Defending ‘Defund the Police’

By Chase Wheaton

A few weeks ago, President Obama made headlines and bolstered Republicans’ political arsenal when he referred to “Defund the police” as a “snappy slogan” during a Snapchat interview. While this doesn’t come as a major surprise given Obama’s relatively moderate stance regarding police and criminal justice reform, it serves as a massive disappointment to the Progressive wing of the Democratic party, and more importantly, to the communities that have been ravaged by police violence for many years, as the fight for meaningful criminal justice reform carries on. Not only do these comments by President Obama do irreparable damage to the movement for defunding the police, but they also show how much establishment politicians are disconnected from the community members whom they’re elected to serve and represent.

With all due respect to President Obama, “Defund the police” is not a “snappy slogan”. It is a policy proposal. It is a demand for structural and systemic change. It is a cry for help. The phrase, “Defund the police” arose during the George Floyd protests this summer from those most disproportionately affected by police violence – the Black community and other people of color – and during a state of crisis.

The world had just witnessed the video-recorded murder of a nonviolent Black man by a white police officer, a tragic reality that the Black community was unfortunately already too familiar with. From this devastation came months and months of protests against police violence, marches for the Black Lives Matter movement, and demands for criminal justice and police reform. These demands, which included “Defund the police”, were created by everyday community members and organizers in the face of constantly overlooked police violence – not by PR companies and career politicians who operate in the realm of campaigns and public perception. In fact, I’d argue that it is the job of President Obama and other politicians to do the work of grappling with public perception and of worrying about how palatable a phrase may be to the general public, not those who are making these cries for help. After all, as Stephen Macaulay wrote in the center column, “When someone [in this case, an armed police officer] is pointing a gun at you [in this case, someone from the Black community], you’re not worried about nuanced phrasing”, you’re worried about doing anything you can “to keep [yourself] from being permanently perforated”.

The purpose of protesting is to disrupt the culture of our society, challenge the status quo, and make people uncomfortable. As such, the movement to defund police has succeeded. The phrase “Defund the police” has received unparalleled attention from the mainstream media, has led to countless conversations about police violence and criminal justice reform in households across the country, and has already led to several significant changes in funding for police departments around the country. That’s a lot more than can be said of the criminal justice reform (or lack thereof) that was achieved during President Obama’s administration. Ultimately, President Obama’s remarks delegitimize and invalidate these movements, and I hope that he and other politicians remember that their role is to help facilitate and create meaningful and positive change for the most marginalized members of our society, not to stand in the way of progress and act as the gatekeeper to a more just and equitable world.

—–

Words & Power

First Person Essay by Stephen Macaulay

Several years ago there was a massive ice storm in Cincinnati. I was with a colleague and we were going into a restaurant. As we walked across the parking lot my feet slipped out from under me and the next thing I knew I was flat on my back in massive pain, and so 911 was called.

And at some point—of course it seemed far too long to me, as I was prostrate on the ice-covered asphalt—a full-size fire truck showed up. Yes, one of those vehicles with ladders on the side.

The fire crew came out, surrounded me, and fairly quickly concluded that there wasn’t much they could do for me.

What eventually happened was that a good Samaritan said that he could take me to the hospital. So the fire crew lifted me up and put me in the back seat of a Honda Accord. And I was taken to the hospital.

The situation at the time was that there had been such a great number of emergency calls throughout Cincinnati that what was available had to be sent.

So here’s the thing: Would anyone take a look at that situation and say, “Defund the fire department!” or “Fund EMS!”? In my case, more EMS people and gear would have been appropriate. If the restaurant had been on fire, it would have been the former.

As the old British legal saw has it, “horses for courses.”

///

In early December Barrack Obama was interviewed on Snapchat and said, “If you believe, as I do, that we should be able to reform the criminal justice system so that it's not biased and treats everybody fairly, I guess you can use a snappy slogan like 'Defund the police,' but, you know, you lost a big audience the minute you say it, which makes it a lot less likely that you're actually going to get the changes you want done.”

Which caused a number of audible and visible members of the Democratic Party to be completely agitated by what is clearly a pragmatic remark, politically, socially and, dare I say, realistically.

If someone is robbing your restaurant, you surely hope that cops are coming sooner rather than later. When someone is pointing a gun at you, you’re not worried about nuanced phrasing if it means that there isn’t going to be a police officer there to keep you from being permanently perforated.

///

Linguistics is the scientific study of language. It is one of those things that you can readily imagine being the purview of professors at Ivy League schools, where they debate how many liberals can dance on the head of a pin.

You would imagine that Democrats would be good at it.

But when it comes to messaging, Trump has, yes, trumped them.

Think of the two slogans that resonated in the election that Trump won, not the one he lost in a landslide.

“Build the Wall!”
“Lock Her Up!”

Although the Wall still remains to be built and Hillary Clinton is free without bond, those chants still echo.

Why? Because they are positive, proactive statements.

They are commands to do something. “Performative acts,” in the words of linguists.

“Defund the police”?

As “snappy” as that might be, it simply doesn’t do the job because it is saying something that people shouldn’t do. If you want to get people on your side, you get them to buy into what they should be doing.

Proof? Well, the 10 Commandments are chock full of “Thou shalt nots.” How’s that working out?

