Barack Obama on Broad Slogans: "You lose people with 'snappy' slogans like 'defund the police'"

[Kay]

You shouldn't compromise or negotiate down your principles before you even have a seat at the table. Because when you get to the table you end up losing even more.

Of course, Obama is obsessed with compromising which is why he's probably the least consequential 2-term president in American history...

There isn't a progressive "slogan" that could be forged via the English language, that also wouldn't be twisted by the right into something "negative" or framed as "weak messaging" by "allies".

Click to shrink...

You'd think 'Black lives matter' and 'medicare for all' would be things everyone could get behind but you can't slow down the spin machine that has turned the average americans brain to mush.

 

[Trigonometrize]

The messaging is fine.

People said exactly the same thing about "Black Lives Matter".

The problem is Obama, and many of his colleagues, do not want to defund the police, but don't want to say that.

Click to shrink...

Even if people have a net negative view on "black lives matter" at a point in time, it's completely salvageable as a slogan. You're never turning "defund the police" into meaningful change. Never. Ever. It's just not happening.

Hey, that's actually a good thought.

Here's the perfect slogan for progressives' defund the police movement: Black lives matter. That's the slogan. Don't bring in this weird psuedo-technocratic other thing about defunding aka reallocating funds to other agencies when you don't have to.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I agree with him. It's needlessly shockingly and doesn't really describe what people want.
Reform the police.
Fix the police.
There are countless better slogans to use.

Click to shrink...

Agreed 100%. One of the shittiest slogans of modern times.

 

[Mekanos]

Reported. In the year of George Floyd we don't need utter garbage like this on this site. We're not the old site.

Click to shrink...

He's doing a bit, he's not serious.

 

[Pollux]

I would argue the only reason we're talking about "bad messaging" in the first place is because we changed it from the direct "abolish the police" to "defund the police" and made it too grey. Yes, no one would win under an "abolish the police" message but no one ran intiially under Black LIves Matter when it became a thing. In fact, that was one of the reasons why people started paying attention to Sanders back in 2016 because he was one of the few people to directly say the words Black Lives Matter. Similiar here I think we should have stayed with "Abolish the police". Would have it gotten as popular as BLM? Probably not, but it would have stopped this dumb "unclear messaging" problem it currently has. And would have served its actual purpose of "getting people's attention".

Click to shrink...

but the problem with that is abolish the police would still run into the problem that some just want reform. Some want them gone. And others are in between.

Reported. In the year of George Floyd we don't need utter garbage like this on this site. We're not the old site.

Click to shrink...

you completely missed the point. If you have to explain what your slogan means it's a bad slogan.

 

[danm999]

Reported. In the year of George Floyd we don't need utter garbage like this on this site. We're not the old site.

Click to shrink...

The point is people willfully misinterpreted BLM too. It didn't make it a bad slogan.

 

[Cyclonesweep]

OK, no one is infringing on your right to criticize. They are just telling you they don't give a fuck about your criticism because it's crap.

I mean it's been empirically shown that defunding police doesn't happen under Democrats either unless you, ya know, demand it from them in the streets. And even after that it still doesn't happen. Defund the police isn't meant to be a 'snappy slogan' it's a direct demand for political action.

Click to shrink...

If the Republicans won't and the Dems won't. Than who exactly is going to defund it?

 

[Mammoth Jones]

He is absolutely right.
It's a bad slogan when you have to explain what it means.

And there is a reason Bernie Sanders won't touch it.

Click to shrink...

Facts.

 

[Surfinn]

I bet a ton of liberals start rocking out when fuck the police comes on the radio or pandora but defund the police whoa slow down there now

Click to shrink...

Lmao

 

[Shaun Solo]

Yeah no doubt, but you'd prefer defunding the police had broad public support, right?

Click to shrink...

If a former, widely popular president were to say, for example, "I agree with those who demand we 'Defund the Police' and, no, I don't think it's confusing to people. I think they get it." That might change some people's views on it. Leaders can have that effect on people.

Now look at how Obama chose to talk about this policy demand from activists. And he doesn't even have the tired "He has to worry about re-election, he can't say that" defense when our elected representatives decide to hem and haw when it comes to actually leading on progressive issues. He's done. All he has to worry about now is his legacy. But he's more concerned with selling books and downplaying war crimes.

 

[danm999]

Even if people have a net negative view on "black lives matter" at a point in time, it's completely salvageable as a slogan. You're never turning "defund the police" into meaningful change. Never. Ever. It's just not happening.

