HRC's big speech tonight, a Republican perspective on the DNC & a deep dive into why the threat of terrorism plays so differently with Democrats and Republicans - and how that played out in both conventions; Plus Metro CEO Phil Washington is in-studio to answer your questions about transportation & their new partnership with Pokémon Go
On final day of the DNC, a look toward Hillary Clinton’s speech
The table is set for Hillary Clinton to give her most important speech so far.
Tonight, she closes the Democratic convention.
Last night, President Obama, Tim Kaine, Michael Bloomberg, and Joe Biden hit on a series of themes - that Donald Trump would make America less safe, that his business record shows he doesn't care about the middle class, and that Hillary Clinton is the best qualified Presidential candidate of recent years.
After former NY mayor Michael Bloomberg blasted Trump as an incompetent and self-interested businessman, VP nominee Tim Kaine introduced himself to voters. He sprinkled Spanish into his speech and shared his religious faith.
In the cleanup spot was President Obama, who referred to Trump as a domestic demagogue, and touted Clinton as uniquely qualified: The speakers were trying to make experience exciting. Does that work in an era when so many are distrustful of politicians? And what messages are most important for Clinton to deliver tonight?
Guests:
Ange-Marie Hancock, associate professor of political science and gender studies, University of Southern California
Zack Courser, Research Director of the Dreier Roundtable and visiting Assistant Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College; he tweets
Elena Ong, former First Vice Chair, California Commission for Women and Hillary Clinton At-Large Delegate
Shawn Steel, California National Committeeman, Republican National Committee
Steven Shepard, editor of the POLITICO Caucus & Chief Polling Analyst for POLITICO; he tweets from
'Handcuffed': What’s the primary goal of policing?
In the United States, police kill three civilians each day.
After the recent shooting deaths of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling by police — as well as the deaths of five Dallas officers during a protest that followed — many are re-examining the role of police use-of-force in our society.
As a follow-up to our discussion with Heather Mac Donald, Larry interviews Malcolm Sparrow, a former detective who is now a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.
In his new book “Handcuffed,” Sparrow argues that vital flaws in the way we understand policing have led to current conflicts between police and the public. He outlines why community policing has failed, urging departments to see it as an end in itself rather than a means of reducing crime.
Instead of focusing on traditional crime statistics, Sparrow insists that police must collaborate with civilians to make reforms. He sees police as fundamentally risk-controllers and harm-reducers, an idea that could have a profound impact on how cops interact with the people they serve.
Interview highlights
Malcolm Sparrow: [Community policing] is the simple notion that police and community will work together in two ways. First of all to set the priorities and agenda for police action, and secondly to achieve those purposes, whatever they are.
That’s not a complicated thing to say. But then you watch the development and implementation over the years, and there’s some very simple-minded substitutes that have been used, and then some rather serious and complex distractions from the idea. … Some police departments just used the language but didn’t change anything at all. [They] said, “We’re doing community policing,” but no one could tell that anything had changed. Other departments created tiny little dedicated units called the “community beat officer unit.” What they sometimes tended to do was insulate the rest of the department from any obligation to change.
To really do the kind of community policing you’re advocating for, it often takes more personnel. It’s tough to do.
No, I don’t agree. If your idea of community policing is that you’re going to cover the entire city with foot patrols, then yes, that would require an enormous number of people, and that’s obviously not going to happen in the current environment. Even given the current levels of resources, there’s an awful lot of choice available about style, posture, stance, the way that you treat people, the nature of the interactions, how you organize your attention, what you do on the proactive and preventive front rather than just answering calls.
What do you see as the more overarching, comprehensive police goal if it is not first and foremost taking people who are a threat to other people off the street?
You mustn’t misunderstand my position on crime control. I’m absolutely in favor of crime control. I’ve done it. It is an essential imperative for police. It is not as if community policing is somehow a soft, wishy-washy alternate to the notion of effective crime control. It is a style. It is an attitude. It is a relationship that you have with the community. The control of crime remains absolutely central to their purpose.
But there are some other views on how to do crime control. ... We have had some experience with aggressive, in-your-face, zero-tolerance style of policing, which some departments have substituted for the notion of community policing. We know that there is a vast gulf between actual victimization levels and reported crime rates. In some agencies there are quite a lot of integrity issues on crime reporting, so there is another gulf between what’s reported and what’s actually recorded.
Now, I do believe that the crime mission is on actual victimization rates, and therefore you need a degree of closeness and trust. If you have more closeness and trust with some communities, then — surprise surprise — the reported crime rate would actually go up, because they’d be more inclined to tell you things and wouldn’t be so fearful of going to the police station.
So, there are different ideas about how to do crime control, not whether it is an important mandate. Of course it is. There are also quite different ideas about whether or not crime control is the principal overriding imperative, or whether that’s part of a much bigger, broader police role.
