i don’t like “defund” as a slogan either, because i believe the funding should be spent on direct help for the communities rather than surplus military equipment, drug raids, etc. on the other hand, it speaks to the root of corruption. no wonder FOP got super concerned about it, and started beating protesters. because it was going to hurt their wallets.
but i’m struggling to find another slogan with respect to policing. i believe i carried a sign that said “defund, demilitarize, reform” during protests last year, and have been thinking of anything else that would be a clearer message. but nothing really makes total sense in such a nuanced topic. we need like half a dozen bullets to cover even the most pressing issues.
“lose qualified immunity”, ok great but 99% of police interactions have nothing to do with that.
“accept accountability, or lose collective bargaining”. sounds like i’m labor-busting.
“make abuse of power a hate crime”. i’m not sure what sort of teeth the law has for hate crimes.
“communities to police themselves”. not possible everywhere and will be fraught with local politics.
Actually, it seems pretty clear in retrospect that “All Lives Matter” would have been a better slogan to embrace, in part because it denies the opponents the ability to use it as a counter-slogan. Like, if you went back in time before the movement was a thing and did a poll on which statement comes closer to representing your views, 90+% would say “All Lives Matter.” So how did we let the side who believes that only some lives matter get to own the popular slogan?
To tack on to this. All the times that politicians, both Dem and GOP, say some BS version of but how you gonna pay for that?
DTP is identifying where those funds are. They are right there in the police budget. Take that money. And if that ain’t enough money to fund the things our communities need then we can talk about DTP’s big bro Defund the Military. They got even more loot.
Oh no, Mitch might, say, pass a massive tax cut with no Democratic input!
You can tell how weak his position is by how facially laughable his arguments are. He’s basically highlighting that this is a freeroll for Dems. “Don’t do this or I’ll do what I already do” is not a strong argument.
McConnell is bluffing, because the filibuster is highly asymmetric. The entire conservative worldview is based on the idea that things are basically just fine the way they are. They don’t need or want to pass legislation that cannot be passed via reconciliation.
I mean sure, the reactionary MAGA right would want to pass these things, but they don’t have 50 votes and/or the political ramifications would be bad.
eDems are so addicted to their own narratives about bipartisanship that they will fall for this and retcon history so they can believe that Mitch accepted their input on stuff. High self regard is a helluva drug.
I’m assuming you’re leveling, but once again, this is a conflation of activists and politicians, which is basically my whole point.
And fwiw, I meant that BLM artivists were ahead of the curve. So, who knows, by the time politicians come to embrace “defund the police,” there will probably be a while new slogan to make them apprehensive.
Yeah, these McConnell ideas passing would be bad in a non-filibuster rules universe, but it is a helluva lot easier to undo sancutary city laws then it is to repeal Medicare for All or take away UBI.
Rest assured that if McConnell actually ends up at a point where Rs are in charge and there is a have to have legislative vote that requires sacrificing the filibuster he will do it, he gives no fucks about norms, but the bar is high as the legislative filibuster is a conservative institution.
I live in Minneapolis and travel in very progressive circles and even there, “defund the police” does not do well. People don’t like it. It’s just bad politics.
These two sentences aren’t necessarily true. MLK was deeply unpopular while he was alive and a poll after his assassination showed almost 1/3 of Americans felt he had brought it on himself but I don’t think any of us are going to say his movement was wrong and he should have been more polite about things.
