I'm one who has cringed at "defund the police" as a slogan, but I'm admittedly relaxing about it.

[Music Man]

It has entered the mainstream and has led to substantive discussions about city budgets and areas where investment in social work, education, healthcare, etc., would be better alternatives to police officers. As opposed to "abolish the police," defunding seems to have opened a certain door to educating the public about where their tax dollars actually go.

A couple of my black friends suggested to me that they believe trying to change the phrase amounts to whitewashing and co-opting a movement because we're nervous how moderate/white Americans will take it. Admittedly, my concern still is that Americans are bad at nuance, and tend to take things like "defund the police" at face value, even before the other side distorts it. But the fact that black Americans have rallied around this phrase means that I want to take a step back and consider whether my concern about the phrase comes from a place of privilege. It's easy for me to parse it when I don't have to fear for my life every time I see a cop.

I wonder if "defund the police" will go through a similar journey as "black lives matter." At first, there were semantic discussions about whether it should have been "black lives matter too." Now, we wonder who the hell can disagree with the idea that black lives matter. As context of "defund the police" grows, and as we have discussions about city budgets, will we reach a similar point where a majority feels, "Of course we need to defund the police. Have you seen how much cities waste on police departments? We could do so much else!"

I do still wish a different word than "defund" were in the public sphere, but I'm learning a lot in recent days, and I'm willing to stop pearl clutching on this one.

[beachbumbob]

1. no matter what, its a terrible slogan and we should be no part of it as it misses the entire point

we are facing

[moose65]

11. I agree

I've seen lengthy explanations. I know that "defund" doesn't mean "abolish" but if it takes a three-paragraph explanation, then it's useless. If you're explaining, you're losing. And Republicans would jump on it and turn it around to "Defend the Police" or something like that, and they would hammer it home time and time again.

Like it or not, Democrats are horrible at messaging. We always have to "explain" everything. One reason why "Black Lives Matter" is a great slogan is because it's short and sweet, and we don't have to add on a disclaimer saying "Of course all lives matter but right now we are focusing on black lives because they are the ones getting murdered." Black Lives Matter is all we need.

We need to keep our eyes on the prize. I've been advocating for one simple slogan until November: "Dump Trump." Short, to the point, no ambiguity, and it fits on a bumper sticker. Plus, it rhymes and people will remember it.

[PTWB]

13. Substance is more important than slogan

We need to disband the police departments across the country and remake them with limited powers and limited budgets.

[BonnieJW]

47. I agree

The literal meaning of de-funding police departments produces visions of anarchy. Re-purposing police budgets would be closer to the meaning. Community police departments do not need military level weapons and equipment. Once that was done, communities became battlefields and residents became the enemy. Cops need to start walking a beat and talking to people again. Imagine the influence a good cop could have on young boys making life decisions. Remember "the cop on the beat"? He/she was a valued and respected member of the community.

[samnsara]

2. the term 'de-fund the police' is so divisive and its a gift to the GOP.....cant they just call it .

what it really is? Everyone agrees the police need to be fixed but no one doesn't want police to be there when their house is being broken into...and that's how the gop are playing this.

[dutch777]

9. I agree...when we are getting robbed we want cops not a social worker and it is gift to the GOP

But I think the need for serious reform is there and has been for a long time. Cops can't get a special pass when they kill unarmed people or immediately overreact when people are simply exerting their rights. I don't know about other places but we have drugs and gangs and identity theft and all sorts of things I really would like the cops around to deal with. Could more social work and jobs and decent opportunities and better neighborhoods alleviate that over time, yes. And can money to work in that direction come from what is now spent on police, to some extent yes. But we need to think about this and not just knee jerk. I like what I read about Camden, NJ basically disbanding its PD and rebuilding it in a new model. But that takes thought.

Also, having lived in Germany for a number of years I always appreciated the professionalism of the Polizei. They have a national standard and to become an officer you need a four year degree in something related to police work, be that law, social work, psychology, etc. And then there is rigorous training and retraining. And to advance above a certain level you need a relevant Masters Degree. I don't know about the whole US, but to be a cop most places I have lived you only need a GED and no felonies and an 8 week training course. Hopefully they all have good intentions but that is not nearly the level of smarts and savvy to deal with the complexities of urban police work in most places. No wonder it devolves so quickly to Bash 'Em and Cuff 'Em and let the prosecutor deal with them later.

