A Gentle Pushback Against Obama's Recent Comments Towards "Defund the Police"

Recently, former President Obama made the claim You lose people with 'snappy' slogans like 'defund the police'. Now, I have heard discourse around this statement saying activists aren't PR managers, that civil rights protests were not always "marketable," that progressives need to make demands that can't be met to push the overtone window left. While I agree with all of these statements, I think there is something all of this is missing.

There are states where "Defund the Police' has been empirically shown to NOT hurt the cause. California is a huge example. In the 49th district of CA., Mike Levin won despite his opponent Brian Maryott running on a campaign that tried to paint Levin as being "anti-police." Furthermore, California recently passed Measure J, which quite literally "defunded the police."

Now this may seem like an obvious point. Yes, of course California is going to be more progressive, it's California. States like, say, Alabama, make that a much tougher sell. Congressman of 1st District of Alabama formally disavowed the "defund the police" movement, stating "Nobody is considering defunding the police." Still, I can't help but feel that to make a blanket statement like "you lose people with the slogan" misses a lot of nuance. Why not say "we could lose potential ground in key states?" The influence of, say, "THE SQUAD" shows that there are absolutely places where progressivism can help, not hurt the cause. It smells to me like a somewhat "reactionary" fear of genuine change, but I could be reading this wrong. What do you all think?

In my personal opinion, I love "defund the police" as a slogan. I'm not a huge fan of "ACAB" or "Abolish the Police" because that alienates potential allies, and I'm not at all a fan of "Reform the Police" because it sounds weak and ineffective. NWA didn't get famous making a song called "Force Police Through Diversity Training" after all. For me, "defund the police" is the sweet spot. It's a dash of cold water to the face, advocating for fairly radical change quite bluntly, without being so alienating that the left would lose support. However, I'm no political expert, that's just how I feel.

Roxxsmom said:

I understand what Diana and others are saying about what is meant when activists say, "Defund the Police." It is nuanced. But that's precisely why I think it's a poor battle cry for systemic police reform. Many people simply do not get nuance, especially those who have mostly had good experiences with the police in their communities and who desperately want to believe that systemic racism is greatly overstated.Many Americans have been steeped in the whole, "Police officers as heroes" concept. "Blue lives matter," they cry, not thinking that aggressive, violent policing ultimately endangers cops too.

God, but I wish we'd stop deifying groups of people as heroes. Do do so makes them both inhuman and expendable. It also makes people extremely reluctant to admit that more than a handful of them could be incompetent or corrupt.

Like it or not, many white suburbanites (and ruralites and urbanites too) think the defund the police movement means being put on hold indefinitely when they call 911.

We need a many pronged approach to police reform, and many departments need to be rebuilt from the ground up. We need national oversight, and police unions need to be de fanged, if not scrapped (and I hate saying this, as I am generally very pro union). We need more funding for non-violent interventions, and more specialists in counseling and so on working with police (rather than expecting armed police officers to be counselors). The whole "broken windows" approach to policing must be shot and buried.

But one thing liberals seem to be horrific at is coming up with catch phrases that resonate with all the people they need on board to enact change.

Click to expand...

You're 100% right about police unions in this context. It's not anti union to want to break up the power of police unions, because police unions historically let the cops get away with, well, murder.

I'd argue it's a terrible idea depending on the state. I know political slogans aren't state specific, they can't chant "DEFUND THE POLICE! BUT LIKE, ONLY IN STATES WHERE THAT IS RHETORICALLY EFFECTIVE LIKE CALIFORNIA!" doesn't really roll off the tongue.

That said, I like when slogans have a little bit of edge. Maybe that's unrealistic, but I can't imagine a moderate slogan "shaking things up." We need to fight hard with our chants, they need to hit. As Frederick Douglass said, "Power concedes nothing without demand." The alternative is "abolish the police," which is an optics nightmare and will never gain traction anytime soon. At least, that's how I feel.

lizmonster said:

I don't disagree with you. I don't see things getting better in my lifetime.

That said, I also think this perspective is short-sighted.

Sometimes fighting really is futile, and you're just screaming into the void and it doesn't matter. But sometimes it makes a difference - likely one you'll never see and never be thanked for, but still.

I don't know whether continuing to push for police reform, or human rights, or UBI, or any of that will make a lick of difference. I don't expect to see a lot of wins, if any, over the next 20-40 years. But I do feel a sense of responsibility to the world that will go on without me, and that means I fight, even if I never change a single thing for the better.

Click to expand...

Wow. This hit me like a truck. To be Leftist really is to feel constant disappointment. But it's worth it. We might not ever see the change we want in our lifetimes, but we need to set the future. Watching LGBT activists from the 70s talk about the same things we talk about now is so surreal, it simultaneously makes me feel less alone AND makes me realize how slow change is. It's a strange paradox.

I think I may have said my piece on this. I remain unchanged in my views. I believe we can bring people over with "defund the police," and that we shouldn't use "abolish the police." I don't think it's giving conservatives ammunition because it's literally what we want, or at least what I want. It's not nebulous like "hope and change." It's a blunt splash of cold water.

I disagree with Obama here. Others are free to disagree with me. I won't shy away from advocating for "defund the police" because it is an honest statement on what I want. Sure, it takes some explaining, but honestly I'd say two minutes tops I can explain it and people get what I mean. Even if they don't agree 100% right away, it plants a seed. I've changed minds about gay people after coming out. Confidence in your own ideas is often the best way to convince someone else. I'll stop now, I don't want to spam this thread. But those are my views on that. I'll be the first to admit I'm no political expert, but I'm always honest.

