No Thanks, Obama: What he Gets Wrong and the Misunderstandings of “Defund the Police”
In response to the the former presidents recent condemnation, an attempt to reframe and reevaluate "Defund the Police" and political slogans
Delivering a severe rebuke of “Defund the Police,” the former president jumped on board with establishment Dems offering no quarter to the many energetic organizations advocating throughout the country. In an interview held on Snapchat’s “Goodluck America,” hosted by Peter Tamby, Obama says, “We should be able to reform the criminal justice system so it's not biased and treats everybody fairly. I guess you can use a snappy slogan like ‘Defund the Police’ but you know you have lost a big audience the minute you say it.” I do not doubt the intention of the former president, but can’t help to notice essential misunderstandings on “Defund the Police,” that inhibit discourse surrounding the topic. To better illustrate this point this piece will focus on the purpose of political slogans, what brought about “Defund,” how to measure the efficacy of different slogans, and what impact this has on the Democratic Party.
Bumper-Sticker vs. Rallying Call Sloganeering
In this interview, Obama favors what I will refer to as the Bumper-Sticker Model. These are slogans that have the explicit and central function to cast a wide net to appeal to the greatest number of people possible. In his words, “We take for granted that if you want people to buy your sneakers you’re going to market them to your audience...it’s no different in terms of ideas.” This is not the least bit surprising from the man who ran on, “Yes We Can,” “Change We Can Believe in,” and “Hope.” Campaigns demand slogans that are innocuous, amiable, and marketable. He goes on to say, “Do you wanna get something done? Or do you wanna feel good around the people you already agree with?” This oversimplifies what slogans can accomplish. “Getting something done”, in fact, has much to do with “feeling good around the people you agree with.”
In any major political movement there is a need to communicate internally, educate fellow participants, and excite around a definite cause. I’ll refer to this as the Rallying Call model. These are slogans that are provocative enough to gain attention, built with enough depth for discussion, and tied to real exacting policy positions. When “Defund” appeared it demanded attention. For many, this was the an introduction to the topic. “Defund” built an avenue to discuss and educate on a variety of policy positions within the largest civil rights demonstrations in a generation. Succeeding here indicates there are additional purposes a slogan can achieve.
Obama’s advice may be more poignant if Bumper-Sticker sloganeering wasn’t already extensively tried within the movement. It’s hard to think of a more agreeable position then “Black Lives Matter.” The slogan is self-evident; it's nearly a tautology. And yet, it only took a couple weeks before “All Lives Matter” appeared. Until the death of George Floyd, BLM never touted majority support among Americans. It’s once again below 50% now with nearly 40% of Americans in direct opposition. An agreeable slogan alone has not moved the needle. With this track record it is hard to see the value in abandoning the positives of “Defund” for more easy to digest slogans.
The Genesis of “Defund”
Often lost in the debate around “Defund” is the context that it emerged in. “Defund the Police” isn’t a focus-group-tested banner line produced by a marketing firm. It’s popularity wasn’t born out of top down injection from a public figure. “Defund” was a reaction. It was a reaction to George Floyd’s death, and to generations of unjust policing. And so often overlooked, it emerged from masses of people facing police brutality, and witnessing first hand the militarization of law enforcement. “Defund” was not just an edgy catch phrase. It was a genuine objection that resonated with people experiencing real conflict. In this context “Defund” makes complete sense. Suggesting a nicer slogan misses the point. We still hear about looting and destruction, but radio silence on “non-lethal” ammo, elderly men pushed to the ground, or the unprovoked assault on protesters for a presidential photo-shoot. Are we to forget this happened? At worst, ignoring this context is gaslighting, and at best, is naïve.
Local vs National
The intended policy at the root of “Defund the Police” does not by its very nature translate to much of the country. Despite this, many, Obama included, measure the slogan's efficacy purely on a national scale. Whereas, “Defund the Police” is essentially focused on local politics, but the local politics of many separate communities nationwide. In other words, those advocating for “Defund” in Minneapolis, or Baltimore, or Portland may have very similar policy desires in their own communities, but the messages that unite those causes may make no sense to someone living in Anytown, Kansas. They shouldn’t. This is essentially a local issue. Police budgets are largely determined locally, and how they actually police impacts local jurisdictions. This is not to say there are no systemic issues of interest at the federal level, but that principally meaningful action occurs within the communities. This being the case, if we are to measure the efficacy of “Defund the Police,” we have to look where it has been successful. For months now cities across the country have implemented police reform directly related to “Defund the Police.” From this perspective, Obama’s criticism doesn’t make much sense at all.
Dems Don't Represent BLM
Moving the conversation from national to the local exposes core misunderstandings within the discussion. Democrats in national seats see “Defund the Police” as a threat to their election chances, and yet assume that those promoting the slogan are guaranteed in the bag. So as not to put any words in Obama’s mouth, you only have to go as far down as the House Majority Whip to hear this. Congressman Jim Clyburn, a vocal critic of “Defund” said in a CBSN interview, “ ‘Defund the Police' is killing our party, and we've got to stop it.” I think it bears asking, what does “Defund the Police,” have to do with the Democrats? There are no high ranking Dems that have supported the cause. It’s also safe to say those who have protested in one of America's largest cities have likely been protesting against the policies of Democrat mayors and city councils. Democrats, at large, are more than happy to show their support for BLM when they can look good doing so, but certainly get cold feet the minute they have to actually defend BLM policy. Democrats are in danger of assuming this voter base will vote for them in perpetuity. At the local level this support has already decayed. “Defund” and BLM are here to stay. The purpose and success of slogan is wider than what is most immediately expedient for the national party. If Democrats are worried about the slogan they need spend more energy and money to should help further explain the message rather than criticize it in hope advocates will abandon the phrase.