[tonedevil]

39. If they did that...

there wouldn't be a movement to defund them. Why would I ever call the police as they exist in the US? Ten years ago a man who lived in a halfway house near my house was kicking my screen in. I called 911 and was told they would try to get a patrol car to my house in half an hour. I grappled with the man and got him off my porch. The promised patrol car didn't show up and I gave a "report " over the phone. I have heard many in Sacramento, where I live, with similar stories. The reason to defund the police is we aren't getting what we pay for.
Before I stop, you aslo mentioned drugs. The police involvement in the drug problem has made it infinitely worse. That is a business they need out of immediately. Sometimes there is a need for police, but in the US they don't do their jobs and have become nothing better than an occupying force.

[dutch777]

42. I hear you...

..and it amazes me, how much I don't know. How much my local experience with police or many other things is different than others elsewhere. I would certainly wonder what the hell I was paying for if someone was forcefully trying to enter my house and 911 told me they would "try" and get a patrol car there in 30 mins and then have not even that happen. "Good luck with that" is not what I want to essentially hear from my call to 911.

On the drug issue, I am not really sure what the police do although I would hope more than the incident on your porch but your statements give me little reassurance.

So what, in your personal view would help us? I am quite capable with weapons thanks to my time in the military but I do not want me or my neighbors to be the folks I saw in Idaho all standing with their big guns by their front yards. Nor do I want to do physical harm to anyone, if it can be avoided. It is just not the America I want to leave to my kids and my grandkids. I am probably way too rose colored glasses but it is just not the way a country with our potential should be.

Thanks for all you shared!

[Lulu KC]

3. Ditto

I was totally flipping out on Monday. And if I go to Twitter and see how it is being used by the villains, I still feel very sick.

My big issue is that it is inaccurate. It's amazing to me how BLM still has to be explained, but it means what it says. The fact that it has to be explained is an illustration of our systemic racism--inside and outside of our heads--but Defund the Police is inaccurate because it sounds like there will be zero police. Not true.

I also sense the presence of right-wing propaganda creators in the phrase. Call me a conspiracy theorist. I read a lot after 2016 and I think this may really be the case.

However, it isn't going away and it has made me step back and move to a different level. Our country is so much more ready to face itself than I dreamed possible. It's really pretty beautiful, amid all the pain and loss. Small towns in "red" states assembling groups of white residents to protest? I did not ever imagine this could happen. We are seeing a consciousness revolution. It won't be 100% of the population, because it never is. But it is significant.

And what you said about pearl clutching--I wear pearls, I love pearls, but I mustn't clutch them.
Happy Wednesday to you!

[aidbo]

4. Police are the biggest part of most municipal budgets.

Link to tweet

[Ms. Toad]

5. Nope.

A slogan that requires a lengthy explanation to counter an immediately negative response that it triggers in a majority of people who hear it needs to be refined. It especially needs to be refined in a presidential election year.

To be effective, a slogan has to be short (check) and has to have an intuitive meaning (check) that generates a positive response (mixed) and is consistent with the the intended meaning without substantial explanation (big miss).

"Defund" is being heard as abolish, take away all funding. That is consistent with he ordinary meaning of the word, but isn't what is intended from the explanations I've heard. Those concepts terrify people who have not previously thought about the matter - so the people we are trying to reach have already tuned out before we have the opportunity to explain - AND - we now have to not only get them back to the table, we have to move them from active opposition to support.

As to no one would question Black Lives Matter - you're wrong about that. Even some progressives I know (as recently as since George Floyd's death) are intentionally using "all lives matter." At least they are tagging on, "including black lives." I disagree with them - but yes, people are still questioning the phrase Black Lives Matter.

[Neema]

12. Absolutely agree. If you're going to use 2-3 words, the first and most common

interpretation of those 2-3 words should be exactly what you intended to say. If the very first interpretation confuses the issue, you've lost. Especially when so many people are worried about the state of our country and our world. We've handed the GOP a clear talking point with this one.

And yes, we're STILL talking about the Black Lives Matter/All Lives Matter bullshit. Something that could have been avoided.

[Ms. Toad]

14. I'm fine with the Black Lives Matter slogan,

even though it did create controversy. The meaning is clear to me - but, then again, I try to read what is in the phrase and not pull in hidden meanings (like a silent "only" at the beginning of Black Lives Matter that a lot of people read into it).

With "defund the police," my reaction is an immediate negative. With explanation I can get there - but only because it is being said by people I inherently trust. And I still don't think the phrase captures the goal.