Hey, that's actually a good thought.

Here's the perfect slogan for progressives' defund the police movement: Black lives matter. That's the slogan. Don't bring in this weird psuedo-technocratic other thing about defunding aka reallocating funds to other police departments when you don't have to.

Click to shrink...

People said all of this about Black Lives Matter. They said it would scare and alienate white people.

 

[Rockets]

The point is people willfully misinterpreted BLM too. It didn't make it a bad slogan.

Click to shrink...

Pardon me family, didn't know it was in jest. Can't be too careful given the other comments on here but I see what you meant now

 

[Deleted member 11413]

If the Republicans won't and the Dems won't. Than who exactly is going to defund it?

Click to shrink...

I mean there are Democrats or people running as Democrats who will, they've gotten elected and are in Congress. The idea is to get more of them elected and to pressure currently elected politicians to support it through direct political action.

 

[Catshade]

He's right. Do it like Trump: "MAKE X GREAT AGAIN" as slogan while in practice he slowly dismantling X from within.

 

[AusGeno]

There isn't a progressive "slogan" that could be forged via the English language, that also wouldn't be twisted by the right into something "negative" or framed as "weak messaging" by "allies".

Click to shrink...

Optimise the Police is better, even Restructure the Police is an improvement.

 

[Fushichou187]

I'd still argue "Defund the police" sounds like "remove all funding and abolish all police" to me at first glance, when it seems that most people want to just divert some portion of funds from police to, say, social workers. I know some people ant complete abolition of police forces, but if the movement is really "Reduce funding of police," I'd say it's not unfair to say "Defund the police" isn't the best slogan.

I'm not sure if what I'm arguing is really what Obama is trying to say, though.

Click to shrink...

Obama doesn't give a fucccccck. Honestly, most affluent liberals don't either. They need the police to protect all their fucking capital. Their properties. That's why the rhetoric is always on reform. It's just a process argument. A few bad apples. It's never that the system is inherently corrupt and deeply white supremacist.

and what does reform look like? It looks like throwing even more public money at law enforcement— well how else are they going to fund these studies and trainings and internal audits?

It's never about taking the money they receive from taxpayers away due to their inability to treat the people that pay them with equity and dignity.

Any action that results in any amount of money from law enforcement— even if it's minimal compared to their funding level, and even if for something as toothless as an oversight committee with no authority— it will be framed as "defunding".

If you support redistributing public money away from law enforcement, no matter how little or for what purpose, it'll be called defunding by opponents. I don't see a clever marketing strategy avoiding this. Just own it and make your argument clear.

The money is derived from us, we deserve opportunities to review whether it is being used wisely and change if need be.

 

[Pollux]

Lol thanks for this, no wonder they are showing their ass in this thread.

Click to shrink...

Lol ok. Obviously discussing the actual issue is too much for you and you would rather troll post histories on irrelevant topics.

 

[Dever]

I don't really understand the slogan. Like sure, if you defunded the police, you would have some more money to put into other services, like mental health or whatever. But probably not enough to make some revolutionary change. And on the police side, it would just be the same police except less of them leading to longer response times for when you actually need them.

 

[Kirbivore]

If this kind of talk keeps the oxygen in the room, it may ultimately work in favor as more people over time will agree with defunding the police.

The Long Con

 

[woman]

There isn't a progressive "slogan" that could be forged via the English language, that also wouldn't be twisted by the right into something "negative" or framed as "weak messaging" by "allies".

Click to shrink...

So the solution is to adopt any message without care for how it's received? Come on.

 

[Cyclonesweep]

I mean there are Democrats or people running as Democrats who will, they've gotten elected and are in Congress. The idea is to get more of them elected and to pressure currently elected politicians to support it through direct political action.

Click to shrink...

I'm getting very mixed messages in this thread.

 

[FUME5]

HOPE

 

[Deleted member 11413]

He's right. Do it like Trump: "MAKE X GREAT AGAIN" as slogan while in practice he slowly dismantling X from within.

Click to shrink...

No he really isn't, he doesn't even believe in what you are proposing.

 

[Trigonometrize]

People said all of this about Black Lives Matter. They said it would scare and alienate white people.

Click to shrink...

Just because they're wrong on "black lives matter" doesn't mean you're right on "defund the police"

 

[KarmaCow]

He's right. Do it like Trump: "MAKE X GREAT AGAIN" as slogan while in practice he slowly dismantling X from within.

