg’s policy”. It’s not. It’s been around for, at least, decades, and not just in New York.
Back as 1968 the courts upheld the right of the police to use the tactic. In other places it’s known as the “Terry Stop” because of that court case: Terry v. Ohio. The result of that case is that police in the US have the right to search someone for weapons, without a search warrant, if they think they’re dangerous.
Bloomberg did increase it’s use in an effort to drive down gun crime.
2002-2017: Number of “Stop and Frisk” stops. (Source: NYCLU. Click graphic to go to source.)
Sanders also says the current mayor, Bill de Blasio, has stopped the policy. He has not. It continues, albeit at a reduced rate.
Why is “Stop and Frisk” Seen as Racist?
The New York chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) analyses “Stop and Frisk” data annually. Their 2019 summary of their overall findings is:
An analysis by the NYCLU [New York Civil Liberties Union] revealed that innocent New Yorkers have been subjected to police stops and street interrogations more than 5 million times since 2002, and that Black and Latinx communities continue to be the overwhelming target of these tactics. At the height of stop-and-frisk in 2011 under the Bloomberg administration, over 685,000 people were stopped. Nearly [ACLU emphasis] nine out of 10 stopped-and-frisked New Yorkers have been completely innocent.
The fact that so many innocent people are suffering is a good reason for the ACLU to be asking for a review of this policy. However, the fact that it is mainly people of colour does not necessarily mean the policy itself is racist.
The analysis shows that the number of white people undergoing searches per annum was between 8% and 12%. Over 74% of the searches were of African American and Latino American people. Those demographics make up about 54% of the population. It’s easy to see why “Stop and Frisk” got the reputation as being racist. I don’t think it’s that simple though.
Why I Don’t Think “Stop and Frisk” is Racist
“Stop and Frisk” was naturally used most often in the low income neighbourhoods of New York because they have the highest crime rates. Those neighbourhoods have much higher African American and Latino American populations than New York as a whole.
The fact that most African Americans and Latino Americans live in low income neighbourhoods is because of racism. That is disgusting and needs fixing. Doing that will take time and multiple approaches. It does not mean a policy designed to reduce crime in those areas is also racist. That judgment can only be made by looking at the motives of the person who came up with the policy in the first place, and those who thought it was a good idea.
On the one hand, they may see these groups as a lawless bunch who are screwing up the city for nice white people and to “throw them against a wall and frisk them” is the only way to handle them. (Quote comes from a recent leaking of a recording of Bloomberg in 2015.)
On the other hand, they may want the mostly young (14-25) men of colour who are committing crimes to get a chance . The motive may be to make those neighbourhoods better and safer places to live. That will improve all sorts of things for everyone living in them.
One improvement would be safer schools where more children get a better education and therefore a better chance for their future.
Having said that, I’ve no doubt there are (and were) racist police officers who take advantage of the policy to attack people of colour. The NYPD should make a point of ensuring this isn’t happening, and getting rid of any officers found to be racially profiling citizens.
The GOP is Sticking the Boot in too
On CNN on Sunday morning (US time) a senior staff member of VP Mike Pence got in on the action too. The Pence staff member was saying “Stop and Frisk” was a good policy when Giuliani did it, but Bloomberg’s escalation of the policy was bad.
However, that makes little sense. Proportionally, the number of people of colour suffering was the same during Giuliani’s mayoralty as during that of Bloomberg. As noted above, it’s true there was an increase in actual numbers. However, this was for a reason, and it made a difference. New York became a safer place.
There’s no doubt in my opinion that the police should have done a better job at identifying who to stop. There were too many innocent people caught up in the sweep. Again though, the proportion of innocent people was the same during Bloomberg’s administration as that of Giuliani.
Mike Bloomberg, Democratic Candidate
Yesterday CNN had three Town Hall events for Democratic Party candidates, including one for Bernie Sanders. (The other three top candidates are today.) I have to say I lost any respect I have left for him.
When asked to condemn the so-called “Bernie Bros” who have got a name for attacking opponents of his online, that condemnation was weak. He got into whataboutery, pointing out that his campaign was also receiving attacks. His main point was that the other campaigns should be doing the same.
His attacks on Mike Bloomberg has the look of the spiteful pettiness that usually only comes from Trump. (Since I wrote that, I’ve found out that I’m not the only person saying that. However, I don’t want to delay posting this in order to discuss the point. We can get to it in the comments.)
As noted above, Sanders comments about Bloomberg regarding “Stop and Frisk” were outright lies. He frequently spat out the word “billionaire” when describing him as if it was something dirty and disgusting. His reaction to Anderson Cooper pointing out that Bloomberg would be beholden to no one else because he was using his own money was one of annoyance.