[Neema]

23. I'm pretty fine with it too. But considering how long we've been having to explain that bit of

semantics over the past few years, imagine how much Defund the Police is going to confuse anyone who doesn't spend all their time following these issues.

I agree, the reaction is immediately negative. It does not come close to conveying what it actually means.

[LiberalLovinLug]

52. Same goes for "Open Borders!"

You are right, we have to invent slogans that don't have to be explained. Hate to say it, but Democrats are not as good as Republicans at that. I'd even say that MAGA is actually quite brilliant. Even if now it has become despised. But, it has a lot going for it as a short political message wrapped up in a small statement. Firstly, it contains the name of the country to trigger nationalistic pride, second it speaks about making national greatness. Third using "Again" at the end strongly implies that the present day occupants of the WH, of that time, are preventing that possible greatness.

Sorry, but Hillary's "Onward Together", or was it "Forward Together"? It wasn't that clear which one they settled on. I've seen both used. Which is the first problem with it. But either way it was not memorable. And further, it implied its message was only to the closed tent of past Democratic voters, circling the wagons. The "together" could be looked at by registered Republicans and Independents, who may have been on the fence, as "we don't need your votes"
I'm not criticizing her campaign here, only speaking from a graphic artist perspective, which is an industry I have worked in

[Ms. Toad]

53. A lot of my thoughts were triggered by a conversation with my father

Who was trying to come up with a slogan for the left that was as effective as MAGA was for the right.

We picked apart MAGA. The criteria we came up with probably wasn't precisely what I articulated - but close. We suck at marketing. I'd like to say it is because our ideas are too complex to be captured in a few words, but lot of our own thinking has gotten pretty binary and shallow - at least on DU.

[barbtries]

6. i'm totally on board

with its goals and reasons. would like to see a more positive slogan, though i'm not having any success trying to think one up.

Stop asking police to wear so many hats.
Fund the programs people need to ensure peace.
Reallocate to the people.

The expression suggests pulling all money out of policing, and i don't believe that is the goal (if it is, it is not realistic).

I agree with you though, I'm not going to spend time clutching my pearls. If the phrase scares people too bad. A little education can go a long way.

Many people were turned off by the New Green Deal. But if you look at reality, that is exactly what is needed. FDR made it happen during the Depression, the next generation will make it happen during the next one.

[qwlauren35]

7. THANK YOU!!!!

When I first heard it, it was with the background. And it was so real and obvious, that the word made perfect sense to me. But I know that white people feel safer when there are police. Even with all of the evidence that police do not keep ANYONE safer.

Despite gun control, having a gun in your home that you can use to fire a warning shot will keep your home safer, and police come after the fact. In fact, police come after the fact 99% of the time, and that does NOT keep you safer. It might get your justice, but that does not restore life or, in most cases, property. At best, there is insurance.

Now, you may feel safer with a beat cop. In a park. But a park could hire a security guard with less weapons and the same effect.

Security guards are sufficient deterrent in stores. No guns.

So, you can still be "safe" without police. But the MONEY. The money on body cams, the money on assault weapons, the money on overtime, the money on harassment lawsuits. It's RIDICULOUS. And it needs to be scaled back. And the money needs to be put to better uses. We have seen that crime rates go down when people have JOBS!!!! Put the money into infrastructure, and job creation. We have seen that we can get people off the street and off of drugs when they have mental health assistance and pain relief. Put the money into clinics.

I'm so glad that you are beginning to see. We have tried "reform". It doesn't work. Now, we need to "downsize". Eliminate the bad cops. Eliminate the weapons. Stop creating quotas. Make them figure out how to make their organizations work with less money. Significantly less money. They will have to lay off people, and they will lay off the bad cops. Bad cops are expensive. Bad cops lead to lawsuits. Bad cops increase workloads for audits. Laying off bad cops makes sense, but only with smaller budgets.

Yes, defund. Not reform.

[Mersky]

8. "Defunding the police sounds radical until you realize we've been defunding education for years"

A phrase I’ve seen on protest signs that gets at the heart of the matter.

‘Reform’ the police is too floppy. Defund gets directly at the point that money has been poured into punishment as deterrence based on a whole pile of arcane intuitions better called racism and puritanical crappola.

I’m with you Music Man - my pearls remain unclutched.

[Caliman73]

16. Agreed. Except we have ONLY been defunding education, not replacing it with anything else.

The whole idea of "defunding" police is about using the money to pay for services that prevent problems from happening, like giving homes to people who are homeless (that prevents people from being out on the streets, becoming desperate, and committing crimes to stay alive or as a result of stressors that push them toward violence). Or we fund programs that treat problems like SUD in a humane way rather than through incarceration. Money should be spent to prevent problems by mitigating the social problems that facilitate them.

