By
Oklahoma’s gubernatorial race wasn’t expected to be especially competitive, but in recent months, it’s become one of the year’s biggest surprises. Incumbent Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt’s polling lead over Joy Hofmeister, Oklahoma’s Democratic superintendent of public instruction, has evaporated, and the Republican Governors Association has reportedly become nervous enough about the race to start spending money in the state’s major media markets.
It was against this backdrop that the two rivals participated in a debate this week, and as The Washington Post reported, there was a major point of contention.
In a debate Wednesday night between Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) and his Democratic challenger, Joy Hofmeister, the governor took issue with Hofmeister pointing out — accurately — the state’s violent crime problem. “So let’s talk about facts: The fact is, the rates of violent crime are higher in Oklahoma under your watch than in New York or California,” said Hofmeister, who is Oklahoma’s superintendent of public instruction. “That’s a fact.”
To fully appreciate the GOP governor’s response, it’s worth watching the video excerpt from the event. Stitt didn’t just shake his head in disagreement, and didn’t just interrupt his challenger, he literally laughed and treated Hofmeister’s comments as if they were completely bonkers.
“Oh my gosh. Hang on. Oklahomans, do you believe we have higher crime than New York or California?” the Republican asked incredulously. “That’s what she just said!”
What Hofmeister, herself a former Republican, had “just said” was true. As the Post’s report explained, “What was not shown at the debate was that Hofmeister was correct. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Oklahoma has a homicide rate of 9 deaths per 100,000, compared with California’s rate of 6.1 and New York’s rate of 4.7.”
A related Post analysis added, “Data from the FBI’s Crime Data Explorer shows that rates of violent crime were, in fact, higher in Oklahoma than New York or California in 2020.” (Comprehensive data from 2021 and 2022 is not yet available.)
Nevertheless, there was the sitting governor, who could’ve offered a substantive response to the truth, but who instead treated the truth as laughable because it didn’t seem true.
And that reminds me of a story from six years ago.
During the Republican National Convention in 2016, Newt Gingrich sat down with CNN’s Alisyn Camerota, who asked the former House speaker about Donald Trump’s many false claims. As I noted in my book, the interview was frustrating but illustrative of a larger problem.
The anchor noted, for example, that violent crime rates nationwide fell during Barack Obama’s presidency, despite Trump’s claims to the contrary. Gingrich said the evidence was irrelevant.
“The average American, I will bet you this morning, does not think crime is down, does not think they are safer,” the Georgia Republican said. Camerota responded, “But it is. We are safer, and it is down.” Gingrich, incredulous, said, “No, that’s just your view.”
The two went back and forth for a while, with the CNN host pointing to actual data, and the Trump surrogate arguing that facts and reason are less relevant than false opinions. “As a political candidate,” Gingrich concluded, “I’ll go with how people feel.”
As the debate in Oklahoma helped demonstrate, Stitt is working from the same assumptions. Hofmeister said something true about conditions in the state. There’s ample evidence to substantiate her claims. For the governor, the evidence isn’t important — because if the facts don’t feel true, then as far as he’s concerned, they don’t really count.
Indeed, note that the Republican didn’t present alternative data. He instead asked people to rely on perceptions over reality.
A couple of years into his presidency, Trump declared, “I have a gut, and my gut tells me more sometimes than anybody else’s brain can ever tell me.” Four years later, his party has adopted a similar posture when it comes to crime statistics.
That may very well work as an electoral matter, but it’s evidence of post-policy thinking that makes debates over policymaking effectively impossible.