A ‘Broken Windows’ Policy Could Restore Order – The American Spectator

I hope that every American Spectator reader will take the time to read and ponder Carina Benton’s wonderful analysis of the French riots. She provides an excellent summary of the deterioration of public order in France over the last several years, reminding us that the eruption of violence is much more than a matter of a sad and lethal exchange between police and a teenage car thief. Moreover, she places the root cause of the situation firmly in the right place, namely, the two centuries (I would argue much longer) of de-Christianization in France, which followed the French Revolution. 

The philosophes of the “Enlightenment,” a value-laden term if ever there was one, have much to answer for, as, in their various ways, do the Bonapartists, the Communards of 1871, the Existentialists, and the Deconstructionists. Benton is undoubtedly correct that secular France needs to rediscover the values that made the country the heartland of Christianity. (RELATED: As Bloody Riots Reveal, Revolution Still Burns in France)

Sadly, what 200 years of destruction have wrought may well take another 200 years to overcome. While we need to make a start, we can only succeed in the long term if we address the crisis of the near term with forthright urgency. I use the term “we” advisedly since these challenges affect not only France, but also every nation among the inheritors of what we once proudly called “Western Civilization.” A good point of departure — I would argue the only useful point of departure — can be found through a revival of the “broken windows” theory and applying it beyond its original primary focus on criminality and extending it to cover the entirety of public order, including international order.

The ‘Broken Windows’ Policy Works

Most readers of The American Spectator will be at least broadly familiar with the “broken windows” concept. Coined in 1982 by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling and applied most famously by William Bratton and Rudy Giuliani in New York City, it had a significant and measurable impact on crime and an equally positive impact on the quality of life in the city. It’s no accident that its application seemed to usher in a new “Golden Age” for city residents.

Without exploring all the nuances of how “broken windows” evolved, the foundational precept had to do with insisting on fixing things — a broken window left unrepaired invites more windows to be broken — and sending a message that the community insists on maintaining public order. Vandalism and petty crime are punished, and ordinary citizens can feel safe in their homes, in their workplaces, and on the street. Just as chaos begets chaos, order begets order.

Unsurprisingly, “broken windows” reforms attracted their share of critics, some fair-minded, some tendentious — the latter mainly leftists, frequently academics, for whom anything that smacked of an insistence on order was unforgivably conservative. Over time, predictably, the “racist” epithet came to be applied in spite of the fact that an insistence on order found many beneficiaries among minority communities. Nowadays, our major cities bear mute testimony to the “success” of these critics, the Soros-supported DAs, the weak-kneed city councils and school boards, their enablers among the media, and the privileged in their gated communities and high-security apartment complexes.

The French People Want Order Restored

This brings us back to France and, more broadly, to Western Europe writ large. French political figures, like Eric Zemmour, have loudly proclaimed that the problem is one of unassimilable Muslim communities who’ve come to create virtual extraterritorial enclaves in the notorious suburban banlieues of Paris and other major cities. Arguably, however, the problem is not so much that they are Muslim, per se, but rather that they have been placed beyond the bounds of public order.

The responsibility for this falls squarely upon the several generations of center-left French politicians, including the current president of France, who have confused tolerance of cultural differences for tolerance of rampant criminality. Even now, after a week of senseless and massive violence, many of the leading lights of French left-wing politics want to trivialize the rioting and looting while condemning the police. We saw much the same thing in this country in the summer of 2020. Our own “mostly peaceful protests” were not much different from the firestorms of recent days in France — right down to the looting, which always seems to accompany the destruction.

The French people, if the polls are any indication, have seen through this dishonesty and have shown overwhelming support for the police rather than the protesters. They want order restored, period, and aren’t feeling too fussy about how it’s accomplished. Simply cracking heads, however, is not a sustainable solution, if only because, in the present moment, there are far too many heads to crack.

The starting point, instead, must be a sustainable value proposition, one that centers upon why there should be zero tolerance for such violence. The answer should be obvious, and the fact that it isn’t testifies to just how far our public discourse in the West has sunk under the weight of leftist academic absurdities. The most fundamental of human needs is the need for individuals, families, and, by extension, their communities to feel safe in their homes, safe in their places of work, safe in the places where they congregate to interact, and safe on the streets that are the connective tissue that binds all these elements together. With this principle, all things are possible. Without it, our lives fall apart. 

The Destruction of Property Smashes Lives

During the last week, the French have been subjected to a phrase we’ve heard repeatedly: “It’s only property, it’s not worth a life.” But feeling safe in one’s home, and feeling confident that one’s home will not be invaded or destroyed, is an inherent human need.

Working to create something such as a small shop or a neighborhood café — these aspirations give meaning to everyday life. Our humanity isn’t defined by the things that we own, but it is very much defined — as even Karl Marx recognized — by the things we create through our daily toil. It’s no accident that we use the phrase “making a home” because even the most pathetic of such spaces engages our creativity — witness the tents and shelters of the homeless.

Our workplaces, obviously, are the same. I may not have much respect for a Louis Vuitton handbag or — to take a recent example from the United States — a pair of overpriced Lululemon tights — but someone, somewhere, worked to make these things, worked to transport them, worked to place them on display for purchase. In stealing such things, a looter doesn’t simply grab something existentially worthless but rather appropriates the labor and creativity of everyone involved in their creation. Burn a car, smash a store window, trash a home — these may not literally take a life, but they smash lives nonetheless.

So let’s start then, in France, in Sweden, and wherever rioters and looters have been given free rein by the opinion makers — our own country very much included. Let’s not worry about drawing distinctions based on race or ethnicity. One can wish for a society in which all are treated with respect and consideration, but that wish can never justify the kind of violent protests that have riven France. We need to uphold the structures of civilization, be they safe streets, personal properties, or national borders. Taken to its logical conclusion, the commitment to order applies to securing a nation’s borders. Regardless of who you might wish to allow in or keep out, nothing good comes from the abnegation of control.

The Universal Right to Property

And one might take this to a truly global level. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, we didn’t spend much time troubling ourselves about the worthiness of the Kuwaiti government or people. We recognized that this was a wantonly unacceptable violation of international order. The same might be said of the current war in Ukraine or a possible future war over Taiwan. Regardless of any political agendas or justifications, rolling across a border is criminal. The industrial-scale vandalization of homes and livelihoods is criminal. Wholesale militarized murder is criminal. Breaking and entering should always, and everywhere, be against the law.

In the final analysis, our departure point must be recognizing that one man’s terrorist can never be another man’s freedom fighter. No cause justifies terrorism. Rioting and looting are never an acceptable extension of peaceful protest. When violence occurs, whatever the supposed justification, the line is drawn, and the perpetrators must be punished. It may take a century or two…