Defund The Police: Good Idea, Poor Choice Of Words

-by Noah and Exile Johnny

The police have not just been incidentally tainted by racism. For much of U.S. history, law enforcement meant enforcing laws that were explicitly designed to subjugate black people.

-Jon Oliver, HBO's Last Week Tonight, June 7, 2020

Of course, unfortunately, much of that law enforcement structure still exists, as most recently exemplified by a career criminal cop's knee on the streets of Minneapolis. George Floyd is dead but a lot of traditions die hard. Those 4 cops that we've seen on film thanks to a 17-year-old armed with a smartphone thought they had permission, not just from the President of the United States but even more so by the police culture they live in, and, certainly, as events have proven for decades, there is nothing unusual about the Minneapolis Police Dept. and no amount of sensitivity training has or will change a sociopath in a blue uniform.

So what happens now? We will always need some sort of entity to "protect and serve" but simply chanting "Defund The Police" is an offer of words that are way too easily used against those who chant them and justifiably demand change. For a large segment of the population, those three words are a non-starter. Older citizens, whether they are Democrats or easily scared FOX viewers aren't going to buy in. This has bothered me for the last several days as I heard the phrase. As a person who witnessed police violence live and in person 50 years ago, I got it but as an adult who marketed pop culture, I knew it was a poor choice of wording.

Yesterday morning, I got an email from a close friend. He goes by the name Exile Johnny and he shares the byline of this post. As you can see below, he feels the same. It ain't what you say. More often than not, it's how you say it. My friend grew up in a right wing working class neighborhood in the Bronx. It was the kind of neighborhood where, if you sold your house, you should offer it to your neighbors or members of your own extended family rather than put it on the market. That might lead to, you know, "the wrong kind of people" moving into the neighborhood. His own family inhabited a political mindset that was slightly better but was either apolitical or definitely leaned to the right. Until he was almost 40, he was of the apolitical variety and rarely voted. Then George W. Bush came along, followed by the passing of Obamacare which has been "a godsend" to his family. That was enough to set his mind seriously in motion about politics and he is particularly focused on the messaging used by the two major parties while painfully aware of the shortcomings of both. Here's Johnny:

...of why Republican win elections and Democrats lose them consistently:

Republicans pay millions of dollars to people like that guy, Frank Luntz, to come up with names and slogans like "The Freedom Caucus," or "Make America Great Again." They never give you a hint as to what these things really are. They never call their groups or causes "Make America White Again" or "The Racist Coalition" or "The Economic And Social Injustice League."

Could Democrats tee it up any better than they just have? Defund The Police? Surely, they could have taken 3 or 4 minutes and called this movement something like "The Social Unity Project or "The And Justice For All Movement." And those headings, at least would have been honest. If this was a Republican movement, they would be certain to name this something that is the opposite of what it really is. Instead of "Defund The Police," they'd call it the "New Law And Order Regime."

As usual, Democrats have gone out of their way to give Republicans fuel that they can use. There are swarms of older Democrats right now, who are saying aloud "Defund The Police, what the hell are they talking about? I'm not for that!" Even in a best case scenario, one where Dems get the presidency and both houses, I guarantee you this branding costs them at least a few elections where a candidate has already said that they are looking into or sympathize with "Defund The Police" and their opponent was able to use it against them, getting voters to think that that means the democrat wants to totally do away with their local police department.

Obviously, there's a ton of discussion on the subject to be had. As members of the Minneapolis City Council have said, you can't reform something that is rotten to the core. Across the country, city councils and the voting public are discussing variations on the same theme. Most center around restructuring what police departments should be doing. We've given way too much money and power to the police. We have 911 for a variety of services. Do so many have to be handled by the police? In some cities and towns, more people are taken to the hospital by police squad cars because there are many more squad cars than ambulances. It's an imbalance. Do cops always have to go to every domestic dispute or petty crime episode? Might a lot of the money we give police departments, including the money for tanks and high end military gear be better used for social programs that alleviate crime in the first place? Might the money be better used for prevention in the form of youth summer programs, job and economic development, more easily obtainable medical care, food security, and other things that provide hope and end despair? Here's an idea, how 'bout we do things that level the playing field and not literally steal whatever gains impoverished citizens can achieve if given a fair chance? Well, that's not the republican way at all, no matter what they say. They come up with frauds like "Trickle Down Economics" and laugh. "Trickle Down Economics" is one of the Republican Party's greatest hits. As Kimberly Jones says, the social contract is badly broken.