Guest:
Malcolm Sparrow Ph.D., Professor of the Practice of Public Management at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government; he served ten years with the British Police Service and is the author of “Handcuffed: What Holds Policing Back, and the Keys to Reform” (Brookings Institution, 2016)
Why Democrats and Republicans perceive threat of terrorism so differently
At the Republican National Convention, much of the rhetoric focused on the threat of terrorism, both on and out of American soil.
According to one Washington Post research that tracked the language of the convention, “radical islamic terrorism” was one of the most echoed phrases, second only after “make America (blank) again.”
On the contrary, speakers at the Democratic National Convention made almost no mention of recent terrorist attacks. It wasn’t until the third day when President Obama touched on the subject of ISIL.
If political language translate to actual policy implementation, the talking points of the convention would mean a difference in treatment when it comes to dealing with the threat of terrorism.
This raises the question: why Democrats and Republicans perceive threat of terrorism so differently during this election? Has this gap been consistent between the two parties since 9/11? How will this differential impact the outcome when people head to their voting booth?
Guests:
Frank Newport, serves as Editor-in-Chief of The Gallup and author of, "Polling Matters: Why Leaders Must Listen to the Wisdom of the People"
Cliff Young, President, Ipsos Public Affairs; and leads Ipsos global election and political polling risk practice.
LA Metro will introduce 4 new cars each month to ease Expo Line overcrowding
It’s been three months since we last checked in with the LA Metropolitan Transportation Authority CEO Phillip Washington, and a lot has happened since then.
The L.A. Metro collaborated with the popular game Pokémon Go to increase ridership; it launched an animated (some argued dark) safety campaign; and who can forget the big unveil of the Expo Line extension – the romanticized “subway to the sea.”
Now the LA Metro chief is back to answer your questions about the past, present, and future of public transportation in this ever-growing city.
On alleviating overcrowded Expo lines
Washington: We’re doing that right now. We are building train cars right now. Our contractor, Kinkisharyo, is producing about 4 cars per month. We bring those cars in, we test them, we commission them and put them right on the Gold Line and on the Expo Line; you’re going to see big relief on both those lines very, very soon. Those cars are coming in at 4 a month, we’re trying to increase that to 5 per month, you’re going to relief, you’re going to see 3-cars consists on both those lines very soon.
On the Sepulveda Pass project
Washington:The Sepulveda Pass project is in this plan right now. What’s in this plan is a tunnel and a heavy rail train through the mountain. We need to do some preliminary work on the Sepulveda Pass, but it’s in the plan. We realize and understand that that is a major clogged artery, if you will, and that is why it’s in the plan relatively early.
On public safety
Washington: We are doubling down on our security. You’re going to see much more of a security presence on all of our lines –the Red Line and the Blue Line especially. We understand what’s happening out there in terms of safety. Crime has actually decreased since our double-down efforts about 6 months ago.
You’re going to see a uniform presence, there’s also going to be a plain-clothes security presence that you probably won’t notice, but we’re doubling-down on those efforts. We’re also looking at technology; the audience may have noticed security towers that are around parking ride structures. These are mobile towers that go up 24 feet in the air, we can have two security people at those towers.
On their next projects
Washington: Near the top of the projects in our plan is an extension from Claremont to Santa Monica.
On Metro's presence in underserved communities
Washington: In this plan — I encourage folks to go on our website to take a look at it- — there is much investment in South L.A. and in disadvantaged areas. One of the PowerPoint slides that I put up when I present the plan is all of the disadvantaged communities in the county and how this plan impacts those.
We touch every corner of the county, in terms of disadvantaged communities. Even more importantly, from those disadvantaged communities, we have in this plan, transportation and mobility options going to employment centers.
On bridging the first mile, last mile
Washington: On July 7, we launched our bike program in partnership with the city of Los Angeles and eventually we’re going county-wide with this bike program. It’s a bike-share program, highly successful so far. We want to address the first mile, last mile and bikes are one way to do it. We’ve also created a partnership with Uber and Lyft; we do not see them as the enemy, we see them as partners. They are helping us address the first and last mile.
*First mile, last mile: Getting from your place of residence to the stop, and from the stop to your place of work.
On Pokémon Go
Washington: Our social media folks are working with them. We want to create ridership; we want to create partnerships as we look at the plan that we’ve put forth. we’re talking 18 mega-projects in 15 years, connecting the airport, etc. Whatever partnerships we can establish with the private sector, be it Pokémon Go, or whatever.
This interview has been edited for clarity.
This story has been updated.
Guest:
Phil Washington, CEO of Los Angeles County Metro
Update: An earlier version of this story incorrectly referred to the builder of Metro's cars as Kinky Sharyo instead of Kinkisharyo. We regret the error.