Conor Friedersdorf has a pretty decent piece in The Atlantic about how disasterous and unpopular the entire “Defund the Police” movement has been:
After George Floyd’s murder, when sweeping criminal-justice reforms seemed more possible than ever, many Black Lives Matter activists and their allies settled on a rallying cry: “Defund the Police.”
That choice was a disaster. The slogan—shorthand for cutting spending on law enforcement and redirecting it toward social services, or, for more radical proponents, moving toward eventual police abolition—is a political liability, largely due to justified fears that, if implemented, it would lead to many more murders, assaults, and other violent crimes, disproportionately harming victims in America’s most marginalized communities. Yet even as the Democratic Party abandons the slogan, the activist left still clings to it, as if oblivious to its opportunity cost: Namely, the public is open to any number of potential improvements to American policing, but no politically viable reform is getting anywhere near the attention of “defunding.”
Before the public sours on criminal-justice reform more broadly—as it may amid rising fears about crime and disorder in cities—a new focus and rallying cry are needed. And given the spike in homicides that has afflicted the United States during the pandemic, disproportionately killing Black people, there’s an especially strong case for this overdue slogan: Solve All Murders. Precisely because Black lives matter, people who take Black lives shouldn’t get away with it.
The Murder Accountability Project, a nonprofit watchdog group that tracks unsolved murders, found in 2019 that “declining homicide clearance rates for African-American victims accounted for all of the nation’s alarming decline in law enforcement’s ability to clear murders through the arrest of criminal offenders.” In Chicago, the public-radio station WBEZ’s analysis of 19 months of murder-investigation records showed that “when the victim was white, 47% of the cases were solved … For Hispanics, the rate was about 33%. When the victim was African American, it was less than 22%.” Another study in Indianapolis found the same kind of disparities.
Eliminating such disparities ought to be a priority for all Americans, including anti-racist activists. But that’s unlikely so long as Black Lives Matter leaders and their allies focus on defunding the police.
Snip.
Last summer, many progressives persuaded themselves that “defund the police” was not just a talking point that some radicals favored, but an attainable goal. “The movement to defund the police is gaining significant support across America, including from elected leaders,” The Guardian reported on June 4, 2020. “Government officials have long dismissed the idea as a leftist fantasy, but the recent unrest and massive budget shortfalls from the Covid-19 crisis appear to have inspired more mainstream recognition of the central arguments behind defunding.”
Within left-activist bubbles, criminal-justice-reform proposals that stopped short of defunding the police lost any credibility. By mid-June 2021, for example, the leaders of 8 Can’t Wait, a campaign to get police departments to reform their policies on when and how to use force, felt obliged to apologize for focusing on lifesaving reforms rather than defunding. “We’ve seen dozens of cities adopt the goals of #8CANTWAIT, policies that can reduce the harm caused by police in the short-term,” a statement on their website declared. “And while we are proud of the impact we were able to make, we at Campaign Zero acknowledge that, even with the best of intentions, the #8CANTWAIT campaign unintentionally detracted from efforts of fellow organizers invested in paradigmatic shifts that are newly possible in this moment. For this we apologize wholeheartedly, and without reservation.”
In fact, “defund” was the problem, because the mainstream still regarded defunding the police as a leftist fantasy. And that fantasy appeared to hurt Democrats in the 2020 election. “In the summer, following the emergence of ‘defund the police’ as a nationally salient issue, support for Biden among Hispanic voters declined,” the data scientist David Shor argued in an interview with New York earlier this year. “So I think you can tell this microstory: We raised the salience of an ideologically charged issue that millions of nonwhite voters disagreed with us on. And then, as a result, these conservative Hispanic voters who’d been voting for us despite their ideological inclinations started voting more like conservative whites.”
