Depends what you mean by "proof", I guess. I can make an argument, but it's a very complex issue that would require a lot of sources of information to be brought together and analysed.
I'd say the first is gun policy. Yes, there's a right to own a gun in the US. This is part of the problem. I doubt you need me to go prove that the Republicans oppose restrictive gun laws that Democrats would want to impose.
Then you have to look at education.
Education-
Our current system for funding public schools shortchanges students, particularly low-income students. Those problems are magnified during and after recessions. Increased federal spending on education after recessions helps mitigate funding shortfalls and inequities. Increased spending...
www.epi.org
"Districts in high-poverty areas, which serve larger shares of students of color, get less funding per student than districts in low-poverty areas, which predominantly serve white students, highlighting the system’s inequity."
The color of skin here doesn't matter. White people in poor areas are just as disadvantaged as black kids. Vance, in his book, wrote about how his disadvantaged white people suffered the same problems as black disadvantaged people.
Basic aid for schools would increase by $5.1 billion over the next seven years under a bill passed by House lawmakers Monday. Democrats hailed it as major progress towards educational equity, but Republicans called for school choice instead of more state spending.
www.chalkbeat.org
PA wanted to change education funding.
"Monday’s vote was split
largely along party lines, with all Democrats voting in favor and all but five Republicans opposing the bill. The bill now goes to the Republican-dominated Senate, where its fate is in question."
Essentially they'll knock it down.
Republicans prefer a voucher system which is, essentially, a system where rich people can funnel money out of the political for no reason.
Policing - When it comes to policing I don't think the Democrats have the right idea. But Republicans certainly don't. Look at policing in other countries, like the UK. If you want to be a police officer in the UK you have to have certain qualifications and be a part of the national force.
"Qualifications to become a police offer includes a minimum of five GCSEs between grades A to C (or equivalent). It's essential that these five GCSEs include the compulsory subjects of English, maths and science."
GCSEs are exams at the age of 16, and you need to achieve an average level.
"have A-level qualifications or equivalent experience." A-Levels are the exams taken at the age of 18. You need to have reached a certain academic level.
"Some A-Levels beneficial for aspiring police officers include Law, to increase understanding of the legal system, and Sociology which helps in understanding the issues faced daily by communities."
If you have certain subjects, you're more likely to be accepted.
"While having a degree is not mandatory to become a police officer, alternative pathways like the Police Constable Degree Apprenticeship offers on-the-job training while earning a BSc Degree in Professional Policing Practice."
Having a degree is also more likely to see you become a police officer. A Welsh person I know with a degree failed to become a police officer, even though she's black belt karate (or some martial art), very sporty, she became a fire fighter instead.
"you can't apply to become a police officer if you have tattoos that people could take offence to, have certain criminal convictions or if you're experiencing debt problems."
And certain limitations.
So the people becoming police officers are, generally, the better half of society.
In the US it seems like you just need to have a buddy who's able to hire people as police. Not for all jobs, but certainly at a more local level.
Ghettos - The way cities are made is a big problem.
Started with the New Deal. You can say "ah, but that was the Democrats"... but really the current Rep v. Dem didn't exist then. White southern racists were Democrats, for example, but in the west liberals were Democrats, so it was a weird union.
"In 1933, faced with a housing shortage, the federal government began a program explicitly designed to increase — and segregate — America's housing stock. Author Richard Rothstein says the housing programs begun under the New Deal were tantamount to a "state-sponsored system of segregation.""
Again, I'm not saying the Democrats are doing anything about this. I haven't done enough research into this, but I don't see the obvious signs that anything is happening in terms of city planning to change how cities are, change how different classes interact with each other.
The problem is the car rules, and people like living in their open space communities where houses cost a certain amount of money across the board. Rich kids go to rich schools and this entrenches the idea of class communities, which causes ghettos, which fuels cycles of violence.
Certainly the Republicans are more likely to push these policies of segregation, they're more likely to oppose policies that try and change this.
abc7chicago.com