All the Democratic Party candidates have pledged to help whoever becomes the nominee. However, when Sanders was asked by Anderson Cooper whether he would accept money from Bloomberg, be wouldn’t admit that he would.
Sanders was also extremely worked up about the fact that so far, Bloomberg has been buying the election. That’s true. Using his fortune, Bloomberg has been flooding the states where primaries are coming up with advertising. Because he has the money, he’s been able to spend more than all the other candidates put together. As a result, he’s doing well in the polls and will be on the next debate stage.
So far, most voters only know about Bloomberg through his naturally favourable advertisements. That will change in the debate when he has to stand up to questioning about his record. Apparently he’s not a good debater, so that may be his downfall.
Bloomberg’s Support
Recently, Mike Bloomberg appears to be taking a lot of the African American vote from Biden. Biden was by far the most popular candidate among Blacks initially. However, his poor showing in the elections so far means Blacks are looking for someone else to give their vote to. African Americans want Trump out of the White House more than any other demographic, and they appear to see Bloomberg as the best choice now.
They could be right. In my opinion, Sanders would be a disastrous choice for the Democratic Party. I think he would scare enough voters to either stay home or vote for Trump. Then, the US would be facing the horror of four more years of Trump. Elizabeth Warren wouldn’t be much better. She’s seen by many as too weak to stand up to Trump on the debate stage as well as being too far left.
The more I see of Pete Buttigieg, the more he impresses me. However, I suspect African Americans recognize that a lot of Evangelical Christians, who make up a large part of the electorate, aren’t ready for a gay president. That could change between now and November though as they see more of him and realize that gay people are just like everybody else.
Amy Klobuchar is my personal pick of the remaining candidates. Her lack of name recognition is proving problematic for her though. Although starting from the same level as Buttigieg in that regard, many seem to find him more exciting.
It will be interesting to see how things stand at the end of March.
If you enjoyed reading this, please consider donating a dollar or two to help keep the site going. Thank you.
Just saw this, quick look, and I like what I see but don’t have time to respond in detail (it’s after 7 here and I’ve been here all day and want to get home) but I agree about Sanders. He reminds me of some of my lefty friends from the 70’s who just can’t get past their early admiration for The Little Red Book, and matters akin thereto. And what looks to me like his refusal to consider that anyone but himself might be an “electable” candidate is downright selfish and egotistical. He won’t beat Trump and I suspect that the MAGAts are voting in open primaries for him for that very reason. Good job, Heather.
Great piece Heather!
Thanks for your take on the debate. If the Democrats want to win, I think they need to pick a centrist candidate. This country is not ready for an extreme pivot to the left. One wonders if the media is more interested in the squabbles than in letting us know the policies of the candidates. Even the debates don’t truly explore them.
I agree with you that Ms Klobuchar would be the best pick of those still in the running (I would have picked Mr Inslee, good on the most serious problems, governing experience (his state does well), and -apparently not important to the US voters- a gentleman).
There is not much dirt on Ms Amy, has some experience, is kinda moderate, but most importantly, she is from the mid-west, where Ms Clinton lost the EC.
I doubt Mr Buttigieg would carry enough of the black vote, and an overwhelming majority of the black vote is essential in beating Mr Trump*. His homosexuality will not go down well with conservative Christian black voters, who would normally vote for the Democratic candidate (white conservative Christian voters would vote Republican anyway, so they play no role there).
Of course the same could be said of Ms Klobuchar, she has -as yet- no significant black support. Or wider name recognition.
I hope she does well.
* Mr Trump does not need a majority of the black vote, but 20% instead of 9% for Mr Trump would be devastating for the Democrats.
I saw a part of an interview yesterday with a spokesperson for the Lincoln Project. They’re essentially Republicans who are never-Trumpers and are trying to get Republicans to either stay home of vote for a Democrat. The candidate they named as being most likely to get Republicans voting Democratic was Klobuchar. Basically, she doesn’t scare them like most of the others do. Sanders and Warren are too far left, and being gay is too big a hurdle for conservative Christians.
The Democrats cannot win without getting independents and some Republicans on board. The Electoral College is stacked against them. It’s still more likely than not that Trump will win, though only just, in November. However, even if it’s by only one seat, it’s still a win and the bastard’s back. The Democrats are unlikely to take back the Senate either, especially if Bernie tops the ticket, because people will see a vote for a Democrat as enabling Bernie to get through his policies which are too extreme for the majority of USians.
