The Tough-on-Crime Playbook for Democrats

(photo by Brent Stirton/Getty Images)

Donald Trump drew from an old playbook in the 2024 presidential campaign, running tough-on-crime ads and giving speeches in which he promised to “crush violent crime” while vowing greater respect for the police. He cast Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as soft on crime, running Willie Horton-style ads accusing them of releasing dangerous criminals. He invited family members of crime victims to his rallies and highlighted their stories in his speeches.

In a summer 2024 speech in Philadelphia, for example, Trump blamed Biden for crime in the city, claiming: “Under Crooked Joe, the City of Brotherly Love is being ravaged by bloodshed and crime.” He referenced the murder of Rachel Morin, who was allegedly killed by an undocumented immigrant, and thanked the members of her family for attending his rally.

I and many others have criticized political campaigns ads and strategies like these for distorting the public’s view on crime, propelling mass incarceration, and promoting overly harsh criminal justice policies that cost a fortune and do not promote public safety.

Although I wish it were otherwise, these ads and campaign tactics aren’t going anywhere. That is because they can be and have been effective campaign tools, and, as long as they are, candidates will use them. Ads framing the world in terms of “us v. them,” and putting one candidate on the side of innocent victims and an opponent on the side of the lawbreakers is a powerful narrative. Negative ads showing a political opponent as insensitive to crime and the concerns of common people are particularly effective in mobilizing men.

Democrats should make this one of their primary strategies for breaking the spell Donald Trump has over a large chunk of the electorate by showing whose side he’s really on. His use of the presidential pardon power since taking office for a second time offers numerous examples that are ready-made for campaign ads. There are powerful stories to tell that will move voters and show that politicians running in the midterms who have cast their lot with Trump are also on the wrong side of the “v” in “us v. them.” The ads practically write themselves.

Imagine one featuring Trump pardon recipient Ross Ulbricht. Ulbricht was the owner and operator of Silk Road, a hidden website designed to let people “be beyond the law.” Users anonymously bought and sold illegal goods and services. The vast majority of transactions involved illegal drugs, everything from opioids to heroin, to cocaine to LSD. The most common “services” were computer hacking and forgeries to steal identities and break into online accounts. Prosecutors also alleged that Ulbricht solicited six murders-for-hire, including one against a former Silk Road employee, though none were carried out. A jury unanimously convicted him, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Trump didn’t just shorten Ulbricht’s sentence. He gave him a full and unconditional pardon on his second day in office. Trump claimed, “The scum that worked to convict him were some of the same lunatics who were involved in the modern day weaponization of government against me.”

Ulbricht’s case was investigated and prosecuted by career lawyers and agents at the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York, and the evidence against him was overwhelming. An ad could feature the parents of overdose victims who testified at Ulbricht’s sentencing. Richard B.’s 25-year-old son died of a heroin overdose. He could tell viewers, just as he told the judge, that “I strongly believe that my son would be here today if Silk Road had never existed.” Vicky B.’s 16-year-old son, Preston, died after taking a synthetic drug purchased from Silk Road and jumping from a roof. She could hold up the photo of her and Preston and tell viewers in the same breaking voice she used at Ulbricht’s sentencing that “This is the photo of the last kiss from my son.” She keeps Preston’s ashes at home. “Sometimes I just hold them. Sometimes I get under a blanket with them and try to get warm.” Rodney Bridge, Preston’s father, could then tell viewers what he told an Australian TV station after the pardon: “When Preston died in 2013 it was the worst day of my life . . . and the announcement of [Ulbricht’s] pardon yesterday was the second worst day.” A narrator could add: “Trump claims to care about drugs coming to America, but he set free one of the largest facilitators in history.”

Or imagine an ad featuring the story of Officer Michael Fanone, who was on duty during the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The ad could show his body-worn camera footage from that day, which corroborates the violence leveled against him. The voice-over could describe the traumatic brain injury and heart attack he suffered during the attack. Fanone could tell viewers he was a Trump voter in 2016, so his views aren’t partisan. He is speaking from experience. He was violently assaulted, and Trump let his attackers go free. Daniel Rodriguez, Albuquerque Cosper Head, and Kyle Young were all sentenced for assaulting Fanone. Rodriguez got more than 12 years from a judge who called him a “one-man army of hate.” Head and Young each received sentences of more than seven years. Fanone could tell viewers of the ad what he told Rolling Stone (perhaps without the profanity) that these “violent fucking felons [are] back into the general public.” A narrator could add that “they are there because Trump stood with them, not with the brave law enforcement officer who defended his country that day.”

This ad or another could then highlight some of the other January 6 participants with a voiceover explaining the other charges already brought against them, which range from child sexual assault to reckless homicide while driving drunk to plotting the murder of FBI agents. Voiceover: “Trump and his Republican allies will side with violent criminals when it suits them. They don’t care about innocent victims or law and order. That is why dangerous people are now roaming the streets.”

The ads need not focus only on violence. A montage of fraudsters who received pardons by Trump could feature any number of their vulnerable victims and targets, which include Medicaid and Medicare recipients, a law enforcement officer memorial, union pension funds, and a Native American tribe. The ad could highlight, for example, the elderly people and those with cognitive impairment who were the victims of George Santos’s identity theft and fraudulent credit card charges. It could point out that Trump gave these fraudsters clemency because he sides with wealthy donors and political allies who cheated regular people out of their hard-earned money. The ad could then play back Trump’s own quote about Santos: “He lied like hell, but he was 100% for Trump.” The narrator: “Trump didn’t care about Santos’s victims. He only cared that Santos was 100% for Trump and Republicans. So Trump let him out of prison.”

Trump violates so many norms and defies the conventional rules of politics that it is hard to know what, if anything, can break through the bubbles people live in. But there is a long track record for ads like these. Democrats didn’t use this strategy during the 2024 presidential election. They mentioned some of his first-term pardons, but they didn’t run an ad campaign with this kind of narrative push. That was a mistake. The second-term pardons are already much worse, and even though Trump isn’t running again, his allies should have to answer for their failure to speak out against these outrageous miscarriages of justice. Trump’s brand is “law and order,” but his record is pardons for serious offenders. Democrats should show voters that contrast. It’s a message that should resonate with anyone – they just need to hear it.