well, i think he's got the crime argument backwards, though.

i grew up in a ghetto; i know that crime exists. but, the kind of crime that exists in these neighbourhoods is mostly property crime & drug crime. when more serious crimes do arise, they often occur as a consequence of the poverty, itself - so, gang wars, for example. much of this is crime that is potentially resolvable in a socialist system. on the other hand, the kind of crime that exists in wealthy neighbourhoods is largely reduced to crimes of passion, dominance and control - or what you could call crimes of privilege. these types of crimes are much more difficult to approach, and could very well continue well into and beyond any adoption of socialism. now, that's not to say that these types of crime don't also exist in poorer communities, but it nonetheless exposes a confusing truth: in a society where poverty is abolished, the police presence would be more necessary in the wealthy communities where people think they can get away with things, rather than in the poorer ones where poverty is no longer the primary driver of crime. nobody should oppose the police more than the poor.

it's important to have working people understand that the police exist specifically to uphold property rights, not to protect them from anything at all. to the extent that this misunderstanding is pervasive, it really must be attacked and resolved.

it's also worthwhile to remember that the democrats were, historically, the right-wing party in america. so, there's some continuity....