There’s a reason the Russians are supporting Bernie as well as Trump: they know that ultimately, he’s the easiest candidate for Trump to beat. And WHY didn’t Bernie talk about this a month ago when he found out. He’s turning out to be just as mendacious as Warren these days.
We have a similar issue in UK inner cities. Black teenagers are disproportionately being killed with knives, where the assailants are most often also black teenagers.
There used to be a “stop and search” policy, but that was stopped by Theresa May, after stats showed that the people being stopped were disproportionately young blacks (though that’s in line with the demographic of the neighbourhoods with high knife-crime rates). Since Theresa May stopped the searches, knife crime has increased. So we have the conversation:
A) Black kids are being murdered, what are you doing about it?
B) Well we could flood the area with police with stop-and-search powers, to deter carrying knives.
A) But that would be racist! No, you can’t do that. So what are you doing about black kids being murdered?
B) What do you suggest?
A) Well if it were *white* kids being murdered at these rates, then white society would demand we do something!
B) What white society would demand would be flooding the area with police with stop-and-search powers, even if that meant their kids got stopped occasionally. So can we do that?
A) No, that would be racist! You’d stop innocent black kids more often than innocent white kids.
B) But the relative proportions would be roughly in line with demographics in relevant neighbourhoods. And anyhow, de facto, stats show that assailants are more likely to be black teenagers, so yes any successful policy is going to have to target that demographic.
A) But that would be racist! We need you to produce a policy that stops black teenagers being disproportionately killed by other other black teenagers, while not in any way affecting black teenagers more than little, old, white grannies.
B) ??
Yep!
Exactly my point. It’s not the policy that’s racist, Racism is the reason the demographics of the high crime/low income neighbourhoods are the way they are.
You could say refusing to increase policing in those areas is what is actually racist because it leads to a lot more black kids being killed or injured.
Sorry I did not see your posting sooner but, better late than never. Although I am the most gun regulation person you could find I do not agree with the general take on this stop and frisk business. However, since Bloomberg has zero chance of getting this election I would not spend too much time on it. One rich guy bailed out yesterday and this one (who has much more money than brains) will also have to find something else to spend his money on. I am sure that television networks across the land are loving this guy.
Stop and Frisk was and is a bad idea. If we want people to not have guns then make the guns illegal but running around frisking everyone is stupid. How many times would you want the police stopping you looking for whatever? It makes the place a police state. If 70 percent of the people you are doing this to are black, guess what, it looks racist. How many are caught with drugs and arrested and go to jail. Lots of them. Our jails are full of black people arrested for small amounts of illegal drugs. It is stupid and solves nothing.
Bloomberg is just a really rich guy who does not know exactly what he is, republican, democrat or just rich. Like it or not it looks like Biden is going to be the candidate. If the democrats can get this office and the Senate, maybe they will do some good but I am not putting money on it.
I pretty much agree with you. Now that Biden has won South Carolina, Bloomberg may get out altogether. I’ve got some thoughts around that I may write about. My biggest concern is ensuring a moderate candidate rather than Bernie. He gets all the young people excited, but a majority of them don’t follow up with a vote, whether for him or another Democrat. He is also too scary for middle America.
I think stop and frisk is a bad idea because of the arbitrariness of is all. That’s what I meant about it being good that they’re checking up on it due to 90% of people being innocent. I just don’t think it’s racist per se.
And I agree about the drug thing too. It’s appalling the number of people who end up in jail and have their lives ruined for that. It’s a luck thing really. If Obama had been caught up like that, imagine where his life might have lead?
I think Mr Biden, Mr Sanders Mr Bloomberg and of course Mr Trump are highly susceptible to fall victim to the Covid-19 virus when it becomes a pandemic.They better choose a good VP.
Seriously though, I do not think Mr Bloomberg has a good chance: he is not liked by the ‘blacks’ nor by the young. I fear the democratic nomination will be between Mr Biden (‘black’ and ‘moderate’ support) and Mr Sanders (support by the young). Neither would be a very exciting candidate.
I somehow think Mr Sanders might just pull off beating Mr Trump, at least if ‘moderates’ realise he’s more of a social democrat than a ‘socialist’.
There’s a candidate that I think would make a great VP, but I keep forgetting her name. She’s a black woman who ran for the Senate in a southern state in 2018. It appears it was gerrymandering and other anomalies that kept her from winning. I’ve always been really, really impressed by her. I also think VP is a chance to get Kamala Harris back. Now that Biden has won South Carolina by such huge margin, there’s not really a path for the other moderate candidates. Even Pete Butttigieg has pulled out within the last hour.
Heather, you may be thinking of Stacey Abrams who ran for governor in Georgia. She is very good.
