A lot of suspicion comes from the fact that many people pushing for "public order" (not you necessarily!) only seem to direct that push at those low on the social totem pole. Cops parking on the sidewalk is a clear threat to public order, but never seem to get dealt with, for instance (and some of the biggest public order enthusiasts are entirely on board with this a la Eric Adams and his supporters). If you want to get wide buy-in for public order, you're going to need to be extremely careful to make sure that it visibly applies to authority figures as well.
I think this is true, and it comes with a mirror image.
There are at least two kinds of people who selectively call for order and diminish the debate on public order: those who only aim at the low end of the social totem pole out of over-deference to corrupt authority (police officers and other public officials parking where they shouldn't, as you say), and those who only aim at the high end out of a misplaced sense of compassion (laws around involuntary institutionalization being too weak, lawmakers who won't fix them).
Both are bad, of course--public order is a "yes, and!" thing. In the piece I link to my case study on fixing the department of street sweeping at the turn of the century as an example of throwing out corrupt officials and using administrative reform to achieve public order (https://www.maximumnewyork.com/p/street-cleaning-george-waring). Maybe I'll write about the reform of the police department under head police commissioner Theodore Roosevelt that happened at the same time next!
"If you want to get wide buy-in for public order, you're going to need to be extremely careful to make sure that it visibly applies to authority figures as well." I agree, and also the mirror image is true--plenty of people do not make sure their calls for public order visibly apply to those who aren't in authority.
People who I'd say aim predominantly/only at the low: the president of the United States, the governor of New York, the mayor of New York, the police commissioner of New York
People who I'd classify as excusing the low and prosecuting only the high: ...? Brad Lander maybe a little?
I would say this is an incomplete list. A good survey would look at the whole city, state, and federal government, with each of their branches. Such a survey would reveal an abundance of officials who take an incomplete stance on public order in one way or another.
A clear example that floats to the top here in the city/state that I would add to your list: the two most recent District Attorneys for Manhattan/New York County. Both of them avoid prosecuting things like subway turnstile jumping, and other "low-level" crimes.
“Public order can coexist with liberty and fairness—in fact, I think public order is the best way to achieve both of those things.” Absolutely. Lots of conversations with friends recently around this exact reality.
For years, I've mentally had a draft of a post about what an individual can do in cases where they witness public disorder.
The culture in NYC seems to be mind yo bizniz, which seems easy and unproductive.
As citizens, we should learn how to productively confront and fix situations of disorder, even if it means risking our physical health to confrontation.
I usually lay it out like this: upholding public order as a layperson going about your life can be done on a graduated schedule with increasing reps and "heavier weight," which ensures that you can do the bigger tasks with less downside risk.
There are many ways to uphold public order. People should start with the easiest and least threatening thing that they can unilaterally do (picking up trash, not littering!). This builds a psychology of caring, acting on that care, and developing a relationship with the city itself.
After that, upgrade to bringing your social group along (as you do). Get them to pick up trash with you. But after that comes the harder part with friends: productively confronting them if they jump a turnstile, or something like that.
So far you're still in the "safe" zone (your friends might get angry or defensive, but you're probably physically safe), but you're building the psychological muscle memory of caring, of confronting, of fixing. First with yourself, then with your friends, and then on a deeper level with your friends.
After that you exit the safe zone--interactions with strangers. This scares people, because you never know what someone else will do if you confront them about anti-social behavior. Learning the best and most appropriate ways to do this productively is another set of psychological muscles to build, and you learn risk/reward (https://x.com/_TamaraWinter/status/1873151051114922039).
Finally there are actual emergencies--something is going horribly wrong, and it will keep going wrong unless someone physically intervenes. Maybe someone is getting beaten up, or someone is making violent threats and brandishing a weapon, etc. In those cases, you would hope that you have some psychological preparation. It is very hard for people to go from not upholding order to suddenly asking them to do the hardest version of it, just like it's hard for them to lift very heavy weights if they haven't strength trained.
I'm making these numbers up, but I think they're directionally correct: 97% of laypeople (non-police/EMS/fire) upholding public order is everything up to (but not including) emergencies. And that 97%, if engaged with properly, gives them a better appreciation of the 3%. They see how small disorder breeds big disorder. They see how a trashy area can attract more trash once people lower their expectations. They see how *no one will fix things magically, often it is just people like you who do it*.
When I think about increasing public order, I usually focus on the 97%. This isn't to say the 3% isn't important--far from it. But that's how I lay it out to people.
