Op-Ed: Here’s Why Progressives Can’t Give You A Straight Answer When Asked About The ‘Defund The Police’ Movement

AP Photo/Matt York


Ever notice how when advocates for the “Defund the Police” movement are asked what the phrase “Defund the Police” means, you get a variety of different answers? Finding a sensible definition for the initiative is like finding a woman whose hair Joe Biden doesn’t want to sniff. But perhaps there is a reason for that.


Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been one of the leading proponents for the “Defund the Police” movement that sprang up in the wake of the death of George Floyd. Prominent progressives in the Democratic Party, and its propaganda wing, the establishment media have been engaged for a nationwide push for cities and states to defund or abolish their law enforcement agencies.

Earlier in the week, AOC tweeted a warning to Democrats who seemed to be trying to give the movement a more moderate approach towards police departments. However, her defense of the initiative was indicative of the overall tenor of those advocating it. Put simply, it is rather incoherent. So what is the real reason for this new movement?

AOC admonished her colleagues in a tweet posted on Tuesday that warned against trying to “repackage” the “Defund the Police” movement to make it more attractive to swing voters. In the background, there is a debate over what the phrase actually means; therefore, the lawmaker seems to be trying to ensure that the most progressive definition sticks. She tweeted

“’Defund’ means that Black & Brown communities are asking for the same budget priorities that White communities have already created for themselves: schooling > police,etc. People asked in other ways, but were always told ‘No, how do you pay for it?’ So they found the line item.”

She continued, arguing that “Our job as policymakers is to take the public’s mandate and find + create pockets to advance as much progress as possible. Our job as Progress takes a team of different roles. You don’t criticize a pitcher for not being a catcher. We can respond in ways that don’t undercut impt work”


She then criticized those she felt were being too moderate in their definition of “Defund the Police” She tweeted:

“And by the way, the fact that ppl are scrambling to repackage this whole conversation to make it palatable for largely affluent, white suburban ‘swing’ voters again points to how much more electoral & structural power these communities have relative to others’”

Here’s a question: Did any of what AOC tweeted make sense to you? If one reads her tweet in support of “Defund the Police,” they will undoubtedly see some words strung together in what one might call a sentence. But did she really say anything? Was there any policy recommendation? Suggestions for actual change? An alternative to the police?

No. It was nothing more than a word salad designed to use words without really making a point. In the words of the immortal James Brown, this is the social media version of “Talkin’ loud and sayin’ nothin’.”

But AOC isn’t the only individual giving nonsensical explanations for the movement. Even D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser admitted that “a lot of people have different meanings for what they mean when they say ‘Defund the Police,’” in an appearance on CNN. “And as I’ve listened and read, I think most people are saying they want reform,” she said.

Rep. Karen Bass, who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus, told Politico that “the intent behind it is something I support — the idea that communities need investments.” Not very detailed, right?


Progressive activist Mariame Kaba took a swing at it in a recent op-ed written for The New York Times. In the piece, which is titled “Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police,” she insisted that law enforcement cannot be reformed. “Enough. We can’t reform the police,” she wrote. “The only way to diminish police violence is to reduce contact between the public and the police.”

Kaba recommended that the United States “Cut the number of police in half and cut their budget in half,” arguing that “fewer police officers equals fewer opportunities for them to brutalize and kill people.”

Meanwhile, some Democratic leaders introduced the “Justice in Policing Act,” that would implement numerous reforms, including removing qualified immunity, creating a “National Police Misconduct Registry,” and other innovations.

Are progressives even serious about this particular movement? This is one of those rare situations in which the far left can’t seem to get its messaging together. As much as I hate to admit it, the left has always been better at putting together a cohesive message and then having their ministry of propaganda — the corporate media — disseminate it to the public. It seems that this initiative is already DOA, so there is no reason to craft a cohesive message.

If the Democrats cannot agree on a specific definition of the ‘Defund the Police’ movement, then the entire initiative is dead in the water. Given that this is the case, it provides an opportunity for conservatives to present our own solutions rather than letting the left carry the narrative.


But will this happen?

It’s possible. Some on the right are already formulating alternatives to the progressives’ pie-in-the-sky idea to get rid of the police. Sen. Rand Paul just introduced a measure that would ban no-knock warrants. President Donald Trump recently unveiled a plan for black America that would include adding rules that would decrease the level of police brutality in black communities. But the right will have to come with some robust solutions if they wish to address this issue. After all, the progressives clearly are not up to the task.


Let me know what you think in the comments below!

Follow me on Twitter: @JeffOnTheRight


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos