Whoever came up with "defund the police" should be publicly expelled from Democratic politics and BLM. It is the worst, most counter-productive slogan ever uttered. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was invented by a Trump loyalist.
Whoever came up with "defund the police" should be publicly expelled from Democratic politics and BLM. It is the worst, most counter-productive slogan ever uttered. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was invented by a Trump loyalist.
You mean as opposed to "abolish the police"? What I would like to defund is the myth that cops are the only safeguard for acceptable society from the dusky hordes. That force & oppression leads to peace & justice.
"Abolish the police" is what the average voter hears when "defund the police" gets uttered.
"Ooh! But that's not what we mean!"
Yeah, well, unfortunately that's what the plain meaning of the phrase "defund the police" actually means. And as sympathetic as the average person might be to the BLM movement, they are NOT disposed to getting rid of the police for some concept to be named later. They look at this as some wild-eyed radical anarchist thing. And rightly so.
Joe Average agrees the police need to be reformed, recast, redirected. Joe Average supports that. And if the slogan du jour stated THAT, Joe Average would back it 100%. But that's not what the slogan says. So Joe Average now sees the choices as complete anarchy or Donald Trump. Guess which one Mr. Comfortable middle-class White Guy is going to choose?
So "defund the police" sure is catchy. And it is absolutely perfect for pushing otherwise sympathetic voters right back into Trumpland.
So you assume, and so Joe Biden hopes. What will play into Trump's hands is not that there is unrest, but because the Democrats have no real plan to address the causes of that unrest, so it will continue. And then he can say the US needs him to re-establish order. Enter Fourth Reich.
I agree that people don't understand the issue, and like you appear to be doing, incorrectly assume that "anarchist" means "chaos". (Thank William Randolph Hearst for that, if you're into antiques at all...)
I'm not trying to call anybody out & understand the process to justice is tricky & takes actual dialogue, which I am offering here. Status quo bias is a big issue here, plus several lifetimes of marginalization of actual leftist ideas. If they seem strange to you or others, its because there are almost no mainstream outlets that offer good-faith discussion.
Also, not for nothing, but avoiding progress because it makes "Joe Average" uncomfortable is a) precisely why the system is so fucked up, and b) an excuse to justify inaction. What like 75% of white Americans were uncomfortable with the Civil Rights Movement. Should we have copped to that fear & inertia?
Absolutely not.
Joe Biden has a chance to be an LBJ here. Right now, he's looking more like Fillmore. (And I'm going to vote for him anyways, don't worry)
[And please please know: I challenge this idea not out of disrespect for you, but comradeship.]
I get it. And I'm definitely not saying we need to hold still or even retreat. What I'm saying is that the SLOGAN is the shits. It doesn't matter what the actual movement is or wants if its slogan sucks. And that's the problem--the slogan says "get rid of the police." I know that's not what the movement wants--but it is most definitely what their slogan says they want.
As for "anarchy," it falls into the same elephant trap that libertarianism and communism fall into: It's really outstanding as an intellectual exercise, but collapses into incoherence the instant you introduce humans into it. My transgender niece was a staunch anarchist--right up until the time her boyfriend got badly beaten, at which time she became a believer in having the police around and a functioning state to keep people from just being predatory assholes.
That is totally fair, and I appreciate you clarifying, D. I understand you better and that's the whole point of this.
I guess my issue is that the Dems too often obsess over "optics" when they should focus on "justice". I'm not sure what to do about that, & I understand that it is somewhat a result of really mealy-mouthed coverage of their efforts & policies by the media...
Mealy-mouthed coverage and a whole lotta bad-faith reporting. Just look at how the NY fucking Times covered Clinton meeting with Loretta Lynch--a meeting that "provoked a political furor" and may have "compromised the Justice DepartmentтАЩs politically sensitive investigation into Hillary ClintonтАЩs email practices." Now, compare that to the NYFT's coverage of Trump getting the DOJ to act as his personal lawyers in the defamation suit he's facing: "In an unusual move . . ."
Same treatment for most progressive initiatives, including police reform. Calling for civilian oversight, for example, routinely gets reported as "special interest groups looking to interfere with how police do their jobs." Last time I looked, beating and killing Black people wasn't actually part of the PD's job description, but apparently it would be "interfering" in their work to ask them to not do that.
"Demilitarize the police" would work quite well. Many BLM-sympathetic voters are extremely uncomfortable with what their local PD has turned into. It's more like an occupying force than the local gendarmes they're supposed to be. So a slogan like that keeps those voters in the camp while you explain that, look, along with taking away the MRAPS and up-armored HUMVEEs and M-30 machine guns, we ALSO need to get police officers training on how to de-escalate, how to recognize and deal with the mentally ill, how to get out of the "everyone's out to kill me" mindset, and how to relate to the community.