I have said it before, the problem isn't the phrase, "Defund" the Police. The problem admittedly is that people react in knee jerk fashion, fail to educate themselves about what is being discussed, do not engage in the nuance, and make up their mind without any of the information.

Apparently there is little confidence in the ability of our fellow Americans to improve their ability to process and engage with information from all of the "It's a bad slogan" and "People see that and...." responses.

My wife and I have that conversation all the time. She critiques me for "speaking over the heads of people" and it saddens me because I think, "I'm smart, but by no means am I the smartest person and these concepts are not that difficult for me to grasp". The fact that it would lose so many people is a statement on how much we actually value education, information, and critical thinking in this country.

There is an entrenched mindset that police are the ONLY thing that holds back chaos and destruction, but if you look at actual data, based on numbers of police versus non police, on location, on other factors, the deterrent isn't police, it is US. People who have enough (housing, food, money, connection to community, leisure) are not out there plotting crime. People who are desperate, who have trauma, who have needs that aren't being met, who are disconnected from the community, or who are greedy and just want more, are the ones who are committing crime (and fortunately, they are not that many people). Crime can be reduced by dealing with root causes so that we don't have to keep throwing more and more police, more prisons, more punishment at it.

[Mersky]

31. Well put. I'd say it's in the grappling with the hard term, defund, that achievement can be made

Towards better understanding if people do not dismiss the matter out of hand. As the protests continue, it becomes harder and harder to reject the discussion.

And I’m not worried about what tRump’s base ‘thinks’ - they’re already lost to reason and are shrinking at the edges.

I’m not afraid of some difficult conversations within my family about the term. It’s going fine, and most support the protestors regardless of the defund slogan.

[Neema]

10. I'm still cringing because the right will weaponize it to convince voters that Dems want anarchy.

Black Lives Matter was also problematic because it's taken YEARS now of explaining to everyone over and over, with visual aids, that it doesn't mean that other lives DON'T matter. Black Lives Also Matter or Black Lives Matter, Too would have ended that bullshit before it started.

But Defund the Police is far worse because, on its face, it appears to be suggesting that we want to abolish all police. It has to be thoroughly explained to people on the left as well as moderates who might easily support what is actually being suggested by the movement. If a slogan needs paragraphs of explanation, it sucks as a slogan.

And the right will just have a field day with it. You won't see those paragraphs of explanation anywhere when they right is using it. They'll just say "SEE, no only do the Dems want to take your guns, they want to leave you twisting in the wind with NO ONE to protect you from being murdered or robbed. It's total anarchy!" And they will convince people, easily, because that slogan is so bad. Why do we need to make the GOP's job easier?

[Caliman73]

28. Only because people CHOOSE not to understand.

I had no problem whatsoever with the concept that Black Lives Matter. I didn't think, "Hey, Latino Lives Matter Too, dammit! Those BLM people don't care about Latinos so screw them!"

You know why? Because if people say, "All Lives Matter" and they treat Black people like shit, then they are lying about that and Black people, who have been treated like shit since the first Europeans came to the Americas, have a right to just proclaim that BLACK LIVES MATTER without having to explain why.

The problem is that people are either ignorant (willfully or otherwise), stupid, or they just don't agree or care about a situation and they will find any reason or excuse to dismiss it.

It is frustrating that people's lack of understanding or empathy has to be coddled.

I thought "defund" the police was bad too, for about a couple of hours, then I said, "Hmm, what is that about?" and I looked into what the people who are proposing it were talking about.

Don't you find it sad, and maddening that you have to "convince" people with a catchy slogan rather than have an actual, difficult, and substantive discussion about how to address problems?

Advertising and propaganda have really done a number on the ability of people to think critically.

[BannonsLiver]

29. Yes, we are a nation of dumb dumbs

Many are proudly ignorant. Which is what makes nuanced concepts a struggle.

[Neema]

32. Yes, plenty of people choose not to understand, but plenty others don't spend all their time

following politics. Plenty of people can't stand trump, but if the GOP hammers home the "Dems want to DEFUND THE POLICE and make this the wild west" message we've essentially handed them with that terrible slogan, they might just not vote at all out of frustration.

Agree with you that it's sad, but that's our reality. We can be sad about it, but do we really have to shoot ourselves in the foot?