I'm curious about what a constructive, positive approach to "public order" looks like. Finding an answer to this is a pretty important component of building public trust in leftist (for lack of a better world) city leadership.
1) One is framing and rhetoric. Often people speak about being compassionate to, say, drug users who openly inject in places like the Herald Square subway station entrances. Regardless of what "being compassionate" means, I think this lands badly for many people, because they think "What about compassion for me and my children as we're walking past that, especially if there's a fallen needle on the ground?" More generally: the public wants nice things, and they often have politicians telling them that they must accept degraded things (although they wouldn't use that phrasing). This kind of messaging does not work, and it makes the public hate their politicians. I think a positive rhetorical approach would emphasize what the public realm deserves *first*, as a starting point, rather than emphasizing the needs of those creating public disorder first (regardless of why they're creating that disorder).
2) As far as policy, one "easy win" is something like pay toilets (maybe via a franchise). Install them all around the city, charge like $3 per use (comparable to the subway), watch as the public enjoys an upgraded experience and comfort. I think one of the fastest ways to regain trust is to actually deliver an improved public realm; things like good policing can't happen overnight. But things like pay toilets can get the ball rolling, build momentum, and give people things to run on in elections.
Yeah. I agree with #1. I'm a little alarmed at this idea that people should have to accept things like others smoking on public transit, or seeing used needles on the ground when they walk their kids to school. Then there's shock at people moving out of cities, or deciding not to vote for Democrats. It's also very unfortunate that it seems like only the right is offering (horrible) fixes for it. Anyway, count me in on working on this issue, whatever that looks like!
Do you know/like Vital City (https://www.vitalcitynyc.org/)? It's my favorite publication thinking through these things. They have a great diversity of viewpoint, great editing, nice symposium-style spreads. Definitely underrated and underread in my book.
A lot of suspicion comes from the fact that many people pushing for "public order" (not you necessarily!) only seem to direct that push at those low on the social totem pole. Cops parking on the sidewalk is a clear threat to public order, but never seem to get dealt with, for instance (and some of the biggest public order enthusiasts are entirely on board with this a la Eric Adams and his supporters). If you want to get wide buy-in for public order, you're going to need to be extremely careful to make sure that it visibly applies to authority figures as well.
I think this is true, and it comes with a mirror image.
There are at least two kinds of people who selectively call for order and diminish the debate on public order: those who only aim at the low end of the social totem pole out of over-deference to corrupt authority (police officers and other public officials parking where they shouldn't, as you say), and those who only aim at the high end out of a misplaced sense of compassion (laws around involuntary institutionalization being too weak, lawmakers who won't fix them).
Both are bad, of course--public order is a "yes, and!" thing. In the piece I link to my case study on fixing the department of street sweeping at the turn of the century as an example of throwing out corrupt officials and using administrative reform to achieve public order (https://www.maximumnewyork.com/p/street-cleaning-george-waring). Maybe I'll write about the reform of the police department under head police commissioner Theodore Roosevelt that happened at the same time next!
"If you want to get wide buy-in for public order, you're going to need to be extremely careful to make sure that it visibly applies to authority figures as well." I agree, and also the mirror image is true--plenty of people do not make sure their calls for public order visibly apply to those who aren't in authority.
It's a giant "yes, and!"
People who I'd say aim predominantly/only at the low: the president of the United States, the governor of New York, the mayor of New York, the police commissioner of New York
People who I'd classify as excusing the low and prosecuting only the high: ...? Brad Lander maybe a little?
There's a real asymmetry here.
I would say this is an incomplete list. A good survey would look at the whole city, state, and federal government, with each of their branches. Such a survey would reveal an abundance of officials who take an incomplete stance on public order in one way or another.
A clear example that floats to the top here in the city/state that I would add to your list: the two most recent District Attorneys for Manhattan/New York County. Both of them avoid prosecuting things like subway turnstile jumping, and other "low-level" crimes.
Cyrus R. Vance Jr. clashed with the previous mayor on this (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/nyregion/subway-fare-beating-new-york.html), and Alvin Bragg's Day 1 Memo (https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Day-One-Fact-sheet-Final-1.6.22.pdf) clashes with the current mayor.
For example, here's the city's most influential newspaper explicitly praising fare evasion (for cars). Is there any comparable publication or official on the left who would give instructions on how to jump a turnstile? https://nypost.com/2025/01/06/us-news/nyc-drivers-devise-clever-ways-to-obscure-license-plates-as-congestion-toll-takes-effect/
“Public order can coexist with liberty and fairness—in fact, I think public order is the best way to achieve both of those things.” Absolutely. Lots of conversations with friends recently around this exact reality.