I donтАЩt have a better word myself, but a disadvantage of words like тАЬdemilitarizeтАЭ is they start sounding wonky and less relatable to average people, like when politicians talk about тАЬobstructionism.тАЭ (I donтАЩt know what to replace that word with either, except maybe тАЬvandalism)
What I hear in Defund The Police is "Re-Fund Social Services", and that's totally what we need, but the phrase itself is poisonous to much of the electorate. Social Services are one of the things we're supposed to drown in the bath tub. I want to say "Stop Dumping Work On The Police That Should Be Done By Other Agencies and Services, and To Do That, We Have to Add Money, Because Otherwise It Doesn't Work, Remember Reagan?" but oh boy, is that not catchy.
Very much THIS! Every time there's a mass shooting, Republicans blame it on mental illness. I wish just once some prominent Democrat would say "Okay. If you really think these events are all due to mental illness, here's my $2 billion legislation fully funding social and psychiatric services for all who need them."<br>
Really, though, I think we'll have to settle for getting cops more classroom time on how to deal with the mentally ill. If we can also get them less time on the shooting range, that would help!
People should say, тАЬreallocation of funding of the police force budgetтАЭ instead of тАЬdefundingтАЭ or тАЬabolishingтАЭ the police.
Of COURSE we all want a police force, firefighters, and all other municipal workers...we just want the cops to not be militarized (there werenтАЩt any TANKS owned by police forces in the тАШ60s) have better training (learn how to apprehend a suspect without murdering them), have the obvious KKK members rooted out, and get back to REAL NEIGHBORHOOD POLICING, instead of having a majority of the cops living on Long Island and never truly walking a beat and LIVING in the area (any ghetto you choose) theyтАЩre SUPPOSED to be SERVING AND PROTECTING.
But thanks to decades of racism and тАЬWhite flightтАЭ the old ways have been destroyed.
Why isnтАЩt the model program thatтАЩs been working in In Camden - what was at one time тАЬthe most dangerous city in the USтАЭ being used everywhere?
THEY REALLY DID ABOLISH THE POLICE, AND IT WORKED!
They rebuilt the system, and itтАЩs been working for a long time now.
Why isnтАЩt it featured on the news every day? Why donтАЩt the powers that be adopt the very successful program?ЁЯдФЁЯзРЁЯди
Systems That Actually Work, in policing and in health care and in welfare policy, in Camden and all over the civilized world, are too heavy a lift for the United States of America -- because of the moneybags who keep weighing us down.
Whoever came up with "defund the police" should be publicly expelled from Democratic politics and BLM. It is the worst, most counter-productive slogan ever uttered. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was invented by a Trump loyalist.
You mean as opposed to "abolish the police"? What I would like to defund is the myth that cops are the only safeguard for acceptable society from the dusky hordes. That force & oppression leads to peace & justice.
"Abolish the police" is what the average voter hears when "defund the police" gets uttered.
"Ooh! But that's not what we mean!"
Yeah, well, unfortunately that's what the plain meaning of the phrase "defund the police" actually means. And as sympathetic as the average person might be to the BLM movement, they are NOT disposed to getting rid of the police for some concept to be named later. They look at this as some wild-eyed radical anarchist thing. And rightly so.
Joe Average agrees the police need to be reformed, recast, redirected. Joe Average supports that. And if the slogan du jour stated THAT, Joe Average would back it 100%. But that's not what the slogan says. So Joe Average now sees the choices as complete anarchy or Donald Trump. Guess which one Mr. Comfortable middle-class White Guy is going to choose?
So "defund the police" sure is catchy. And it is absolutely perfect for pushing otherwise sympathetic voters right back into Trumpland.
So you assume, and so Joe Biden hopes. What will play into Trump's hands is not that there is unrest, but because the Democrats have no real plan to address the causes of that unrest, so it will continue. And then he can say the US needs him to re-establish order. Enter Fourth Reich.
I agree that people don't understand the issue, and like you appear to be doing, incorrectly assume that "anarchist" means "chaos". (Thank William Randolph Hearst for that, if you're into antiques at all...)
I'm not trying to call anybody out & understand the process to justice is tricky & takes actual dialogue, which I am offering here. Status quo bias is a big issue here, plus several lifetimes of marginalization of actual leftist ideas. If they seem strange to you or others, its because there are almost no mainstream outlets that offer good-faith discussion.
Also, not for nothing, but avoiding progress because it makes "Joe Average" uncomfortable is a) precisely why the system is so fucked up, and b) an excuse to justify inaction. What like 75% of white Americans were uncomfortable with the Civil Rights Movement. Should we have copped to that fear & inertia?
Absolutely not.
Joe Biden has a chance to be an LBJ here. Right now, he's looking more like Fillmore. (And I'm going to vote for him anyways, don't worry)
[And please please know: I challenge this idea not out of disrespect for you, but comradeship.]