[Ex Lurker]

55. What makes it harder is some actually do want to abolish the police

and they get a lot of the attention.

[Major Nikon]

57. It actually is anarchy, but just not what they think it means

If you believe a government power should be dismantled if it can’t be reasonably justified, congratulations you’re an anarchist.

There are aspects to policing that in no way can be reasonably justified and need to be dismantled. There’s no way that’s going to happen under the current model.

[SoonerPride]

15. "You can protest but please don't use any langage that upsets me."

That's what I get from all those who say defund is too strident a term.

Fuck that.

Messaging to make it palatable to you waters down the message.

[AleksS]

17. Agree. Especially since the right wingers will vilify ANY slogan

Absolutely agree.

No slogan will be “safe.”

Hell, they twisted something as simple as “Black Lives Matter.”

If we’re going to wait for right wing approval for anything and everything we say, then we’ll be waiting a long time.

But hey, let’s keep eating our own over something as minor as a word choice that the right wing might not approve of. It’s what we do. I wouldn’t know I was in a group of Democrats if we didn’t spend more time attacking each other than attacking our actual opponents.

[SoonerPride]

19. Exactly. Colin K protested peacefully and was called a son of a bitch and blackballed.

The right win will vilify and twist and lie about anything progressive activists do or say.

So fuck them.

I don't care WHAT THEY SAY.

[AleksS]

41. Yup. No phrase is as damaging as

As our own “suicide by concern”

These right wing attacks would be dead in a day if we didn’t echo, amplify, and empower them 10000-fold.

Eat our own. It’s what we do.

If Democrats were 1/100th as good at rallying behind a message as they were at concern-icide there would be no right wing.

[RobinA]

21. It's Not About

right wing approval, it's about swing voter approval.

[SoonerPride]

22. So not "right wing approval", BUT WHITE WING APPROVAL.

Thank you for making my point for me.

[RobinA]

25. You Don't Seem

to understand that in order to win an election you have to GET PEOPLE ON YOU SIDE. You may not care who wins, but I do. Given that, the job is to convince people that your side is their side. So whatever wing approval you need to win, you go get it in a way that will work.

[BannonsLiver]

30. The ideological purity crowd rarely does.

[Locrian]

45. which purity crowd?

the one that wants to only allow "proper" non offensive slogans?

[BannonsLiver]

48. LOL

The same folks who supported a guy for president who ran twice but never garnered any meaningful support from minorities.

[RobinA]

18. So You Don't Care

if we lose the election this fall, you just want to make sure your message makes the right people uncomfortable. Got it.

[RobinA]

24. Well, I Don't See That

as reductio ad absurdum, I see it as a very real possibility. But thank you for your well thought out position. I'm sure you will change many minds.

[coti]

36. I'm not sure what you think reductio ad absurdum is, but it's a means of deductively and quite

effectively destroying an argument.

[nsd]

40. I don't think that phrase means what you think it does. (nt)

[Locrian]

46. its only "stident" ....

because we've been culled into only using "polite" language.

defund is strong, pushes the window, generates discussion
absolutely better than some innocuous words used to shut people up and do nothing

"fu*k" the police or "abolish the police" - now those are the "too far" slogans. compare it to THAT instead of the "pretty please cant they be nicer" slogans

[jcmaine72]

26. I think that particular phrasing is a loser and has the potential to be disastrous for us in Nov.

Reform, oversight and demilitarization are definitely needed in our police departments. No doubt. But make no mistake about it: The phrase "defund the police", especially in light of all the recent property damage in many cities, is just shitty PR.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

27. Thanks for thinking about this seriously, and reconsidering.

[peggysue2]

33. We can agree with the concept

But as a slogan? Defund the Police is an absolute loser in an election year. Trump and his goobers are in the wings salivating because they know how easy it will be to weaponize this against our candidates. See, they would say, the Dems are soft on crime and violence. The monsters are coming. They're ready to steal your children and the Dems want to dissolve our police force.

Yes, it's silly and deranged but if there's one thing we should know by now--there are a lot of silly, deranged Americans out there who will believe the repetitive accusations and can be motivated by fear. The Antifa meme is a good example of how a nonsensical threat can take root and spread.

I read a suggestion yesterday. Instead of Defund the Police, why not Reinvent the Police?