Click to shrink...

Your mistake is thinking that they want to do it but are hamstrung by activist rhetoric. The reality is that they don't want to do anything and this is the new excuse.

 

[dabig2]

Just a few things, repeated from previous threads and to be repeated in the next ones probably:

- Nancy Pelosi is more toxic to the average American than Defund the Police is

"Just lazily blaming 'Defund the Police' & running away from anything the GOP tries to pin on you in an attack ad isn't a good or honest strategy." I went through some GOP ads to debunk moderate Dems' attack on progressives, @AOC, 'Defund the Police' etc:

Click to shrink...

The whole it costing votes thing is tired, especially when we see how much time the GOP actually gave to it.


- it's not the job of protestors to focus test their demands

Also, these people talk about "defund the police" like it's a branded product sitting on a retail shelf. DTP messaging, like protests, are supposed to snap people out of their normal thinking and everyday routine; they're not meant to be milquetoast and focus-group tested.

Click to shrink...

There's a reason most of the protests with this demand shouted are in big blue cities, where interestingly enough a lot of the killings happen to take place. Funny that.
Like Obama, you count Rahm Emmanuel as your friend. Shall we talk about the Chicago blacksites and covering up the murder of a young Chicagoan by the police?


- Electoral politics has never been the be all end all for any activism sprouting from the ground, nor should it be. We're talking human rights

Electoral politics matter. They do. But they can't be allowed to swallow every conversation.A lot of the police reforms haven't really worked. So more drastic ideas deserve a hearing. And people pushing more drastic ideas aren't all involved in the horse race--nor should they be.

Click to shrink...

And we've seen more change and conversation about police budgets these past 6 months compared to the previous 6 years prior.

Got a problem with Defund The Police? Work around it. When someone brings it up, focus on the systemic issues among the police and offer your own solutions. And I guess distance yourself as far away from Pelosi as you can too. But there is no marketing department you can talk with to get negroes spread across the country to just shut up.

Oh, and another point would be for the liberals to call out how the cops have brutalized peaceful demonstrations and are still killing and destroying innocent lives with impunity. Don't pull a Biden again and treat cop murders as just some uncomfortable force of nature while demeaning and shaming protestors.

 

[ExoExplorer]

To be fair, the way elections are won is by getting the support of the largest amount of voters. There's always this mythical "voter who will now vote for the first time" for the cause, and in 2020 we saw this to be true, but we saw it equally on both sides so it didn't really matter in how people expected it. It did yield results in parts of Georgia and such, but also Republican erosion in rural areas factored in too. You can't just sink your teeth into one sect of people to expect to win. So yeah, we need to court the small amount of voters who could vote either way, and also attract new ones. But if we only attract new ones, then we lose the ability to win congressional seats. I don't think its crazy to assume that BLM protests may have galvanized people in rural areas to vote red getting them congressional seats, while also galvanized cities to vote blue, which def helped in PA and GA win electoral votes.

Click to shrink...

This is very true. The reality of forming a coalition of voters is complicated. Though I'm not particularly sold appealing to moderate or republican sensibilities is going to get results here. Defund the police is a "unpopular" but largely necessary demand people are raising, it's bound to ruffle feathers. You can't repackage this idea without watering it down, or going back to the police reform standard that hasn't changed much for decades.

 

[Bonafide]

Agreed 100%. One of the shittiest slogans of modern times.

Click to shrink...

right right. its the slogan thats unpopular...not the fact the police have been elevated to this holy ground so that any criticism about them is going to be lambasted and no one wants to touch that.

yall gotta be fucking kidding me, black people have been complaining about the police for fucking ever and we are saying its because "our slogans are bad" now.

the real answer is that the cops have a shit ton of political power and people are scared to talk about it.

 

[Elegant Weapon]

Obama again steering to a center that only exists in his head and not in reality.



Of course you'd say that given that you're apparently a prosecutor from Kentucky. Trusting someone in your position to take any sort of hard stance on police brutality is the real joke, especially given that you also don't seem to care too much about worker abuse. Not surprised that you're in here trying to deflect and tone police.

Click to shrink...

gotdamn... from Kentucky!

That's proper posting right there, Big Bear!

 

[Xaszatm]

but the problem with that is abolish the police would still run into the problem that some just want reform. Some want them gone. And others are in between.

you completely missed the point. If you have to explain what your slogan means it's a bad slogan.

Click to shrink...

Yes, after we changed the message. But the original message was clear. And even if people aren't on board, Abolish the Police serves a secondary role as well by being the farthest left position. By setting the furthest left to the extreme of "abolish the police" it makes other phrases like "Black Lives Matter" and even "defund the police" seem less extreme. It moves the conversation left. Something that needs to happen anyway.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

Defund the police. Abolish ICE. Two slogans that were always dumb as shit because they were targeting law enforcement. You're not going to get support from 90% of the public with slogans like those.

Click to shrink...

I'm sorry i guess the people who are getting killed and tormented by law enforcement should say "hug a police officer" instead, we wouldn't want anybody to feel targeted, now would we?

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

Black Lives Matter isn't a policy prescription. There's no hope for Defund the Police to see a similarly dramatic turnaround in public opinion when the vast majority of Americans either want funding for the police to be increased or stay the same.

Click to shrink...

Well if you wanna talk about policy demands from black activists:

Public Opinion Polls on Civil Rights Movement, 1961-1969 (crmvet.org)

Gallup Poll (AIPO) [May, 1961]
Do you approve or disapprove of what the 'Freedom Riders' are doing?
22% Approve
61% Disapprove

Click to shrink...

Gallup Poll (AIPO) [May, 1961]

Do you think 'sit-ins' at lunch counters, 'freedom buses,' and other demonstrations by Negroes will hurt or help the Negro's chances of being integrated in the South?

57% Hurt
28% Help

Click to shrink...

Gallup Poll (AIPO) [June, 1963]

DO YOU THINK MASS DEMONSTRATIONS BY NEGROES ARE MORE LIKELY TO HELP OR MORE LIKE LY TO HURT THE NEGRO'S CAUSE FOR RACIAL EQUALITY?

27% HELP

60% HURT

Click to shrink...

Maybe we shouldn't be tailoring demands around what is popular and instead demand what is right just a thought

 

[iareharSon]

The "bad slogan" argument was done in bad faith for BLM, and it is done in bad faith here. We literally have data that shows people did not support Black Lives Matter years ago but overwhelmingly do now, and the "slogan" hasn't changed. Fuck outta here with that

Click to shrink...

It takes mental gymnastics to twist Black Lives Matters into meaning something that it doesn't. Black Lives Matter is clear, concise and self contained in its messaging. People mean different things when they say Defund the Police. Some people want to blow it up and start over, thinking that it's too institutionally rotten to salvage. Others want to strip away resources and divert it to other areas more equipped to handle specific situations, limiting what police ultimately respond to and engage with. I understand the nuance of it not being an organic political message, and more so an emotional rallying cry in response to historical and institutional injustice at the hands of police - but I don't think it's comparable to, as powerful as, or as tight a message as Black Lives Matters. Purely the phrasing, not the sentiment behind it which is LONG overdue.

 

[Deleted member 11413]

Lol ok. Obviously discussing the actual issue is too much for you and you would rather troll post histories on irrelevant topics.

Click to shrink...

The fact that you are a prosecutor is not at all irrelevant to a discussion about BLM and defund the police. Prosecutors are a massive part of the problem with the justice system, almost as much as cops are. I'm discussing the issue plenty in here, engage with it or go away.

 

[samoyed]

But probably not enough to make some revolutionary change.

Click to shrink...

It's not meant to be revolutionary. This is, for all the moderates' griping and handwringing about radicals, the very relaxed and casual reformist, incremental approach to the policing problem. That it still makes them lose their minds is a sign of their latent conservatism.

 

[Deleted member 11413]

I'm getting very mixed messages in this thread.

Click to shrink...

OK? What don't you understand?

 

[Pollux]

Yes, after we changed the message. But the original message was clear. And even if people aren't on board, Abolish the Police serves a secondary role as well by being the farthest left position. By setting the furthest left to the extreme of "abolish the police" it makes other phrases like "Black Lives Matter" and even "defund the police" seem less extreme. It moves the conversation left. Something that needs to happen anyway.

Click to shrink...

fair enough - god knows republicans have been dragging the Overton window right for decades so might as well pull it back the other way

 

[phazedplasma]

fuck barack obama

what would he suggest, have a beer with them?

 

[Tfritz]

you know how when folks want to fuck with social security they call it "entitlement reform" instead of "social security cuts"? what we need is a term for police that has vaguely negative connotations to provide cover like "entitlements"

 

[Mekanos]

The fact that people have concern trolled about the term "defund the police" for months but have failed to come up with a better, more actionable slogan really says it all I think.