I get it. And I'm definitely not saying we need to hold still or even retreat. What I'm saying is that the SLOGAN is the shits. It doesn't matter what the actual movement is or wants if its slogan sucks. And that's the problem--the slogan says "get rid of the police." I know that's not what the movement wants--but it is most definitely what their slogan says they want.
As for "anarchy," it falls into the same elephant trap that libertarianism and communism fall into: It's really outstanding as an intellectual exercise, but collapses into incoherence the instant you introduce humans into it. My transgender niece was a staunch anarchist--right up until the time her boyfriend got badly beaten, at which time she became a believer in having the police around and a functioning state to keep people from just being predatory assholes.
That is totally fair, and I appreciate you clarifying, D. I understand you better and that's the whole point of this.
I guess my issue is that the Dems too often obsess over "optics" when they should focus on "justice". I'm not sure what to do about that, & I understand that it is somewhat a result of really mealy-mouthed coverage of their efforts & policies by the media...
Mealy-mouthed coverage and a whole lotta bad-faith reporting. Just look at how the NY fucking Times covered Clinton meeting with Loretta Lynch--a meeting that "provoked a political furor" and may have "compromised the Justice DepartmentтАЩs politically sensitive investigation into Hillary ClintonтАЩs email practices." Now, compare that to the NYFT's coverage of Trump getting the DOJ to act as his personal lawyers in the defamation suit he's facing: "In an unusual move . . ."
Same treatment for most progressive initiatives, including police reform. Calling for civilian oversight, for example, routinely gets reported as "special interest groups looking to interfere with how police do their jobs." Last time I looked, beating and killing Black people wasn't actually part of the PD's job description, but apparently it would be "interfering" in their work to ask them to not do that.
I get what youтАЩre saying, but whatтАЩs the better slogan that should be used instead?
"Demilitarize the police" would work quite well. Many BLM-sympathetic voters are extremely uncomfortable with what their local PD has turned into. It's more like an occupying force than the local gendarmes they're supposed to be. So a slogan like that keeps those voters in the camp while you explain that, look, along with taking away the MRAPS and up-armored HUMVEEs and M-30 machine guns, we ALSO need to get police officers training on how to de-escalate, how to recognize and deal with the mentally ill, how to get out of the "everyone's out to kill me" mindset, and how to relate to the community.
On a related note, I read an article suggesting the frat bro mindset of the police is a root problem: https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2020/08/americas-brotherhood-of-police-officers
I donтАЩt have a better word myself, but a disadvantage of words like тАЬdemilitarizeтАЭ is they start sounding wonky and less relatable to average people, like when politicians talk about тАЬobstructionism.тАЭ (I donтАЩt know what to replace that word with either, except maybe тАЬvandalism)
What I hear in Defund The Police is "Re-Fund Social Services", and that's totally what we need, but the phrase itself is poisonous to much of the electorate. Social Services are one of the things we're supposed to drown in the bath tub. I want to say "Stop Dumping Work On The Police That Should Be Done By Other Agencies and Services, and To Do That, We Have to Add Money, Because Otherwise It Doesn't Work, Remember Reagan?" but oh boy, is that not catchy.
Very much THIS! Every time there's a mass shooting, Republicans blame it on mental illness. I wish just once some prominent Democrat would say "Okay. If you really think these events are all due to mental illness, here's my $2 billion legislation fully funding social and psychiatric services for all who need them."<br>
Really, though, I think we'll have to settle for getting cops more classroom time on how to deal with the mentally ill. If we can also get them less time on the shooting range, that would help!
The BIG problem here is the terminology.
People should say, тАЬreallocation of funding of the police force budgetтАЭ instead of тАЬdefundingтАЭ or тАЬabolishingтАЭ the police.
Of COURSE we all want a police force, firefighters, and all other municipal workers...we just want the cops to not be militarized (there werenтАЩt any TANKS owned by police forces in the тАШ60s) have better training (learn how to apprehend a suspect without murdering them), have the obvious KKK members rooted out, and get back to REAL NEIGHBORHOOD POLICING, instead of having a majority of the cops living on Long Island and never truly walking a beat and LIVING in the area (any ghetto you choose) theyтАЩre SUPPOSED to be SERVING AND PROTECTING.
But thanks to decades of racism and тАЬWhite flightтАЭ the old ways have been destroyed.
Why isnтАЩt the model program thatтАЩs been working in In Camden - what was at one time тАЬthe most dangerous city in the USтАЭ being used everywhere?
THEY REALLY DID ABOLISH THE POLICE, AND IT WORKED!
They rebuilt the system, and itтАЩs been working for a long time now.
Why isnтАЩt it featured on the news every day? Why donтАЩt the powers that be adopt the very successful program?ЁЯдФЁЯзРЁЯди
Ohhhhh, riiiiiiiiiight...never mind.
Systems That Actually Work, in policing and in health care and in welfare policy, in Camden and all over the civilized world, are too heavy a lift for the United States of America -- because of the moneybags who keep weighing us down.