JJ Litke said:

I do believe ACAB, also I’m pro-prison abolition. And I hate the “defund the police” slogan. I know this has been pointed out in other discussions around here, that when the right talk about defunding Planned Parenthood, we all know they don’t mean they want to reallocate funds so that the work PP does isn’t as needed. Their goal is to get rid of Planned Parenthood. That’s the message that people have been internalizing about “defund” slogans. It means to completely abolish something.

It’s not reasonable to demand that people research the nuanced meaning behind the slogan, either. I know a lot of people who are barely getting by right now. They’re focused on surviving. They don’t have the spoons to spare on researching political movements. If you do, that’s great, but we need to recognize that’s a damned privileged position to be in now.

So “defund the police” = “abolish the police” to most who hear it. And while I’m on board with exploring such options myself, this is definitely one of those issues that, as liz pointed out, is a seriously long term goal that may not happen in our lifetimes.

Click to expand...

Okay, this will be my last word on this. I will log off for several days to avoid the temptation of responding further, because I don’t want to rant

I have to admit I’m confused by your take on this. If you find my response in bad faith, feel free to call me out, it’s entirely possible I’m misunderstanding what you are saying. I’ll go point-by-point.

First, I don’t think it takes too much research to describe what “defund the police” means. A simple image or infographic usually does the trick. It doesn’t take hours and hours of pouring over data. It takes two minutes, tops.




Second, political engagement is now considered bourgeoisie? Maybe we have had different experiences. The Black Lives Matter protests I went to where people chanted “defund the police” were most working class folk and black activists. I don’t think “defund the police” is a popular position among the extremely wealthy. I don’t see the kind of people who sit on golden toilets and have three mansions being the ones showing up to Black Lives Matter getting pepper sprayed in the face. And why would they? They're rich, why would they risk ruining their easy, safe lives? It's the working class that are putting themselves on the line.

I’ve never in my life heard the opinion that political engagement makes you “privileged.” That’s a new one. I’ve always thought being politically ambivalent is privilege, because it means you have nothing to lose. I admit that I, personally, have privilege. I’m white. I grew up somewhat wealthy. This characterization applies to me, but it seems an odd generalization.

Third, let’s say for the sake of argument that political engagement does make you privileged. Isn’t that a good use of privilege? Isn’t it better to use the resources you have to research, figure out optics, and show up to win? What would you have the privileged do? Go back to brunch? You may think people who do research “privileged,” but that research helps guide decisions. If the research shows “defund the police” is an effective slogan, should we really throw it out just because researchers are privileged? A poll asking about “Support for defunding Minneapolis Police” received 76% approval from black respondents. Defunding the police is popular in cities that grapple with racism.

Fourth, why not demand change in our lifetime? People are getting killed. Maybe you’re right, and we live in a political Hellscape where nothing will ever change beyond limp symbolic gestures, but for the sake of my own mental health I’d rather not believe that. Maybe that’s naive.

Fifth, the people who don’t have “spare spoons” would benefit from the policies of the progressives that also support defund the police. I haven’t heard anyone say “defund the police, also poor people suck.”

It’s possible I’m getting something wrong here. If so, feel free to correct me. I guess I’m just taken aback by the level of pushback “defund the police” is getting. It seems a fairly inoffensive slogan. I’ve heard MUCH harsher words said by protesters. That said, this thread has opened my eyes to the reality of where most people are at in this country, and so this was a good experience.

JJ Litke said:

Okay, that’s a good point, and I guess I didn’t explain well in trying too hard to be concise. Sure, there are people who are politically minded and also are working class (or at least not high income). But there are plenty of people who have not been marching, who have been devoting their energy into just getting by. The response I keep seeing to criticism of “defund the police” not being clear enough is “well people should look it up.” Which is a nice idea, but it isn’t gonna happen. If everyone was willing to spend a lot of time researching political platforms, we probably wouldn’t need to have this conversation in the first place.

So my point is, we’re trying to use wording that the right-wing is already using to mean something else. And the solution of “people should look it up and see what we actually mean” just isn’t realistic.

Click to expand...

Thank you for engaging in good faith. I genuinely appreciate. And what you're saying about not everyone marching is absolutely right. I guess I'm having a knee jerk reaction because I heard the same arguments used against "Black Lives Matter" in 2014. People said "while I agree that black lives matter, it takes time to explain that Black Lives Matter doesn't mean only black lives matter, and because it needs to be explained doesn't that make it a bad slogan? Why can't we say All Lives Matter?"

As a writer, it's important to get your point across yes, but it's also important not to "declaw" yourself in order to avoid offending others. I'm sure you know this, I'm not trying to explain at you, I just want to be clear on why I'm defending "defund the police" despite all the pushback I'm getting on this thread (though I find the pushback constructive, I haven't felt insulted or belittled by anything anyone has said which I appreciate). This is a hill I'm willing to die on. Yes, there will be people offended by "defund the police," just like how in 2014 there were people who were offended by "black lives matter." That didn't make "black lives matter" a bad slogan, and it doesn't make "defund the police" a bad one. The only kind of slogan that could please everyone is a slogan that isn't effective because it doesn't demand anything.

And it shouldn't take more than two minutes to explain that "defund the police" means reallocate resources. I'm not asking someone working three minimum wage jobs and who gets four hours asleep per night because their son has late night asthma attacks to memorize "Das Kapital" by Karl Marx front to back. I'm asking that people try to be slightly open-minded. I don't think that's an overwhelming ask. The level of political engagement I ask for I would hardly consider "research."