The utter unpopularity of defunding the police has since become even clearer. By 2021, some of the cities that made the most significant gestures toward cuts to police budgets were reversing themselves. In March, a USA Today poll found that nationwide, “Only 18 percent of respondents supported the movement known as ‘defund the police,’ and 58 percent said they opposed it,” adding that “only 28% of Black Americans and 34% of Democrats were in favor of it.” The victor in New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary in June was Eric Adams, a former police officer who ran against “defund the police.” In July, another USA Today poll surveyed residents of Detroit as that city suffered a rapid increase in murders. “By an overwhelming 9–1, they would feel safer with more cops on the street, not fewer,” the newspaper reported. “Though one-third complain that Detroit police use force when it isn’t necessary—and Black men report high rates of racial profiling—those surveyed reject by 3–1 the slogan of some progressives to ‘defund the police.’”
Given bipartisan, pan-racial majorities that oppose “defund the police,” the Democratic Party’s explicit rejection of that framing, and the fact that most Black Americans favor more, better-trained cops on the streets of their neighborhood, not fewer cops in departments with fewer resources to train them, you’d think anti-racists would shift their focus.
Instead, many activists are still doubling down on “defund,” whether in municipal budget disputes or interviews with national publications. Legislators on the Democratic Party’s left flank continue to press the idea at the local, state, and federal levels. The merits of defunding are still taken as self-evident in academic writing, tweets by prominent organizers, and professional PR campaigns.
On July 20, I received an email from Ronja Kleinholz, an account executive at Berlin Rosen, a large PR agency that, according to its website, has offices in New York, Los Angeles, and Washington, and represents clients including MGM Resorts, the Ford Foundation, Unicef, Singapore Airlines, and Virgin Hyperloop 1. “With continued talks around addressing rising crime rates and increases in gun violence, activists with the Movement for Black Lives are available to talk about why we must refocus the conversation around defunding the police,” she wrote. “While Republicans focus on fearmongering and blaming disinvestment in policing for rising crime rates, statistics show that police don’t prevent nor stop crime—in fact, they often show up after the crime has already occurred.”
Some good points in here, but he fundamentally misunderstands the real motives of the people behind the defund the police campaign.
The first unspoken assumption that Friedersdorf makes about the #BlackLivesMatter/hard social justice left is that they really want to save black lives and prevent crime, and that showing them that eliminating the police costs more black people their life than continuing to fund the police will change their mind. This is not the case. The hard left is ideologically committed to completely eliminating municipal police for at least two big reasons.
The hard left’s immediate goal in eliminating the police is to ensure that all the money going to the police instead goes to them. Reading through the “reimagine police” document the City of Austin put out (and remember that Austin is one of the few cities actually foolish enough to reduce funding to the police in 2020) makes this crystal clear. Again and again they say money needs to be shifted from the police to “the community,” and again and again it’s clear that by “the community” they mean hard-left social justice organizations. The entities pushing this agenda will never agree to give up their push for defunding because that means giving up the dream of getting their sticky fingers into all that sweet cash. You can’t convince a man to see your point of view when their entire business model revolves around not seeing it.
The hard left’s secondary goal in defunding the police is eliminating any organizations outside their control that might thwart their will to power, especially those that are armed. They believe (correctly I think) that police departments are institutionally opposed to their radical program to replace the American capitalist constitutional order with Marxism. (This is also why the left has never wavered in it’s support for complete civilian disarmament.)
The second unspoken assumption that Friedersdorf makes about the hard left is that they can be remotely swayed by polls that show Democrats being defeated across the country due to all the “defund the police” rhetoric. Before they can seize control of the means of production, the hard left must first seize complete control of the Democratic Party. Time and time again, the corrupt wing of the Party (be it Hillary Clinton, Tom Perez, or Joe Manchin) has thwarted the will of the insane wing of the party. Just look at how many times they screwed over Bernie Sanders!
If defunding the police causes a massive number of Democrats to lose their jobs in November of 2022, the insane wing knows that corrupt wing of the party will be the one to face the brunt of voter displeasure. As such, an electoral wipe-out only increases their chances of a complete top-to-bottom takeover of the party.
In light of all that, the hard left has no reason (and no intention) of abandoning their drive to completely defund the police.