The Cost of “Defund”

At the New York Times, Charles Blow announced that “Defund the Police” is dead. It’s not that it needed announcing, but that it died with such a whimper that few noticed, but with President Biden talking about putting more cops on the street, Blow made a political assessment.

Some said it was dumb.

Some thought it was politically disastrous.

Some thought it was being unfairly demonized and mischaracterized.

But whatever the case, Defund the Police, both the slogan and the substance of the issue, appears to be dead. Its opponents beat it to death, not that it was ever wildly popular.

That, of course, is as fair an assessment as Blow can make, given his perspective. Having awoken, there was no other way for him to see it, so he couldn’t have possibly appreciated that it was considered ridiculous, ignorant, childish, counterproductive, not just by conservatives or Republicans, but by Democrats, by liberals and by, you guessed it, black people like Blow, except who breathed real world air rather than the rarified air of the New York Times editorial board.

poll published by the Pew Research Center in October found that support for reducing spending on the police had fallen significantly, from 25 percent in 2020 to just 15 percent in 2021. The numbers have always been low.

That poll also found a racial differential, but no race with a majority in support: 23 percent of Black people supported decreasing police funding, while only 13 percent of white people and 16 percent of Hispanics did.

Both Republican and Democrat black people agreed, they want cops, either at the same or increased levels. You know why? They have been robbed, beaten or killed, not by cops but by other black people. Why this happens is one debate, but that it happens is undebatable, and they know it far better than anyone else.

Blow’s concern is how this effected politics, election losses and chasing people away from the crazies on the left into the hands of the crazies on the right.

Activists have pushed back on whether the defund slogan harmed Democrats or to what degree, but it is clear that Republicans believe it harms Democrats and that Democrats are running scared from the slogan.

Activists are certainly passionate. That doesn’t make them knowledgeable, helpful or correct. While they may show up on street corners to yell as loud as they can and break some windows or spill some red paint, well-intended but utterly mindless and usually more destructive than anything else, they are good for capturing the hearts of other well-intended people with their simplistic slogans that require no thought to embrace and the promise of camaraderie to the lonely and disaffected, or social death by shunning if any doubt is raised. It’s a fun passion party as long as it lasts.

Fast forward to this week and the speech President Biden gave in Pennsylvania touting his “Safer America Plan.” It was the capstone in the crusade against the defund movement, and possibly the gravestone of the movement itself.

In it, Biden said of his plan: “It’s based on a simple notion: When it comes to public safety in this nation, the answer is not ‘defund the police,’ it’s ‘fund the police.’ ”

I hate to be the one to point this out, but the alternative to the idiotic “defund movement” didn’t have to be extra-fund the police. And Biden’s “answer,” it’s not “‘defund the police,’ it’s ‘fund the police,’” is just another platitude, devoid of any attempt to provide a reason, logical or otherwise, to justify it. These are certainly words, but just words. Nothing more.

If I sound a bit, oh, miffed about all this, it’s because I am. The past few years have seen an opportunity that comes around once in a lifetime to make fundamental reforms to the legal system that were never possible while we were in the throes of fear of crime or hero worship of police. And we blew it. And we blew it for all the wrong reasons.

Black Lives Matter could have been so amazingly useful in changing one of the worst transgressions of police culture, the assumption that all black people were prone to commit crime and be violent, and that treating black people as less than human was acceptable.

Instead, it completely lost focus on the misconduct of police and beatified every black person no matter what crime he committed, while demonizing every cop for doing the job properly when a black person was involved. It wasn’t merely absurd, but created the very anger, resentment and backlash that made changing cop culture impossible rather than the way we could all live together in peace.

But I have another question, particularly for liberals who rail against the movement: If not redistributing funding, then what?

The issue that launched the push to defund the police — police shootings — has not changed. According to The Washington Post, about 1,000 people have been shot and killed by the police every year since 2015, when the paper started tracking the data. Last year set a record with around 1,054 killings, and 2022 is on pace to be in that range.

This is where it’s noted that while the majority of people shot and killed by police are not black, black people are disproportionately shot and killed. Of course, they disproportionately kill too, which could explain some of it, and each of those 1000 or so shootings requires individualized consideration as to whether it was a good shoot or not. And, not to belabor the point, after millions of police interactions per year, hundreds of thousands of crimes, and 21,570 murders in 2020, that only about 1000 people are shot and killed is fairly miraculous, even if some are outrageously bad shoots.

Sadly, we might have had the chance, that once in a lifetime chance, to try new things like shifting certain intervention duties to mental health teams rather than cops, fixing bail and discovery so it works for everyone and isn’t a free ride for one side or the other, reducing the number of dumb, petty offenses giving rise to police interactions instead of electing progressive prosecutors to ignore the law and engage in their brand of lawlessness as opposed to the tough-on-crime DA’s flavor.

