Fear is a hell of a drug. You’ve seen it before, usually right around October in an election year. Local news starts leading with "crime waves," grainy doorbell camera footage of a porch pirate becomes a national segment, and suddenly every politician is promising to "take back our streets." This is the law and order bogeyman at work. It isn’t just a random spike in anxiety; it’s a calculated political archetype that has been used to swing votes for over half a century.
Does crime exist? Obviously. Is it a problem? Of course. But the bogeyman version of this conversation isn't about data or public safety solutions. It’s about a specific narrative. It’s the idea that society is on the brink of total collapse and only one specific "tough" candidate can save you from the encroaching chaos.
Think back to 1968. Richard Nixon basically wrote the modern playbook for this. After the civil rights protests and the unrest following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Nixon leaned hard into the "silent majority" who were supposedly terrified of the breakdown of social hierarchy. He didn't just talk about crime; he talked about order. That distinction is vital.
The Law and Order Bogeyman: A History of Tactical Anxiety
When we look at how the law and order bogeyman functions, we have to look at the "Willie Horton" ad from 1988. It’s arguably the most famous example of using a single, terrifying outlier to paint a broad picture of systemic failure. George H.W. Bush’s campaign used Horton—a convicted felon who committed assault while on a weekend furlough program—to destroy Michael Dukakis’s reputation.
It worked.
The ad didn't mention that furlough programs were actually quite common or that Reagan had supported similar initiatives in California. It didn't matter. The bogeyman was out of the closet. The strategy proved that one vivid, scary story beats a thousand spreadsheets showing declining crime rates.
Katherine Beckett, a sociologist at the University of Washington, has spent years documenting how political discourse shapes our perception of crime more than crime itself does. Her research suggests that when politicians and media outlets ramp up "tough on crime" rhetoric, public concern about drugs and violence skyrockets—even if the actual statistical risk of being a victim hasn't changed at all. It’s a feedback loop. Politicians talk, the news reports the talk, the public gets scared, and then the public demands the very policies the politicians were already trying to sell.
It’s kinda brilliant, in a dark way.
Why the Math Rarely Matches the Mood
If you look at FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) data over the last thirty years, the trend line is mostly a downward slope. We are significantly safer today than people were in the early 90s. Yet, if you ask the average person on the street, they’ll often tell you things are getting worse.
Why the disconnect?
- The "Mean World Syndrome": Coined by George Gerbner, this theory suggests that people who watch a lot of television (or social media clips) perceive the world as more dangerous than it actually is.
- Viral Algorithms: A video of a smash-and-grab robbery in San Francisco can get 40 million views in a weekend. A report showing that property crime in that same zip code is down 4% year-over-year gets zero engagement.
- Political Framing: In 2022, the law and order bogeyman was centered on "cash bail reform." Opponents of reform highlighted every single instance of someone out on bond committing a new crime. They ignored the thousands of people who showed up to their court dates without incident.
Context is the first thing to die when the bogeyman arrives.
📖 Related: Was Trump Found Guilty? What Really Happened In That New York Courtroom
The Infrastructure of Fear
It isn't just politicians. A whole industry props up this narrative. Local news stations rely on "if it bleeds, it leads" because crime segments are cheap to produce and high on engagement. Police unions also play a massive role. By sounding the alarm on "rising lawlessness," these organizations can advocate for higher budgets, more equipment, and legal protections like qualified immunity.
There's a specific irony here. Often, the very people shouting the loudest about the law and order bogeyman are the ones cutting social services that actually prevent crime. We know—statistically, empirically—that stable housing, mental health access, and after-school programs do more to lower crime than a new fleet of armored police vehicles. But "We funded a community garden" is a terrible campaign slogan. "I will lock them up" is a great one.
In 2020, we saw this play out with the "Defund the Police" slogan. Regardless of what the activists actually meant (which was mostly about reallocating funds to social workers), the opposition turned it into the ultimate law and order bogeyman. They framed it as a literal invitation for anarchy. It was a gift to campaign consultants. They didn't have to argue against the nuances of police reform; they just had to show a picture of a burning building and say, "This is your future."
How to Spot the Bogeyman in the Wild
You've gotta be a savvy consumer of information these days. When you see a story about crime, ask yourself a few questions. Is this an outlier being treated as a trend? Is the person talking about it trying to sell me a specific "solution" that involves more surveillance or less oversight?
Look at the wording. Words like "carnage," "invasion," "war zone," and "unprecedented" are classic bogeyman vocabulary. Honestly, if a politician is using the word "infest," they aren't talking about public policy. They are trying to trigger your amygdala.
- Check the Source of the Data: The FBI changed how they collect crime data recently (the transition to NIBRS), which caused a temporary gap in reporting from many precincts. This gap was exploited by pundits to claim crime was "untraceable" or "hidden," when in reality, it was just a technical reporting lag.
- Look for the "Why": If a news segment highlights a crime but offers no context on the motive or the systemic factors involved, it's just fear-mongering.
- Cross-Reference with Local Realities: Often, the "national crime wave" narrative doesn't match what’s happening in your specific town.
Actionable Steps for Navigating the Narrative
Instead of falling for the law and order bogeyman, focus on what actually creates safe communities.
- Demand Data, Not Anecdotes: When a candidate mentions a "crime spike," ask for the specific source and the time frame. Is it a 10% increase over last month (which could be a fluke) or a 10% increase over a decade?
- Support Evidence-Based Intervention: Look into groups like the Brennan Center for Justice or the Sentencing Project. They provide deep-dive analysis on what actually reduces recidivism. Spoiler: it’s rarely just "longer sentences."
- Monitor Local Budgets: See where your tax dollars go. If your city is spending 40% of its general fund on policing and 2% on youth services, you might want to ask why the "law and order" approach isn't solving the underlying issues.
- Diversify Your Media: If your feed is nothing but Citizen app alerts and local news clips of robberies, your brain is going to be primed for fear. Balance it out with long-form reporting that looks at systemic causes.
The bogeyman is a tool. Once you see the strings, it stops being scary. We deserve a conversation about public safety that is rooted in reality, not one designed to make us afraid of our neighbors for the sake of a few points in the polls. Real safety comes from stability, investment, and accountability—not from a narrative designed to keep us looking over our shoulders.
Focus on the local policies that affect your immediate neighborhood. Check the actual crime maps provided by your local police department rather than relying on social media rumors. Volunteer with organizations that address the root causes of crime, such as literacy programs or job training. By engaging with the reality of your community, you effectively neutralize the power of the political bogeyman. Change happens when we stop reacting to fear and start acting on facts.