Please address comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

The Turbulent Winds of Joe’s Presidency Have Just Begun to Blow

By Andrew Boyd

President-elect Biden (there, I said it) was speaking recently to a group of Black Lives Matter activists and mistakenly, I imagine, said the quiet part out loud, in essence imploring the group to drop the “Defund the police” sloganeering, just until after the Georgia Senate runoffs, mind you. Joe isn’t great on the nuance. He’s also the guy who keeps saying stupid crap like police should just shoot perpetrators in the legs.

Barack Obama, by contrast, is an exceptionally talented messenger, and respected as such, I believe. The party would be wise to listen, but its radical left is young, avaricious and impatient for change, and when the old guard says “shhh,” well, they're likely to do what young whippersnappers do, which is to double down. Where things go from here is anyone’s guess.

The AOC wing (God save us all) has made it plain that when they say defund the police, that’s precisely what they mean. Credit for the honesty on at least this one point, I suppose. Indeed, the prevailing rhetorical winds of the D part blow straight from the mouths of the social justice squad, and it’s going to be an incredibly hard gale against which to tack, particularly for the likes of Joe, who is less the accomplished sailor than the well-oiled old weathervane. Also, he’s got Kamala with a strainer full of Chai Cyanide Evening Brew hanging from a chain about her neck, just waiting to strike. Poor old goat.

Oh, and for the record, while it might surprise some, I too believe that we need police reform, though my prescription runs afoul of the ‘defund’ bit. I think what we really need is more policing, a hell of a lot more, including aggressive stop and frisk, and broken windows policies of the kind a somewhat saner Rudy Giuliani used to astonishing effect during his tenure as America’s mayor.

Moreover, I think police are overworked, underpaid and asked to do the hardest job there is this side of soldier or Biden’s food taster: to be in near-constant contact with the worst elements of our human nature, and still behave rationally and with infallible precision. Among the roughly 800,000 men and women in blue, there are undoubtedly more than a handful of really bad apples, and they should be sorted appropriately.

More training, education, rest, and emotional and psychological support is needed; and with that, unquestionably, an absolute maximum of transparency and full accountability within the bounds of the law.

—–

Whither the Democrats? The Answer Doesn’t Matter

By Stephen Macaulay

The question of what does the Democratic Party do now is a rather premature one, I think, as Trump has yet (as of this writing) to admit that he didn’t win another landslide.

But let’s face it: Pundits have to write about something political because we like to think that nature abhors a vacuum of pithy observations.

The question is one that breaks down this way: Who runs the show? It would seem that the obvious answer to that is Joe Biden, based on his proclamation during the first debate with Trump: “I am the Democratic Party right now.” A centrist. An institutionalist. A regular Joe.

But then there is the counter to that, one that has it that the more progressive wing of the Party ought to take flight and lead efforts to create what they presume is a more equitable society, not one that gives, as the slogan has it with surprising accuracy, “tax breaks to the rich.”

This would include the likes of Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, and the members of The Squad—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) —who aren’t going to take any guff from anyone. Biden, presumably, included.

That there was no “Blue Wave” is generally attributed to the idea that “Defund the Police” and the word socialism played so broadly in the campaign runup.

What I find to be rather remarkable is that for presumably being the party of smart, pointy-headed people (or so it is widely presumed in many places across the country, both rural and otherwise), a party where there are top-notch marketers and professorial linguists, the Democrats surely do a—dare I say?—crappy job when it comes to language. (Trump has used more extreme language, so I am hopeful this passes muster at The Hustings.)

Consider “Defund the Police.” That is a scary thought for many urbanites and suburbanites, especially the latter, who are afraid that there are going to be marauders coming into their cul de sacs.

The term is the audible version of “bad optics.”

Why isn’t there some clever Democrat who comes up with an explanation that people might be able to understand? Like the Nathan Fillion TV show “Castle”, where a mystery writer partners with an NYPD detective and manages to solve cases. In the case of “Defund the Police,” it could be on calls where there are undoubtedly mental health issues, joining the police might be a mental health professional. The funding is shifted.

Seem like a stupid example? Maybe. But it is something that regular people can understand. Regardless of party affiliation. (“Hey, Dot, did you hear they’re pulling a ‘Castle’ at the police department? Now they’re getting somewhere.”)

As for the socialist* charge: Let’s face it, there are a whole lot of Boomers who might fondly remember their days in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s when they knew of people in the SDS but who have now 401Ks that they’re concerned with and the notion of wealth distribution is something that is now anathema to them. Given that there are Democrats who openly self-define as socialist, this is going to be a tough one to shift.

But here’s the thing: none of this may matter. If McConnell maintains control of the Senate, there is going to be very little happening that isn’t caused by executive order.

After all, as Biden might say (though in English): l'état c'est moi.

*One of the missed opportunities that the Democrats had was to brand Trump a “Stalinist.” Seriously. Stalin created a cult of personality. Check. Stalin wanted to concentrate power within the state, including the separation from other countries. Check.Stalin called those who weren’t with him “enemies of the people.” Check. Stalin purged high-ranking officials who didn’t hew to his line. Check. And there are several more examples. This is not to say that the real Donald Trump is a murderous thug who was responsible for the deaths of millions as Stalin was (although when history is written, there are going to be numbers of deaths from COVID-19 that will be ascribed to Trump’s behavior). It is to say that in a world that seems to be defined by unreality (“The election was rigged!”), simple labels can have consequences.

—–