This is basically what activists are talking about--redefining the whole concept of our police force and what we mean by public safety. Do we really need a guy with a gun or a SWAT team to settle a neighborhood dispute? Or roust the homeless, drug addicts, alcoholics or break up a noisy party? The list goes on and on, a variety of circumstances that could be handled by social workers, mental health experts, etc. who are better able to deescalate tensions and disputes. And Americans are poised to hear and agree with that message. Polls indicate the shift in sentiment is happening. Real change will pivot on taking advantage of that shift, not killing it with bad messaging.

Then there's also the question of demilitarizing the police. Our streets are not a 'battlespace,' nor should the police look and behave as if they're engaged in war with the American public. That spins back to the increased power of police unions and the blanket immunity afforded to officers regardless of mistakes, negligence and/or malice. Again, these are issues the public is ready to consider, think about, embrace.

The demands are reasonable and necessary. But the branding? Horrible, the sort of thing that can win or lose elections.

Another four years of Trump and his odious enablers is unthinkable. But it could happen. God help us all.

[BootinUp]

34. Typical overreach that won't help. Eom

[brush]

35. I'm black and I think defund the police is about the stupidest...

phrase ever. I'm also beginning to think anyone pushing it is working against the movement as it's so blatantly red meat that trump and the repugs love and will use in their ads and tweets against us.

It's so stupid it's mind boggling. It implies "get rid of the police". How dumb can we get to give them that kind of ammo to help defeat us in November?

Police the police, re-imagine policing, reform the police—anything but a slogan that says "we don't want any police/guardians/regulations, we just want a society where anything goes if you can get away with it."

[USALiberal]

37. No no and no! Nt

[Paladin]

38. It's a lousy choice of words---an absolute gift to trump and his douchebag followers. (nt)

[DVRacer]

43. It just needs the counterpart when you say it

Defund police refund healthcare
Defund police refund education
Etc
Give the alternative that the funds can be used for

[zak247]

44. POLICE REFORM

Fire the police and hire and retain a whole new force with a new mentality is a solution.

They did that in Camden, NJ, and it worked. Its called union-busting. But to me, in this case, it's justified.

Though, they have a union now.

But after the firing, they went to the county for police before they hired their new force, and crime went down, and they actually had more police.

Forget defund police it’s a deliberate attempt to cause trouble by the supporters.


REFORM THE POLICE!


All these militant, tough revolutionaries want to be so radical. Fine, but when Trump wins again then don't complain.

You would help reelect him over semantics.

[JGug1]

50. REFORM The Police

You Go. That is correct.

[JGug1]

49. "Defund The Police"

I don't like the saying. It is poorly designed and confrontational.

[Nitram]

51. "Take a load off the police."

[tclambert]

54. I'm starting to feel better about the idea of alternative policing.

The idea that responses to many 911 calls could be handled by other people, or that local policing could be handled by people drawn from the local community don't sound that unreasonable any more.

In the cases of calls about someone with mental health issues, maybe it would be better to send social workers or people with psychological training rather than people with clubs and guns.

[DAngelo136]

56. There's A Reason Why The Rethugs Are Better At Slogans

It's because it doesn't mean anything. Slogans are used to make you FEEL a certain way.
It plays to feelings of inadequacy, insecurity and social ostracizing. You're not supposed to think.
A good slogan says nothing while promising everything. What exactly does "Make America Great Again" mean, exactly?
Absolutely nothing. But it invokes certain feelings to the people it's projected to; white, middle class and working poor who fear no longer being the dominant population and resent a government that no longer (if it ever did) works for them.
What they are being exposed to is the logic of the American capitalist system which prioritizes wealth over everything else. Their so called privilege no longer has any value because they're no longer economically useful. But in order to maintain political legitimacy, the wealth class distract them by scapegoating other members of the society as the source of their ills and the false promise of wealth.
People with nothing ( or near nothing) would rather protect the possibility of being rich rather than face the reality of being poor.

Defunding the police does take time to explain; most if not all policy proposals take time to explain. Imagine if the Constitution had to be explained in this day and age? You'd never get the Federalist Papers. (tl;dr) would be the response.
Explaining policy has ALWAYS been the strength of the Democrats and Liberals and the Republican'ts/Conservatives know it. Which is why they need PR apparatuses like OAN, FoxNews and other outlets to constantly repeat the same slogans to an increasingly shrinking base. But in the end, they will fail. Because no slogan can save a crappy product. What do advertisers say? "You can't sell bad dog food; The dog doesn't read the advertisement and he doesn't like it and won't eat it."

You don't need to use slogans because you don't have to resort to bullshit. All you need to do is to state the facts.
Trump and the Republicans at the end of the day are just bullshit artists and con men. Always were; always will be.