Thug Life

( – promoted by Patrick)

Let’s face it: Gov. Patrick can never, and will never, talk seriously about the problem of inner-city violence in Boston.

He can talk platitudes, speak in generalities, and dance around the real subject, but he can never really hit the mark. I can’t blame him. For him to talk seriously about the “root causes” of urban violence would inflict far too much damage upon his political career.

Gov. Patrick cannot talk seriously about inner-city violence in Boston without acknowledging on some level that the flaws of 1960s liberalism played a major role in the growth of street violence. For him to acknowledge this would anger too many white liberals, too many “community activists”, too many committed progressives. The last thing these characters want to hear is that their philosophy is to blame for urban violence.

Progressives tend to get very, very defensive when conservatives argue that the Great Society and the so-called War on Poverty created a culture of fatherlessness and hopelessness, a culture that became a breeding ground for violence, drugs and despair. Peace-loving liberals get downright belligerent (to the point of almost becoming “neocon warmongers”!) when those on the right point out that making the underclass dependent upon government largesse was the absolute worst prescription for the ills that affected the urban downtrodden.

Patrick can’t get up there and say that his party bears some degree of responsibility for the lawlessness of the inner city. He can’t acknowledge that the Democrats of the 1960s created inner-city fatherlessness by effectively encouraging irresponsible women to have multiple children in order to receive significant welfare benefits (benefits that wouldn’t be nearly as large if there was a father in the house). He can’t really say that inner-city schools, run by big-city liberal Democrat mayors, did an intentionally poor job of educating black youth (“intentionally” because, if young, poorly educated blacks could not provide for themselves, they’d be dependent upon big government, and thus dependent upon the party of big government). 

Patrick cannot acknowledge any of this because it cuts too close to the bone. Could you imagine the outrage that would fall upon his head if he told the truth–that his own party’s misguided 1960s actions gave birth to inner-city death?

I’m sure it bothers Patrick that so many young people are dying in Boston’s inner-city neighborhoods. I’m certain it breaks his heart. I’m positive that he understands the role his party played in creating these horrors–but I know he can’t express that feeling honestly, lest those who supported him turn on him as some sort of traitor.

The Democrat Party’s responsibility for the growth of urban crime is one of those facts we often notice but never say.  It’s considered impolite to hold one political party responsible for such violence. However, in this particular case, the gloves fit.

Today’s urban criminals were born in Democrat cities, raised on Democrat public assistance, miseducated in Democrat schools, and get away with their crimes because of the flaws in a Democrat criminal justice system. Thus, it is wholly appropriate to regard these criminals as Democrat criminals.

However, Patrick would become persona non grata within two seconds in this state if he even subtly conceded that his party’s 1960s-era foolishness effectively created the large number of American gangsters wreaking havoc upon Boston and other major Democrat-run cities. He knows he’d be accused of “blaming the victim”, “pandering to reactionary whites”, “hardheartedness towards the poor”, and whatever dumb catchphrases the left uses to shut up those who point out the role the Great Society played in destroying America’s inner cities. Thus, Patrick knows that it’s best to keep his mouth shut.

What makes Gov. Patrick’s life story so remarkable is that he rose above circumstances created by the party he belongs to. Democrats didn’t exactly intend for young black children to grow up to become governors; they preferred to have those young black children grow up to become dependents, forever in need of the Democrats’ helping hand. Patrick may agree with the Democrats on issues such as abortion, gay rights, the environment, etc., but Patrick surely knows that the Great Society was an embarrassment for Democrats (just as Watergate was an embarrassment for Republicans). Yet Patrick is too smart to run around airing his party’s dirty laundry.

So the next time some young man or woman is shot to death in Dorchester, Roxbury or Mattapan, don’t bother asking the Governor for answers to the question of crime. He’ll never tell.

About D. R. Tucker

  • Knightbrigade

    Urban cities are OWNED by Democrats.
    Are there ANY moderate/major population sized cities that have more Republican enrolled voters than Democrat?

    So as long as gangs are given box seats to not shoot each other, dumb ass gift cards given out to get thugs to turn in their guns, and entitlement programs up the wazoo things will never change.

    Democrats get votes, and the citizens get to play dodge the bullet.

     

  • Festus Garvey

    All the evils of urban society started in the 60’s and the only cause of these problems are the liberal programs developed by liberal politicians.

    This is DR’s third posting on the same subject in about two weeks and my basic criticism of each of them is that they give simplistic answers to the complex issues.  Yet DR won’t debate this issue beyond his initial posts.  So far he has only proved one thing to me: he is an intellectual coward who will not debate.  I’ve challenged him over and over again and he just won’t respond.

    DR, if the Great Society programs were designed to eliminate the ills of the urban city–doesn’t that mean that these ills existed BEFORE the 60’s?  What would the point have been to TRY and eliminate poverty, if poverty did not exist in the first place?  I will stipulate that many Great Society programs may have failed (and certainly some worked–like Head Start), but to blame them for the initial problems–which you clearly do, is plain wrong.

    So do you care to get off your high and mighty horse and care to debate this issue? 

  • geo999

    ..I’m in general agreement with FG – if D.R. doesn’t engage in the debate, it looks a bit drive-by.

  • Knightbrigade

    Oh well…Festus– DO you think the 60’s changed society in ANY form? If YES then your opinion must be for the better. If NO…then that simplifies things.

    Poverty before the 60’s, hell YA!! The great depression rings a bell. MY opinion and I think D.R.’s is that PRE-60’s people rolled up their sleeves, sacrificed, had better values, and worked to survive. In the 60’s the tone was set that the government would take care of tough situations. People then tended to expect things instead of working for them, especially minority’s. In most aspects of life the 60’s took away consequences for actions, crime, sex, married/living together, etc.

    No links, just an observation of that decade. I’d be interested in what negative, positive, or non impact you think the 60’s had. 

    Not intending to start any crap, just nice easy opinions.