featured
The Feds on Our City Streets // Dave Smith
Dave Smith | Trusted Newsmaker
The Feds on the Street: A Deep Dive into Government Overreach
In a recent episode of Part of the Problem, Dave Smith and Robbie “The Fire” Bernstein tackled a wide-ranging discussion on the state of American cities, the role of government in managing public safety, and the controversial decision by Donald Trump to deploy the National Guard and other federal agents in Washington, D.C. Their conversation moved from light-hearted porch stories to a hard-hitting critique of political impulse, systemic decay, and the cultural acceptance of urban decline.
Trump’s National Guard Move
The episode’s central political point revolved around Trump’s call to bring in the National Guard, DEA, ATF, and even FBI agents to “clean up” D.C. Dave saw the appeal of wanting a cleaner, safer capital but questioned whether this type of federal intervention is lawful or even necessary. Robbie noted that, statistically, crime in D.C. has actually fallen in recent years, making the move feel more like a knee-jerk reaction to headlines than a strategic plan.
They both agreed that Trump’s strength—challenging corrupt elites and calling out media dishonesty—is undermined by his tendency toward impulsive, spectacle-driven decisions. This “sees it on TV, decides to act” approach, they argued, is no way to lead a nation.
The Bigger Urban Crisis
From there, the conversation broadened into a critique of American cities post-COVID. According to Dave, while crime and homelessness peaked during 2020–2021, they remain significantly worse than pre-pandemic levels in many urban areas. The most visible symptom? Encampments of homeless individuals—often mentally ill and addicted—becoming a normalized feature of city life.
Both hosts expressed frustration with the idea that allowing people to live in such conditions is somehow “humanitarian.” They argued that, without meaningful intervention, the problem harms not only public safety but also the development and wellbeing of children growing up in these environments.
Masculinity, Aesthetics, and the Will to Defend
The discussion took a cultural turn when Dave connected the decline of urban upkeep to a broader societal “giving up,” which he partially tied to declining masculinity. He noted that testosterone levels among young men have plummeted, and suggested that the will to defend one’s community—once considered a core masculine trait—has been eroded. Using San Diego as an example, Dave wondered aloud how such a beautiful city could tolerate blocks of human waste and open drug use in front of businesses without action.
For him, beauty in the environment isn’t a superficial concern—it has a real psychological impact. Clean, well-kept surroundings inspire pride and care, while filth and neglect erode the soul of a city.
Public Property and Libertarian Dilemmas
From a libertarian perspective, the problem becomes tricky when it plays out on public property. On private property, owners can set rules, hire armed security, and physically remove problem individuals. But when government monopolizes public space and law enforcement, solutions become entangled in bureaucracy and legal limits. Smith noted that governments often fail to enforce even basic laws—like preventing theft under certain dollar thresholds—while also preventing citizens and businesses from defending themselves.
This failure, they argued, creates a cycle: government inaction leads to chaos, which then fuels public demand for more authoritarian solutions, further expanding state power.
The Cost of Authoritarian “Solutions”
The hosts warned that crackdowns like Trump’s National Guard deployment often feel satisfying in the short term but carry long-term risks. Using history as a guide, they noted how government programs frequently cause the very problems they later claim to solve, leading to an endless expansion of state control.
They suggested simpler, less authoritarian measures—such as legalizing armed self-defense and enforcing existing laws—that could address much of the crime problem without federal overreach.
Homelessness: Between Cruelty and Care
On homelessness, they acknowledged the complexity. In past decades, those who were severely mentally ill were often institutionalized, but that system had its own abuses and was dismantled. Today’s approach—allowing people to remain on the streets in squalor—strikes Dave as even more inhumane. While some individuals are simply down on their luck, a significant portion, he argued, are incapable of living independently and need structured assistance.
Conclusion
The conversation revealed the tangled web of crime, homelessness, government authority, and cultural attitudes shaping American cities. Dave and Robbie agreed that while cities need better management, impulsive, heavy-handed federal action is not the cure. Instead, the path forward lies in restoring personal responsibility, enforcing laws, empowering citizens to defend themselves, and refusing to accept urban decay as inevitable.
Until those principles take root, the “feds on the street” will remain a symptom of deeper issues—ones that no single deployment of troops can fix.
//
