President Trump’s announcement to enhance federal control of policing in Washington DC to fight crime in the nation’s capital is welcome. Talking heads insist that “crime is down” in DC, that Trump’s move is “cover” for not wanting to discuss the Epstein case, that it usurps “home rule,” and augurs either Trumpian “racism” or creeping “fascism.” Let’s take apart the talking points of the talking heads.

There’s a reason Mark Twain spoke of “lies, damn lies, and statistics.” USA Today cites four cities (here) outranking DC for murders. (DC scores 25.5 murders per 100,000 people.) Well, I’m not happy I have a better chance of being murdered in Memphis than in DC, but truth be told I don’t want to be slaughtered in either. And, with all due respect to Tennessee, a lot more Americans come to see the Home of the Presidents than Elvis’s home.

There were 274 murders in DC in 2023. I guess for some commentators that’s “normal,” in the range of “acceptable.” Where does Trump get off calling that an “emergency”? I wonder if your tune would change facing the other end of a knife or gun?

Again in the “lies, damn lies, and statistics” column, USA Today says DC comes in tenth, behind nine other cities, in “violent crimes.” (You have 926 chances per 100,000 persons to suffer a violent crime in DC). Again, and? Yes, Detroit outranks DC in violent crime. But do you hear an explosion of Americans booking tours of the Motor City? And are 926 chances in 100,000 acceptable because you have 1,606 shots per 100,000 in Baltimore?

Two points are ignored by commentators.

First, DC occupies a unique place in the United States. It’s our city. It’s our capital. Americans do not feel the same way about Memphis, Detroit, Milwaukee, or Baltimore — nor do they visit them in the same way. For all the invocations of “home rule,” most Americans think of the capital first as ours, not its residents. There’s a Constitutional basis for that: The capital was supposed to be politically neutral territory under federal rule. “Home rule,” a devolution of self-governance to a local DC government, dates only from 1974. In my judgment, there have been no stellar examples of local rule in those 51 years. I remember an editorial cartoon from the mid-1980s about then-Mayor Marion Berry being arrested for possession of crack cocaine. The cartoon was divided into two panels. Panel one showed two people walking along, one telling the other, “Look at that! Using crack in public! I’m gonna tell the mayor!” Next panel: “Hey, Mayor! Cut that out!”

Second, the President’s move is a direct threat to the liberal narrative. As political commentator Charles Lipson observed (here), the President has a unique opportunity, given DC’s relationship to the federal government, to make the capital an example of how to eradicate violent crime. Cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, Detroit, and Baltimore — crime-ridden cities that have long been dark blue enclaves (Philly’s last Republican mayor left office the month President-Elect Dwight D. Eisenhower was sworn into his first term) — would have their dominant governance philosophies up-ended if Trump were successful. Instead of “root causes” and “restorative justice,” “minimized incarceration” and “social reintegration” while people fear riding subways, walking alone, or being out at night, a proven record would challenge the pieties of the Left responsible for the criminal ecology of once great American cities. That could portend radical political realignment.

No doubt the race card will be played. “The President is beating up on black and brown Washington.” That canard deserves to die. Minorities are disproportionately the victims of crimes: Anacostia, which USA Today cites as one of DC’s most crime-ridden areas, is predominantly black. I don’t believe honest, hard-working blacks and Latinos enjoy being raped, robbed, or killed, nor feel a swell of ethnic pride when their assailant is “one of their own.”

Fascism? That all-purpose “f” word (one of two that has become ubiquitous in the Left’s political discourse) does not mean “law and order.” But restoring law and order will not be an easy task and the question will be: Are Americans in it for the long haul, for what it takes to reverse decades of criminal indulgence? I fear that, as with the narrative over illegal aliens and ICE, some may find the requisite resolve alienating. (That may tell us just how serious Americans are about crime.) And I also fear that the local Catholic Church might lend support to that undermining of law and order in the name of “solidarity with the poor,” “social justice,” etc. — especially if law enforcement includes cleaning up homeless encampments around the city as a different approach to that problem.

“Home rule” is a kind of political halfway house. It gives DC some local rule but subject to federal oversight. It’s why the Left has long pushed (and the current DC government considers it priority #1) making DC the “State of Columbia.” I think that would be unconstitutional. But, regardless, the argument that may persuade many Americans is: the state of DC is the most eloquent reason why DC shouldn’t be a State.