How is defund short for reform?

Post Reply New Topic

Whenever I ask some people why they want to the police to be defunded, they say that 'defund' is actually short for reform. But I don't see how one is worded is shorter than the other. They are both two syllables and both seven letters long.

So why do people feel they have to use the word defund, as a supposed shortening for reform?

It isn't literally short for.

It's just that most proposals that get called defund are focused on reform. Shifting funding away from policing while also reducing the things police are expected to respond to (like you and I have discussed before) is reform but calling it defunding makes it more appealing to people who have more radical ideas like abolishing police.

Oh okay, so I guess people just disagree about it then, but maybe more want the defunding, if that phrase is more popular?

Look at the nature of the coalition calling for it, it's progressives and people to the left of them. Progressives need to sell it to centrists but if they soften the language too much they'll lose the support of people who already think they're too soft.

They're not able to temper their language to be appealing to people who aren't likely to be supportive of any version of the issue no matter what because it will cost them too much credibility with the people who are actually doing the organizing around the issue because it actually impacts them.

When liberals or progressives organize around issues that largely impact specific demographic communities they have to actually care about the solutions proposed by those communities or there's no reason for those communities to support them. Adopting the goals of that community is allying with them, offering milder solutions that don't resonate is just pandering.

Oh okay thanks. Maybe that is why people tell me reform. I don't consider myself a progressive or a conservative, but perhaps of a centrist maybe.

But why do progressives want to defund the police or what is it about it that they find appealing? The progressives are for gun control and gun restrictions as well, so if they want that, and want defunding the police too, they will have removed all of their reliance on home defense, if that makes sense?

How exactly will limiting what police respond to "remove all of their reliance on home defense"?

Making them focus more on responding to and pursing justice in cases involving violent crime doesn't seem like it would lead to the outcome you suggest.

I suggest only arresting white offenders.

That brings to mind ...

That playing games with words is a huge part of how politics works.

A reference to the concept ...

https://www.amperetranslations.com/lang ... elections/



... (bold in following added by me)

Please don't be serious.

My guess is there are two contradictory reasons why the word "defund" is used.

1. "Reform" is an overused and by now boring word. Since there have been so many calls for reform that have gone nowhere it was felt a more attention-getting word was needed.

2. They want to abolish the police but realize at this time that is not palatable so they use a less threatening word and the less threatening explanation of we want social workers in some situations rather than traditional policing. The idea is that these reforms will prepare the public for more substantial reforms, which will prepare the public for more radical reforms etc. until such time as the police are abolished.

Based on BLM/woke embrace of the revolutionary Critical Race Theory I think it a lot more about explanation two.

I mean, two issues with this.

The first is that "defund the police" is an unpopular message, even with black Americans. The most recent story I could find suggested that around 28% of black Americans support "defund the police". https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... 599232001/

The second is that the people "to the left of progressives" are irrelevant. They're a tiny portion of the country, they achieve nothing in politics, and their support is not necessary. A much more significant portion of the country is to the right of progressives. Why does that matter?

1) In the Senate, Democrats cannot pass bills without the support of moderates like Joe Manchin, Jon Tester, and Krysten Sinema. To get around the filibuster, they need the support of ten Republicans. Only seven Republican senators were prepared to vote to convict Donald Trump after his supporters tried to kill them. So you can forget about passing "defund the police" through the Federal government.

2) In the states, only 15 states have Democratic trifectas. Let's assume that those 15 states can all pass whatever they want without needing to worry about moderates, or undemocratic vetos like the filibuster. That leaves 35 states where Republican support is necessary, including Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maryland, and the whole damn South. Without running the numbers, I am sure that most of the country lives in states that are not Democratic controlled, and I think most black Americans do.

3) If you want to fix either of those things, you need moderates and conservatives to vote Democrat. Jim Clyburn thinks that Jaime Harrison would have unseated Lindsey Graham if Graham's campaign hadn't ran an ad associating Harrison with "defund the police". Biden's support declined 11% with moderate voters when he was associated with "defund the police". Neither of them actually wanted to defund the police, but the suggestion that they did was enough to crater their popularity.

A more correct word for at least some who speak of “defunding” is “diverting.”

Most don’t advocate “abolishing” the police....most want some funding for the police to be “diverted” towards some entity like social services.

There are some situations where a therapist is more appropriate to a situation than a cop.

Oh okay, but why don't people just say 'divert the police' rather than defund then?

Because they’re not diverting the police.

They’re diverting funds from the police to social agencies.

But shouldn't people still say divert then so other people do not think they mean abolishing funds completely?

It would be nice. Yes.