You were quick on the draw with this comment! It’s definitely one of the most salient topics—and so we will fix!
For years, I've mentally had a draft of a post about what an individual can do in cases where they witness public disorder.
The culture in NYC seems to be mind yo bizniz, which seems easy and unproductive.
As citizens, we should learn how to productively confront and fix situations of disorder, even if it means risking our physical health to confrontation.
I usually lay it out like this: upholding public order as a layperson going about your life can be done on a graduated schedule with increasing reps and "heavier weight," which ensures that you can do the bigger tasks with less downside risk.
There are many ways to uphold public order. People should start with the easiest and least threatening thing that they can unilaterally do (picking up trash, not littering!). This builds a psychology of caring, acting on that care, and developing a relationship with the city itself.
After that, upgrade to bringing your social group along (as you do). Get them to pick up trash with you. But after that comes the harder part with friends: productively confronting them if they jump a turnstile, or something like that.
So far you're still in the "safe" zone (your friends might get angry or defensive, but you're probably physically safe), but you're building the psychological muscle memory of caring, of confronting, of fixing. First with yourself, then with your friends, and then on a deeper level with your friends.
After that you exit the safe zone--interactions with strangers. This scares people, because you never know what someone else will do if you confront them about anti-social behavior. Learning the best and most appropriate ways to do this productively is another set of psychological muscles to build, and you learn risk/reward (https://x.com/_TamaraWinter/status/1873151051114922039).
Finally there are actual emergencies--something is going horribly wrong, and it will keep going wrong unless someone physically intervenes. Maybe someone is getting beaten up, or someone is making violent threats and brandishing a weapon, etc. In those cases, you would hope that you have some psychological preparation. It is very hard for people to go from not upholding order to suddenly asking them to do the hardest version of it, just like it's hard for them to lift very heavy weights if they haven't strength trained.
I'm making these numbers up, but I think they're directionally correct: 97% of laypeople (non-police/EMS/fire) upholding public order is everything up to (but not including) emergencies. And that 97%, if engaged with properly, gives them a better appreciation of the 3%. They see how small disorder breeds big disorder. They see how a trashy area can attract more trash once people lower their expectations. They see how *no one will fix things magically, often it is just people like you who do it*.
When I think about increasing public order, I usually focus on the 97%. This isn't to say the 3% isn't important--far from it. But that's how I lay it out to people.
I'm curious about what a constructive, positive approach to "public order" looks like. Finding an answer to this is a pretty important component of building public trust in leftist (for lack of a better world) city leadership.
Two quick thoughts:
1) One is framing and rhetoric. Often people speak about being compassionate to, say, drug users who openly inject in places like the Herald Square subway station entrances. Regardless of what "being compassionate" means, I think this lands badly for many people, because they think "What about compassion for me and my children as we're walking past that, especially if there's a fallen needle on the ground?" More generally: the public wants nice things, and they often have politicians telling them that they must accept degraded things (although they wouldn't use that phrasing). This kind of messaging does not work, and it makes the public hate their politicians. I think a positive rhetorical approach would emphasize what the public realm deserves *first*, as a starting point, rather than emphasizing the needs of those creating public disorder first (regardless of why they're creating that disorder).
2) As far as policy, one "easy win" is something like pay toilets (maybe via a franchise). Install them all around the city, charge like $3 per use (comparable to the subway), watch as the public enjoys an upgraded experience and comfort. I think one of the fastest ways to regain trust is to actually deliver an improved public realm; things like good policing can't happen overnight. But things like pay toilets can get the ball rolling, build momentum, and give people things to run on in elections.
Yeah. I agree with #1. I'm a little alarmed at this idea that people should have to accept things like others smoking on public transit, or seeing used needles on the ground when they walk their kids to school. Then there's shock at people moving out of cities, or deciding not to vote for Democrats. It's also very unfortunate that it seems like only the right is offering (horrible) fixes for it. Anyway, count me in on working on this issue, whatever that looks like!
Do you know/like Vital City (https://www.vitalcitynyc.org/)? It's my favorite publication thinking through these things. They have a great diversity of viewpoint, great editing, nice symposium-style spreads. Definitely underrated and underread in my book.
I do but it’s been awhile since I’ve read it! Thanks for the rec!