The price of such idiocy as “defund the police” wasn’t just its political cost in votes or hyper-partisanship, but the chance to actually fix things in a way that worked for everyone and we could all live with for the next century. And we blew it.


Discover more from Simple Justice

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

14 thoughts on “The Cost of “Defund”

  1. Hal

    IIUC, it was dubbed the “Safer America Plan” because “Make America Safe Again” was deemed derivative and neither “We Owe Police a Refund”, nor “Refund the Police” tested well.

  2. Bruce Coulson

    Advancements in social policy come in small increments, not, unfortunately, large leaps. More police are being sent to jail for offenses that would have been overlooked before video cameras and cell phone became ubiquitous. And this will continue, putting more pressure on officials to do something. Slowly (too slowly), change will happen. It would have been nice to expand upon this, and thoroughly change the system as a whole, but such opportunities care very rarely, and I don’t think this was the time.

  3. RCJP

    He was so close.

    1000 fatal police shootings a year
    A number that hasn’t changed
    An ever increasing number caught on video
    And yet that 1000 hasn’t changed
    Nor has the number of cops prosecuted for bad shoots.

    Cameras capture more and more
    Bad ones are rarely found
    The basic number hasn’t changed.

    He just can’t admit the truth

  4. Rxc

    Activists, by their very nature, are not interested in negotiation and compromise. They are the proof of the saying that perfection is the enemy of good enough. They have their own visions of perfection, and will not settle for anything less.

    I am beginning to think that the only way to deal with them is with a recitation of undeniable facts that disprove their contentions, seasoned with a strong helping of ridicule and contempt. It is not a pleasant way to discuss matters of public policy, but it may be necessary.

    1. Grant

      When have you persuaded anyone with ridicule and contempt?

      You can’t mix factual arguments with ridicule, because then all they remember is the ridicule.

      1. rxc

        Well, when you just present the facts, they ignore them and complain that facts are racist and oppressive and hurt their feelings. But they know how to use shame to attack the obstacles to their plans, so you have to use it back. There is only one weapon of war that has only been used one time (OK, 2 times, but essentially once. Which is good.) But every other weapon that has been invented gets turned on its inventors. If the activists want to use Alinsky, then their opponents will, too.

        I don’t like to use these techniques, either, but asymmetric warfare is very ugly.

  5. Drew Conlin

    I’m probably being a bit melodramatic but “ Abandon all hope ye who enters here… comes to mind.
    I’m still hoping that there might be meaningful change.

  6. Elpey P.

    If you’ve lost Joe Biden on police reform, you’ve….well you haven’t lost much.

    To continue a theme, and borrow loosely from Tommy Lee Jones…a person is (theoretically) smart. Society is a big lumbering mass of narratives. It doesn’t so much change its mind, it more evolves in response to loud noises and to the forces of stupidity alternately gaining power and dying off. It doesn’t say “oops we were wrong, let’s fix this,” the losers just quietly slink away and the herd moves differently. So it’s not necessarily blown, maybe just in progress. Even though the movement discredited itself (do they ever not?) it put the issue on the table for the herd to chew on.

    Someone with privileges is going to post Easy Rider, right?

  7. Anonymous Coward

    Someone please post “You had your chance but you blew it” by Gorgoro.
    Calling it fix the police might have been more successful but the bill to end QI failed and now,we have a Thermidor Reaction

  8. Michael Resanovic

    Democratize the Police?

    Over the past sixty years, police and courts have invented one new police power after another, all without the people agreeing to authorize and agreeing to live with that new power. We all deserve blame in this, but (humor me, lawyer) the legal community is particularly blameworthy.

    They need to stop using language like “the fourth amendment authorizes” and “SCOTUS authorizes” and start saying things like ”we authorize police” or “New Yorkers authorize their police to…” as a reminder of who actually confers authority, rather than who (SCOTUS) merely articulates the maximum that can be authorized.

    The result is a citizenry that can rightly say, again and again “When did we say yes to this; when the hell did we say they could do that?”

    I think “policing by common consent” – a little long, but accurate – might be the slogan that can actually do something. Government by common consent is supposedly sacred to us, and “policing by common consent” is a reminder of who actually makes the rules. And it will get the people thinking about how it ought to be done.

    We’ve fallen asleep on the job as a people, and to paraphrase Tocqueville: “In a democracy, people get the police they deserve.” But it doesn’t help that we have a legal community and courts that, even if they have no duty to educate the public, have a duty to not make it dumber.

Comments are closed.