The Progressive Left Is Fighting a Losing Battle Against Donald Trump Over the Safety of Big Cities

Trump is playing chess against checkers-playing Democrats. Like securing the border, he also is showing that to substantially reduce crime in big cities, you just need a leader willing to do it.

If you thought Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) was just a made up mental illness coined by the Right to be funny, then the Progressive Left’s (over)reaction to Donald Trump’s effort in America’s big cities to apprehend, detain, and deport criminal illegal immigrants and, equally importantly, to quell the violence from assaults, robberies, and murders should be unequivocal proof that it is all too real. After all, nothing else explains why Democrat leader after Democrat leader puts so much effort to stop Trump and his team from doing what is popular with the American people. More pointedly, TDS illustrates why a politician would try to stop his political opponent from DECREASING the violence that is causing untold harm to the men, women, and children living in his own state/city.

If you want to respond to the above paragraph by citing the fact that crime may be down this year, you are missing the forest for the trees. No politician should ever get bragging rights for the number of murders dropping from 620 in 2023 to 573 in 2024, as was the case in Chicago. Why? Because 573 human beings were still murdered, leaving mothers, fathers, children, sisters, brothers, and others grieving. Same goes for twenty-four fewer rapes occurring when 2,069 women were still viciously raped, or when 6,530 residents were beaten or shot during a robbery. Every crime that does occur should always be seen as a PREVENTABLE crime if enough resources were available to prevent it.

The only question that matters is: can government take actions to decrease crime more than it is doing? If the president—no matter his party—is willing to deploy national guard troops or other federal law enforcement assets to your city to help reduce crime, then you should accept that help and figure out how best it can be deployed to prevent crimes from happening in your city. If you think resisting that help is the right call, there is something truly wrong with you. Look at the list above from just an anecdotal tracking of weekend crime in Chicago. Over just five weekends this past summer, twenty-four Americans were killed and another 165 Chicagoans were shot, including children. Think of the devastation in the lives of those folks. Why would you not support ANY action to stop those people from dying or being injured?

Why would you file lawsuits to STOP a president from sending resources to help you decrease crime, as California Governor Gavin Newsom and Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker are doing? You would only do that if you had presidential ambitions inflamed by TDS in which you believed the political points you will score with the Progressive Left voting base is more important than the lives that would be saved or would remain untouched by crime had you accepted the support. Just compare Newsom’s and Pritzker’s responses to Memphis Mayor Paul Young’s response to Trump’s upcoming deployment to his city. Young stated:

Our goal is to focus heavily on violent crime because we know those are the ones that are really terrorizing our neighborhoods and communities. The more we can use this presence for that emphasis, I think the better off our community will be. We have seen tremendous reduction but it’s almost like if you’re 600 pounds and you lose 200, you still have some work to do. And we have work to do. We’ve never shied away from that.

Young “reiterated that the National Guard’s role would ‘serve as the eyes and ears’ for local law enforcement agencies, including the Memphis Police Department.”

Due to opposition from Progressive Left politicians, Trump is considering invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807 that would allow him to use federal troops for civilian law enforcement. It is a rarely used statutory power, but one that a president has at his disposal. For the record, I’m not stating that Trump SHOULD invoke the Insurrection Act for this purpose or that it applies to all actions. It likely does apply to what states and localities are doing to oppose the enforcement of immigration laws versus their opposition to enforcing criminal laws. The Constitution is crystal clear that the federal government alone has control over immigration laws. When states or cities defy federal laws as “sanctuary states/cities” to protect illegal immigrants, they are arguably engaging in insurrection no differently than when southern governors defied federal desegregation orders in the 1960s. Their cause is not helped by doing as Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson did when he created “ICE-free zones” to proactively impede federal immigration operations and claiming that Trump is “at war” with Chicago.

When I served President George W. Bush during Hurricane Katrina, the Dick Cheney faction within the administration pushed for Bush to invoke the Insurrection Act in Louisiana due to inaction by Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin. I argued strenuously against doing that because I believed the state and local governments weren’t so much insurrecting as simply being overwhelmed. Thankfully, the Insurrection Act wasn’t needed once we put effective leadership in New Orleans. Trump shouldn’t have to invoke it today, but too many Progressives Left politicians are putting harboring illegal immigrants—in many cases criminal illegal immigrants—ahead of the safety of Americans. Trump could easily turn a blind eye to the crimes that are being committed in America’s big Blue cities, but he is doing what too many politicians heretofore have failed to do: using his political power and capital to help America’s most vulnerable populations.

The bigger problem for the Progressive Left is that opposing Trump’s efforts isn’t even good politics. Look at the poll results above. More than three-fourths of Americans support deporting criminal illegal immigrants, with 56% supporting deporting all illegal immigrants. On deploying federal assets to decrease crime in big cities, 51% support the effort. That number may not impress you, but look closer at the results by party affiliation in which 26% of Democrats and 48% of Independents support Trump’s efforts. Where do you think those voters live—in wealthy suburban enclaves and college towns, or in the big cities? Mark my words, Trump using his power to help inner city Americans escape some of the violence they have been surrounded by for decades, as Democrats who have done so little to curb the violence oppose him, will convert even more of those men and women into Republican voters in the coming years. When those communities made safer by Trump ask the question: what have you done for me lately? They will respond in increasing numbers at the ballot box for Republicans. While I don’t believe the shift will impact who controls the big Blue cities, I do think the shift will make it increasingly harder for Democrats to win key battleground states, as the loss of some urban voters will not be replaceable by other voters in those states.

As I’ve detailed previously, the “Bell Curve Electorate” in which the smaller group of college educated Americans vote Left, as the far larger group of Americans without a college degree vote Right, is solidifying across racial groups each election cycle. Trump won the largest share of minority voters for a Republican in modern history despite being hit with the race card more than any presidential candidate since Barry Goldwater. His actions to make America’s big cities safer for the hardworking men, women, and children who live there will only grow that support. Keep in mind, Trump’s second term actions come on the heels of his first term actions in which he passed major criminal justice reform, fully funded historical black colleges and universities, and unleashed an economy that saw record low unemployment and record high wages for minorities. Trump is playing chess against checkers-playing Democrats. Like securing the border, he also is showing that to substantially reduce crime in big cities, you just need a leader willing to do it.