2026 Election Issues Series — Part IV
From fentanyl proliferation and retail theft to homeless encampments, transit violence, and neighborhood safety, public security has become one of the most visible—and politically charged—issues in American cities.
Unlike inflation or GDP, public safety does not require technical explanation. Residents experience it daily: whether encampments expand on street corners, whether store shelves are locked behind glass, whether parents feel comfortable letting their children take familiar routes home, and whether public transit still feels safe after dark.
For many households, the question of whether a city feels safe now weighs more heavily on voting behavior than macroeconomic indicators.
From Social Policy to Everyday Insecurity
Over the past decade, urban governance in the United States has oscillated between two imperatives: protecting vulnerable populations and maintaining public order.
Homelessness was primarily framed as a housing and welfare challenge, drug addiction as a public health issue, and retail theft as a byproduct of economic stress. In policy language, these problems were compartmentalized, professionalized, and managed within separate bureaucratic silos.
In lived experience, however, they have converged into a single sentiment: insecurity.
When encampments become semi-permanent, public drug use becomes routine, retailers withdraw from entire neighborhoods, and violent incidents occur repeatedly on public transit, residents no longer perceive isolated social problems. They experience a sustained erosion of order.
This erosion does not necessarily correspond to a uniform statistical surge in crime, but it is sufficient to alter daily behavior—rerouting commutes, avoiding certain areas, returning home earlier—and to reshape judgments about the state’s capacity to govern.
Fentanyl and the Loss of Control
Fentanyl has emerged as the most destabilizing variable in the current urban safety crisis.
Unlike earlier drug waves, fentanyl combines extreme lethality with rapid circulation and immediate effects on street-level order. It represents not only a public health catastrophe but also a direct challenge to the governability of public space.
When ambulances, police officers, and outreach workers repeatedly respond to the same blocks, and when residents routinely witness overdoses near parks, transit entrances, or storefronts, a fundamental question surfaces: can the government still maintain baseline public order?
In this context, the prevailing policy framework—decriminalization paired with expanded treatment capacity—has struggled at the implementation level. Treatment shortages, ambiguous legal thresholds for compulsory intervention, and fragmented interagency coordination have produced a widening gap between policy intent and visible outcomes.
Homelessness and the Onset of Compassion Fatigue
The political meaning of homelessness is also shifting.
In many cities, initial public sympathy translated into support for non-punitive approaches centered on housing, services, and harm reduction. Over time, however, the persistence and consolidation of encampments—along with sanitation and safety concerns—has generated a growing sense of fatigue.
This shift does not necessarily reflect declining empathy. Rather, it reflects rising skepticism about whether existing policies are helping anyone at all, and whether worsening conditions signal structural flaws in the governing approach itself.
As a result, political space has opened for stricter enforcement, encampment clearances, and narratives that prioritize order. City leaders increasingly face a dilemma in which any recalibration risks backlash from one side or the other.
Public Safety and the Rightward Shift in Urban Politics
Electorally, public safety has become a high-salience, cross-partisan issue.
Even in cities with long-standing progressive majorities, voters are expressing clearer demands that governments restore basic street-level order. This sentiment does not automatically translate into partisan realignment, but it is reshaping campaign priorities.
Whether candidates are willing to address safety directly, articulate enforceable strategies, and acknowledge the limits of existing policies now matters more than many ideological distinctions.
If current trends from 2024–2025 persist, urban governance will become one of the defining tests of the 2026 election cycle—particularly in coastal states, the Northeast, and cities whose economies depend heavily on tourism and conventions.
A Test Without Easy Answers
Public safety, homelessness, and the drug crisis constitute a stress test not because they are new concerns, but because they simultaneously challenge state capacity, administrative coordination, and value prioritization.
Enforcement alone cannot resolve root causes, yet welfare alone cannot sustain order. Neglecting civil liberties invites political resistance, while neglecting safety rapidly erodes public trust. Urban governance is being pushed toward an uncomfortable middle ground that satisfies no constituency fully.
Voter patience, meanwhile, is wearing thin.
In this environment, political actors who can articulate governance strategies that confront reality without resorting to slogans are more likely to gain credibility. This is not merely a policy debate, but a collective judgment about whether American cities remain governable.
By Voice in Between
Discover more from 华人语界｜Chinese Voices
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
