One Democratic strategist’s argument against the ‘tough on crime’ pivot

Last week, when the Democratic National Committee met in Minneapolis, Insha Rahman of Vera Action delivered a short presentation about how the party could more effectively talk about crime. On X, I shared a photo of one slide from Rahman’s deck, contrasting a “smart on safety” message with a “tough on crime” message. It did not go over well.

Rahman, a former public defender, had more to say, so I talked with her after the event for a fuller view of how criminal justice reformers were thinking through the issue, and what Vera Action’s polling really said.

“Democrats should heed the policy priorities that matter most to voters,” Rahman said. “Better, more accountable policing; ending the overdose crisis; supporting strong mental health; tackling gun violence; safekeeping our streets and quality of life; and a fairer, more accountable justice system.”

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

David Weigel: A lot of people saw my photo of the “tough on crime” versus “smart on safety” slide, and thought: Vera is telling Democrats that they don’t need to be “tough on crime.” What is wrong with that quick read?

Insha Rahman: Our advice to Democrats, and all politicians, is to take their cues from what the research shows voters want when it comes to crime and public safety. The conventional political wisdom is that voter concerns about crime equal support for a “tough-on-crime” approach of more police, harsher sentences, and tougher laws. 

That’s false. From having conducted 40-plus rounds of polling and public opinion research since 2022, we have found that taking voter concerns about safety seriously is not the same as being “tough on crime.” These results repeat themselves in our national polling, state-specific polling, battleground data, and exit polling in specific cities and after specific races.

Consistently, we have found that voters associate the phrases “tough on crime” and “law and order” with Republicans. Those phrases do not resonate with a majority of voters who identify as Democrats or independents, and in fact reinforce the GOP brand instead of building credibility for Democrats.

The advice I’ve heard for every Democrat, since 2020 and “defund the police,” is to preempt any “soft on crime” attacks by appearing with police and saying you’ll fight crime. Is that wrong?

The most effective way for Democrats to preempt “soft-on-crime” attacks and to show the voters they are trying to win over that they are serious about this issue is to lead with concrete policies and solutions that advance three universal values: safety, accountability, and justice. Our advice to Democrats is to hold press conferences and town halls on the campaign trail to engage in honest conversation with voters about what works to deliver safety, accountability, and justice. And, when in office, [to] continue to make these conversations a regular part of your engagement with the public.

In our research, we have found that the typical police union endorsements, press conferences flanked by police, and political ads featuring police simply don’t have the resonance with voters than they may have had decades ago. In fall 2024, we did focus groups of three sets of moderate voters — white voters in Michigan, Black voters in North Carolina, and Latino voters in Nevada. We showed them a series of political ads about crime/safety, from the typical GOP “tough-on-crime” ad to a Democratic politician touting a police endorsement — and an ad from Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott, who was running for reelection at the time and crediting his 20% decline in homicides to investments in youth afterschool programs, community violence intervention, and better cooperation between the police and community.

All three voter blocs strongly favored Mayor Scott’s message and policies over the approach, by both GOP and Democratic politicians, that focused only on police as messengers and policing as a response to concerns about crime.

Kamala Harris tried a version of the “tough” message in 2020, going back to her image as California’s “top cop” and [how she put] criminals in jail. She talked about the money for police funding that Democrats passed. Why was that ineffective?

She framed the race as the “prosecutor versus felon,” touted her credentials as a “tough”-on-the-border prosecutor, repeatedly attacked the GOP for failing to pass the Lankford-Sinema-Murphy border bill, dropped opposition to the death penalty from the Democratic platform for the first time in more than a decade, and only occasionally highlighted popular justice reform measures she championed in her past — such as diversion programs, ending a two-tiered system of justice, and greater police accountability.

Exit polling found that only a tiny share of Republicans voted for Harris, a similar or smaller share than had for Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton in past races, despite a concerted effort by the Harris campaign to run on moderate and conservative messages and tout endorsements from notable Republicans. Vera Action’s post-2024 election research found that Harris’s “tough-on-crime” rhetoric reinforced the GOP’s brand strength on crime without building credibility of her own.

Your presentation suggested that Democrats should say “We are serious about safety, not empty tough-on-crime scare tactics,” especially in the context of DC and the military takeover there. That hasn’t been Mayor [Muriel] Bowser’s approach. What is she doing wrong? Is there a risk she’s hurting Democrats?

The most important point to make here is that President Trump’s takeover of DC is a political power grab — it is not about safety. This posturing about crime is a distraction from the president’s own actions that endanger our young people, families, and neighborhoods: his cuts to health care and food assistance, funding for victims services and community policing, youth programs, community violence intervention, and drug/mental health treatment, and his rollbacks to basic gun safety measures.

Mayor Bowser is in an impossible situation because of DC’s lack of independence and being beholden to the federal government. She needs Congress and President Trump to release $1.1 billion in funding to her city. That said, her response to the federal takeover of her city misses a critical opportunity to call on President Trump to restore her city’s funding for the very programs and policies that improve quality of life and save lives instead of engaging in political theater with federal troops and tanks occupying the city.

Her executive order granting indefinite authority to the president to occupy her city is especially bewildering. She is squandering a high-profile moment for Democrats to make the case that they have real solutions to prevent crime, respond to crisis, and stop violence — and the federal government should invest in those solutions — and instead is allowing the president’s tough-on-crime scare tactics to go unchecked.

From the media’s perspective: A murder is a story. A murder-free month is a story. A public safety strategy having some positive impact is not a nightly news story. How could Democrats change that?

There are Democratic leaders, especially mayors, who are doing this so effectively. Google Mayor Scott in Baltimore, or Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb, and you will see them everywhere in their community name-checking the specific changes to policing, the community-based programs that are showing real promise, and holding press conferences and town halls with both community leaders and law enforcement.

The problem for the national Democratic party is that they lack a brand on this issue and have no strong, consistent message on the solutions that work to prevent crime, respond to crisis, and stop violence. The brand deficit and volume gap — the GOP spending $1 billion on crime ads last cycle compared to Democrats spending $319 million — turns into a trust gap for the party as a whole. The mayors get this. National Democrats would be well-served by turning to them for pointers.