There are a lot of things in the world of politics right now that simply make no sense.
One of the oddest is happening in Mobile, where there’s a mayor’s race featuring two polar opposite candidates. On one side is Barbara Drummond, a Democratic state rep who has made serving her hometown and the working class folks of Mobile her life’s mission. On the other side is Spiro Cheriogotis, a former judge, Republican donor and hand-picked successor of outgoing mayor Sandy Stimpson.
Stimpson has been Mobile’s mayor for the past dozen years and there was widespread speculation that he would run for higher office—possibly governor or U.S. Representative—after deciding not to run again. There was little doubt that he would do so—if he chooses—as a Republican.
And here’s where the weirdness comes in.
Right now, in Mobile, the top issue is crime. Residents from all walks of life are concerned about the increases in crime over the past several years. And there’s no doubt that crime rates have spiked in the city.
Four years ago now, in 2021, Mobile recorded its first record homicide rate and city leaders, including Stimpson, were outraged … at the local district attorney’s office for not prosecuting cases fast enough.
But here’s the thing: That record homicide number of 51 eclipsed the previous record of 50, which also came during Stimpson’s run as mayor, in 2017. In fact, in the 10 years prior to Stimpson taking office, Mobile had surpassed 40 homicides in a single year just once (in 2007). Since he took office, the city has surpassed 40 six of his 12 years and surpassed 50 twice.
Now, of course, no one is blaming Stimpson—or anyone other than the perpetrators—for these murders. But what is absolutely fair to question is the response from city officials, the tactics employed to curb the violence and the broad approach undertaken by city leaders, especially the mayor, to address those crimes.
They tried all the usual “tough on crime” solutions—locking up more people, talking tough about locking up more people, hiring more cops to lock up more people and purchasing worthless technology (like ShotSpotter) that might assist in locking up more people.
None of it has worked.
Because crime is not the result of TV-show-character bad guys who just decide to be bad and commit crimes for a living. It is a multi-layer failure of society and family which results from a combination of factors, including educational issues, a lack of parental guidance, poverty-related shortcomings, technology voids present in impoverished communities and the proximity to crime.
None of that is solved by locking up more people. As the folks in Mobile should now be able to attest after a dozen years of such an approach.
So, why then, would anyone in Mobile choose the guy who is going to carry on those failed policies?
There’s no question that Drummond would not. She has laid out in clear terms what her approach would be—one that allows police to do their jobs and provides necessary resources, but also attacks the underlying causes of crime and takes such work off the plates of untrained police officers. Police officers, after all, have a job that’s tough enough without asking them to also be mental health counselors and domestic relations mediators.
Her plan is so popular, in fact, that the Mobile Police’s Homicide Unit tossed its support behind her.
During a recent interview on the Alabama Politics This Week podcast, Drummond spoke in detail about her plans to tackle the underlying causes of crime and also highlighted some of the decisions made over the past 12 years that have led to the major crime upticks.
“One of the big things that I want, and when I become mayor, I’m going to give a voice to young people, not just when we have a shooting or an incident, but we’ll have a department that will deal with those issues facing young people—from workforce development to those nonprofits that are providing safe places like the Boys and Girls Club,” Drummond said. “And we’re going to work with them so we can capture these young people who are in these tough home-life situations, because I can’t go into the homes and dictate or legislate morality or good parenting skills. But I can create safe places for those youngsters to go and give them safe things to do.
“One of the things, here in Mobile, we used to incentivize was nonprofits, like the Boys and Girls Club, to help young people. That appropriation has gone from about $1.2 million to about $300,000. And then we used to have three YMCAs in the city of Mobile. We’re down to one, and that one is teetering on closing. And those are nonprofits that offer safe options for our young people to have places to go and things to do so that they can thrive and make good decisions. So I think all of that goes hand in hand.”
This is the way.
Attempting to arrest your way out of this problem—even if you’re talking really tough while doing it—will not provide results. That’s not an opinion. Decades upon decades of stats and studies have proven this to be true. No American city has ever been cleaned up for the longterm by sheer police force.
But that’s essentially the Cheriogotis plan, or it was.
Throughout the early part of the campaign, crime and public safety wasn’t in his top three issues. He was focused, his campaign said back then, on economic development, workforce housing and public transportation. All good causes, but not the one most concerning to voters.
As the campaign moved forward and crime became the obvious top issue, Cheriogotis started to evolve. But his primary solution to this day remains something vague about using artificial intelligence to address crime.
There are few details. There is no real plan. Just as it’s been for the past decade.
That’s because, while Cheriogotis is likely a fine person, he was not selected as Stimpson’s successor by the deep pocket developers and builders in Mobile to address real problems. He was selected to keep the machine running, keep the same folks getting the same contracts and pay lip service to the real issues of Mobile.
In the meantime, all of the crime and public safety problems remain. All the things voters say trouble them, all the things they really hate, are still there and getting worse.
And that’s the truly confusing thing about politics in this case: Why would you vote again for the very policies and tactics that gave you those things you hate so much?
