I’m not really talking about the actual theory and policy of it. I’m talking about the political reality of it.
Public opinion is not static. Why start bargaining from a compromise position?
who are the parties is this grand negotiation exactly?
It might hurt Democrats to be perceived as lacking principles and only pushing policies that help them get elected.
Exactly. When there is no support you don’t change your position. You go out and create support until it reaches critical mass and your goal becomes reality.
I mean, I’m arguing for reform that would help and against abolition that is politically impossible, and you’re telling me I’m wrong because reform is politically impossible?
I feel like I’m starting bargaining from the left-most edge of the Overton window right now. Not only that, I’m not even talking about compromising, I’m just trying to push something that we might be able to count to 218 with in the House and 50 in the Senate with a Dem president.
Or, manage to get establishment Dem votes in numerous cities with.
I’m also not saying that we have to do that and stop trying to do better. We’re at our own one-yardline, and I’d like to pick up 15-20 yards here and then keep the drive going and see what’s working or not working.
Instead of “abolish police”, maybe you should re-brand it as “repeal and replace the police” and let everyone read into the second part of that whatever they desire.
ITT progressives fall into the exact same trap of bargaining against themselves that the Dem party has been stuck in since the New Deal.
I"m not sure the specifics of the arguments going on, I just noticed people say earlier today it was a pipe dream and this got published today so I posted it. Not sure where the 2 of 13 comes from. This quote seems to suggest otherwise:
Fletcher says the entire council “to some degree” has been discussing disbanding the police department as an option.
[quote=“PocketChads, post:5375, topic:1904, full:true”]Ok thanks for cutting my post in half for your own masturbatory proposes
[/quote]
My dude, it seems like a reasonable q to ask “has this actually worked for a major city in the real world?”
Feels more like you want to establish the run.
I’m not so sure about that. I’m not sure that many people on this forum held deeply thought out views on how to deal with law enforcement in this country 7 days ago. Myself included. And I oscillate on what to do next myself.
My point is we’re stuck in a trap where we say “Gee, Thing would be great, but it’s politically impossible, so we shouldn’t even talk about it. We should instead all advocate for Less Great Thing.”
The right does the exact fucking opposite thing, and wins because of it. Whereas we compromise with the right before they even ask us to.
We’re going to be the side of anarchy and hating police officers anyways in the eyes of the deplorables. We might as well get some mileage out of it.
Not sure how accountable they are and mostly they didn’t get militarized in the first place.
Do you have any broad info on accountability of police elsewhere?
That’s not how you get the Overton window to move though.
Are you saying the people saying Abolish the Police don’t want to actually abolish the police? It’s just a negotiating tactic?
Come on, you should know by now that it’s a hail mary pass or nothing on THIS team. It doesn’t matter that we are the 2017 Browns vs. the 1976 Steelers!
I tried for a year to inject realism around here. Good luck.
That sounds like a medical malpractice suit bonanza.
If we abolish police we should hire them for INFRASTRUCTURE work.
It seems like most of the Western European nations have police forces that are much less violent than ours? Or Japan? I’m obv not saying they’re perfect, but you can at least point to them as being better working models for how we might do things here.
The ebook is currently being offered for free for any of you interested in learning how we abolish the police. I haven’t read it but it’s recommended by Ruth Wilson Gilmore which is all I need to know