 

[Neece]

let's be honest; if "defund the police" doesn't sit well with you, you probably aren't the person who feels threatened by police

Click to shrink...

I wish this was all there was to it. And maybe we can get some polling that can speak to if it is true. But some of the biggest pushback I experienced in 2020 over defund the police can from black people that thought it meant there would be no more police in their neighboorhoods, or when they called the emergency line, no one would come. A common position I heard was "I don't want to abolish the police, I want them to stop shooting us." Almost every time the conversation came up around black people in my orbit (friends and family) I spent a good amount of time trying to explain what defund the police meant, and dispel the common reading they got just from hearing it without any context. Once I explained, many of them were like "oh okay, I agree with that" but there continued to be pushback over the phrase, especially since abolish and defund are sometimes used interchangeably, and you might not know what the person means when they say it.

I 100% support defund the police, but based on my anecdotal experience, it will have a really tough uphill climb catching on because of how much energy and time that has to be devoted to just clarifying it's meaning. And this isn't just with white people or people that don't feel threatened by police. People in crime ridden neighborhoods feel alarmed at the messaging too.

 

[Feep]

Sorry, he's absolutely right (other discussions about Obama notwithstanding). All this grandstanding is stupid. If you actually choose any specific element of what defunding the police would entail (eliminating military-style weaponry, increasing funding to mental health programs, et cetera), you get extremely positive polling across the board. But if you flat ask about "Defund the Police" you get like a 27% approval rate.

Democrats, and yes, progressives, are fucking idiots with messaging most of the time. People are stupid; trying to pretend like you're above trying to figure out how to get them on board is dumb as hell.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

You'll be talking about police reform forever if you think that defund the police is the problem. Defund the police is like 1 year old. If the slogan was the problem why the fuck is there no police reform or restructuring exactly?

The actual reason is because people don't want police reform, especially the republican lite portion of the Dem party.

 

[CommodoreKong]

He is absolutely right.
It's a bad slogan when you have to explain what it means.

And there is a reason Bernie Sanders won't touch it.

Click to shrink...

Agreed.
Reform the Police would be a far, far better and easier to understand slogan.

 

[danm999]

Just because they're wrong on "black lives matter" doesn't mean they're right on "defund the police"

Click to shrink...

Well it sort of suggests they don't know what makes a slogan successful.

 

[Horp]

The slogan is clunky and easy to misinterpret.
I'm not sure thats a bad thing, though. Fitst off, it starts a conversation. "Reform the police" is toothless. Anyone can look at that and say "yeah sure". Defund is a bold statement. And it engages. Opponents will ask wtf it means, and there's your chance to explain what it means and perhaps have them understand. Some will never listen, but those were lost cases anyway.
Also, it can be a bit of a "door in the face"-tactic.

 

[Pollux]

Sorry, he's absolutely right (other discussions about Obama notwithstanding). All this grandstanding is stupid. If you actually choose any specific element of what defunding the police would entail (eliminating military-style weaponry, increasing funding to mental health programs, et cetera), you get extremely positive polling across the board. But if you flat ask about "Defund the Police" you get like a 27% approval rate.

Democrats, and yes, progressives, are fucking idiots with messaging most of the time. People are stupid; trying to pretend like you're above trying to figure out how to get them on board is dumb as hell.

Click to shrink...

Exactly.

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

Optimise the Police is better, even Restructure the Police is an improvement.

Click to shrink...

We're gonna fix police brutality with a firmware update or something?

 

[RedMercury]

Optimise the Police is better, even Restructure the Police is an improvement.

Click to shrink...

Optimize, it's not pc game settings, the issue there is for a lot of people to restructure or optimize them is to increase funding and we know police can't be trusted if that happens. And you run into the same issue people have where you'd have to explain exactly what it means. Optimize is basically the same as reform

 

[Pekola]

*I* am aware it is not their responsibility. And yes, making people uncomfortable is a good way to make people confront problems that they generally aren't aware of. But having to spend time explaining it to people who are incapable of critical thinking or having to deal with opposition that can twist the messaging in a simple manner takes efforts away from the actual movement.

Click to shrink...

But is it that hard to actually explain? There's tons of data to present that shows how MUCH funds go to police. Is it really that hard to explain that you think we need to stop utilizing the police as the solution to everything, and that we can allocate the funds differently?