Yes, that’s her. Thanks Randy.
I’m a shocker with names. It’s really embarrassing.
Old Mikey is out, the contest will be between Joe and Bernie, both semi-senile, old candidates.
Either of them will run against and equally old, tertiary syphilis addled brain, Mr Trump.
A choice between bad and worse,
It would be difficult to argue against that summation, though hardcore supporters will try of course. I heard a few days ago (I’ve been out of touch with politics since) that whether it’s Bernie or Biden, Trump wants to make the election about whether either have the mental capacity to be president. Bring it on!
Well, we have seen how Mr Trump botched the Covid-19 epidemic. And he is on record that he does not take responsibility, and when asked why he emasculated the Epidemic Response Team in 2018 he passed the buck, to “Tony”. (who is “Tony”?)
https://www.axios.com/white-house-pandemic-national-security-trump-disbanded-e9c2e350-7cb6-4875-9e98-47579530684f.html
Mr Trump wants to make this about the mental capacity to be president? I think Mr Trump’s (increasing) detachment from reality is much worse than the mild symptoms of aging in Mr Biden. Yeah, bring it on!
Note, for all clarity, if I could vote in the US elections I’d happily vote for either Biden or Bernie. AND I’d try to move to a swing state where it counts.
That’s how I feel too. I think Bernie would be a dreadful president, but streets ahead of Trump. At least he has some respect for the law and democratic institutions.
Alea iacta est, it will be senile Joe against addled brain Donnie, unless one of them suffers a stroke or so between now and November (not completely unimaginable).
I’m not really happy with Mr Biden, but he has a greater chance of beating Mr Trump than Mr Sanders, who is marked by the ‘socialist’ label.
With the sub-optimal handling of the Covid-19 crisis and the related tanking of the ‘greatest economy ever’, Mr Biden stands a real chance.
Yeah. The handling in the US has exposed Trump big time. However, I’ve seen plenty of reports, such as from CPAC, that his core supporters think the media are making too big a thing of this and it’s just another attempt to get him out of office.
He botched it big time indeed.
I think his second term is a lost case, never mind CPAC.
However, on 538 his compound approval rating is still at a mindblowing 42.3%.
I must take back what I said about Mr Biden, I saw a few interviews with him, where he appeared anything but senile. Herewith I retract that characterisation.
Hi Heather!
Not heard much from you recently. Are you okay?
Hi mate. Yeah, sort of. Thanks for asking. I don’t feel much like writing. I’ve been in a fair bit of pain, and that makes it difficult to concentrate on writing. I’ll get back into it, hopefully sooner rather than later. I’ve started a few posts that haven’t made it onto the website because by the time I’ve written anything substantial they’re obsolete. I’ve been trying to do as much as I can on the Heather’s Homilies Facebook page, but that doesn’t have many followers. It’s easier for me to work in that shorter format at the moment.
Also, I don’t much like the way my site is now. I thought it would be okay, but it’s just not how I want things and I’m not comfortable with using it.
I hope you get back to it soon. I’ve found this lockdown thing has given me the opportunity to do a lot more writing than before.
Our lockdown has been over a while. We were lucky in that our government shut things down pretty quick, which meant little community spread and a shorter lockdown. Our borders are still almost completely closed, of course, but within the country things are pretty much normal except for the reduction in tourism.
I second that, the hoping you get back to it soon.
The lockdown has been a busy period for me. Less clinical work, but a huge admin task that the lockdown entailed.
And I also had to spend time making wine (SA had a ban on the sale of alcohol from March 28 to June 1), which was more time consuming than I thought.
South Africa also locked down early, and quite draconian at that. They did well in equipping hospitals and retraining the army of home based care workers (we have them due to the HIV epidemic) but they failed in the testing field. Although that is better now (it used to be more than a week), test results still take days to come through. So test and trace is not very effective. Also the social distancing measures and wearing of masks is not adhered to very well.
Hence, despite locking down early, we are in a very different place from NZ.
Yeah. We were a bit slow on the testing front too, and it’s still not ideal in some places. Our health department is making the effort to develop a world-leading tracing etc system though. They discovered gaps in our current system with so much pressure being put on it. It’s obviously something that will be needed on an ongoing basis and there will be more pandemics in the future which they’re making an effort to be ready for.
There were a couple of areas that were slack in the stay-at-home phase. The police presence was increased in those places and people asked to go home. I don’t know what reputation SA police have, but ours are mostly trusted so that worked. There were laws put in place if people repeatedly refused to go home, but I’m not sure if they were even used. If they were, there weren’t many arrests.