Put differently - while the slogan may be aimed at Democrats, Republicans effectively aimed it at swing voters to blunt Democratic numbers in Congress and statehouses. That's Pres. Obama's point.
Big fan and subscriber of yours, John, but I think you and Pres. Obama are talking past one another on this one. The reason he's addressing this as an issue of national (rather than local) politics as you've urged is precisely because Republicans nationalized it - very effectively, in my opinion - and used it in swing districts, including districts well outside of the big Democratic-controlled cities you mention, to pummel moderate Democrats. And if we're being completely honest with ourselves, it was a painfully easy thing for them to do, because the slogan "Defund the police" is easily misconstrued as (or twisted to mean) "eliminate the police." I am from upstate NY and, believe me, I heard this everywhere from people who spend very little time in the cities you mention. The attack ads wrote themselves, and promising candidates and officials from swing districts paid for it.
Everyone has failed the political marshmallow test. We've all rushed to talk about the impact of a short, imperative sentence -- born of moral outrage rather than careful policy making -- with almost no data to inform the conversation. It *might* have cost Democrats, but we don't know. On yesterday's Pod Save America, Dan Pfeiffer interviewed Obama's data guru, Dan Wagner, who said that slogans -- even cries of "socialism!" -- didn't appear to move people much. But he also maintained epistemic humility: We don't yet know enough. Rushing to judgment -- as Clyburn and Obama have done -- isn't helping anyone.
Well, I think the local candidates themselves can speak most convincingly as to what attacks were working against them - they were the ones facing and talking to voters, after all. I don't think they're lying.
I have to disagree with you here. I hate that slogan, and I fullly support everything meant by it. Maybe it's an age thing. I had a conversation with my daughter (24, teaches high school English in Maryland) and she didn't have a problem with it. Yes, I agree that it has moved the conversation, but I also think it's a bit of an own goal, because it's handed Republicans a talking point that will resonate with their voters on a silver platter. If they'd said "Demilitarize the Police" that would have been useful. Or "Reallocate Police Funding (not as catchy, but is actually what they mean) it wouldn't have given GOP such a great talking point.
What I like about that slogan is that even raging libertarian Koch Institute thinks over-militarization of police is a bad thing. https://www.charleskochinstitute.org/issue-areas/criminal-justice-policing-reform/militarization-of-police/ One could make the argument that militarization of police actually hurts civilian police relations, which is the opposite of what things like Citizen Police Academies are trying to do. It gives us something around which to build consensus. However, it doesn't fully describe what Defund the Police folks are advocating. So there has to be another catchy phrase that that describes reallocating funds from policing to community initiatives that hit the sources of social problems - like providing wraparound services through schools, etc.
Which means we need more affordable housing that's designated for public service workers. I used to live in Greenwich and with house prices there, a newly minted police officer/firefighter/teacher would struggle to rent or buy.
Put differently - while the slogan may be aimed at Democrats, Republicans effectively aimed it at swing voters to blunt Democratic numbers in Congress and statehouses. That's Pres. Obama's point.
Big fan and subscriber of yours, John, but I think you and Pres. Obama are talking past one another on this one. The reason he's addressing this as an issue of national (rather than local) politics as you've urged is precisely because Republicans nationalized it - very effectively, in my opinion - and used it in swing districts, including districts well outside of the big Democratic-controlled cities you mention, to pummel moderate Democrats. And if we're being completely honest with ourselves, it was a painfully easy thing for them to do, because the slogan "Defund the police" is easily misconstrued as (or twisted to mean) "eliminate the police." I am from upstate NY and, believe me, I heard this everywhere from people who spend very little time in the cities you mention. The attack ads wrote themselves, and promising candidates and officials from swing districts paid for it.
@MichaelEDyson adamantly commented about police reform efforts::
Cities have tried reform for 40 years and because of the police unions, those efforts have always failed.
Everyone has failed the political marshmallow test. We've all rushed to talk about the impact of a short, imperative sentence -- born of moral outrage rather than careful policy making -- with almost no data to inform the conversation. It *might* have cost Democrats, but we don't know. On yesterday's Pod Save America, Dan Pfeiffer interviewed Obama's data guru, Dan Wagner, who said that slogans -- even cries of "socialism!" -- didn't appear to move people much. But he also maintained epistemic humility: We don't yet know enough. Rushing to judgment -- as Clyburn and Obama have done -- isn't helping anyone.
Well, I think the local candidates themselves can speak most convincingly as to what attacks were working against them - they were the ones facing and talking to voters, after all. I don't think they're lying.
Ed, so good. Thank you.
https://twitter.com/johnastoehr/status/1334942290133934080?s=20
I have to disagree with you here. I hate that slogan, and I fullly support everything meant by it. Maybe it's an age thing. I had a conversation with my daughter (24, teaches high school English in Maryland) and she didn't have a problem with it. Yes, I agree that it has moved the conversation, but I also think it's a bit of an own goal, because it's handed Republicans a talking point that will resonate with their voters on a silver platter. If they'd said "Demilitarize the Police" that would have been useful. Or "Reallocate Police Funding (not as catchy, but is actually what they mean) it wouldn't have given GOP such a great talking point.
I like demilitarize the police personally.
Good first step.
What I like about that slogan is that even raging libertarian Koch Institute thinks over-militarization of police is a bad thing. https://www.charleskochinstitute.org/issue-areas/criminal-justice-policing-reform/militarization-of-police/ One could make the argument that militarization of police actually hurts civilian police relations, which is the opposite of what things like Citizen Police Academies are trying to do. It gives us something around which to build consensus. However, it doesn't fully describe what Defund the Police folks are advocating. So there has to be another catchy phrase that that describes reallocating funds from policing to community initiatives that hit the sources of social problems - like providing wraparound services through schools, etc.
First requirement:::police must live within the communities they serve.
Which means we need more affordable housing that's designated for public service workers. I used to live in Greenwich and with house prices there, a newly minted police officer/firefighter/teacher would struggle to rent or buy.