While I appreciate that TYT is a progressive media outlet we never had before, at times I still find it dissapointing that TYT does not do better research, and as such TYT is prone to buying into misleading propaganda, or making poorly informed takes on subjects.
Take TYT’s video “D.C. Councilmember Takes DRASTIC Step To Curb Violent Crime”, TYT does not qualify the fact that violent crime is a very complex issue, and TYT never really goes into any analysis of the three factors claimed to contribute to D.C.'s rising violent crime rate.
While Cenk does address that the cuts to police funding were not really cuts, such a time would have been perfect to mention that there is no correlation between year-to-year police spending and crime rates (crime, complex issue). Furthermore, when Cenk disccussed lack of prosecution, such a time would have been perfect to bring up mass incarceration, and the societal problems associated with mass incarceration. This leads perfectly into the factor of recidivism, allowing you to point out that while mass incarceration initially reduced recividism, the gains were small, especially compared to the economic and socioeconomic costs of mass incarceration. Instead of just throwing out the bare minimum about some random things that might reduce recividism, you could have then discussed how incarceration rates do not correlate with reduction in recidivism, education reduces recidivism, and that research indicates rehabilitation programs instead of prisons may be a more effective way to reduce recidivism.
Though I understand that discussing violent crime is a complex issue, I think your audience is smart enough to handle it, and you could have touched upon the factors that correlate to increased crime rates (to varying degrees), such as income inequality, poverty combined with other factors, criminal inertia, race or ethnicity, the stresses of the initial phases of rapid urbanization and industrialization, economic prosperity and decline, changes in the demographic structure, etc. At some point, we need to discuss that when we are actually able to start addressing violent crime in a meaningful way, criminal inertia means there it will always take time before effective measures start to make a difference.
Also, do not forget about firearms, because although firearm availability does not correlate with the increase of violent crimes, firearm availability and economic disadvantage does correlate with the increase of violent crimes, and firearm availability correlates with the increase of violent crimes perpetrated with a firearm and national homicide rates. Again, violent crime, a complex issue.
Do not forget, if we actually read the available research, we can start to see many ways to start to begin to address violent crime.
While it is not always easy to articulate how to specifically address violent crime, we can look to current and ongoing research to paint an overall picture. Essentially, democracies with decent political rights and civil liberties tend to have lower rates of violent crime. Transitional democracies, transitioning from a strong autocracy without forming a strong democracy, have the highest violent crime rates of any governmental system. While it is too early to determine that the trend for authoritarian politicians and state governments to transition the U.S.A. towards fascism and authoritarianism will incentivize violent crime in the same way, we should still bring it up and have that conversation.
It is high time that we start to recognize how we form, organize, and regulate our governmental authorities have the greatest impacts towards addressing inequality, ethnocentrism, gender disparities, lack of basic needs, accessible education, accessible justice, accessible healthcare, socioeconomic development, and sustainability. It is almost like if we incentivize people to be self-interested (economic theory), then a significant number of the population (the status quo) sacrifice all else (become destroyers) to attain their self interests. If however, we incentivize the socioeconomic health of all, than the majority of people will temper the excesses of the self interested, without depriving them the right to pursue their self-interest. Violent crime in a society is not about what we do, but who we are.
It is not only by how we form our societies that can make a difference, and as an example, if we look at the study “Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy” by ROBERT J. SAMPSON, STEPHEN W. RAUDENBUSH, AND FELTON EARLS, the authors hypothesize that “Associations of concentrated disadvantage and residential instability with violence are largely mediated by collective efficacy.”
“A concentrated disadvantage is a sociological term for neighborhoods with high percentages of residents of low socioeconomic status.” - Wikipedia
“Collective efficacy refers to the ability of members of a community to control the behavior of individuals and groups in the community.” - Wikipedia
It is almost as if we give agency to our nation’s citizens, and incentivize them to prioritize the socioeconomic health of all, we create better, more equitable societies. We, as societies, also really need to have a serious discussion about the importance of how we form, organize, and regulate our societies. If we do not do that, then in addition to having to overcome social inertia AND the status quo, we also have to get people to turn against their socioeconomic interests. Imagine telling someone “Ok, do not worry about your job, ability to put a roof over your head (including utilities), or whether you can clothe, feed, and care for you and your loved ones, I need you to help me overcome our society’s resistance to change (social inertia) and overthrow the status quo.”
My final thought. I suppose it is possible that you are “dumbing it down” for your audience, and if so, I think you are doing your audience a great disservice. I might not be correct about everything I discussed, as I only took a few hours to research what I wanted to say, but I definately think you can do better that what I did in a couple hours. As such, I feel you cannot swing around the qualifier “progressive” if you are not willing to get at the meat and potatoes of the issues you decide to cover.