• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
  • WORLD DEMOCRACY
  • POLITICAL ART
  • more
    • election technology
    • money politics
    • political dissidents
    • THIRD PARTY
      • third party central
      • green party
      • justice party
      • libertarian party
    • voting methods
  • DC INFO
    • author central
    • about
    • contact
    • privacy policy

Democracy Chronicles

The Post-2020 Election Discourse on Police Abolition

By Erin Green - December 20, 2020 Leave a Comment

FacebookTweetLinkedInPinShare1
The Post-2020 Election Discourse on Police Abolition
American cop – Image source

President Obama decided to give his opinion about the current discourse of  police brutality, specifically about the phrase “defund the police.” According to The Hill, Obama said: “You lost a big audience the minute you say it, which makes it a lot less likely that you’re actually going to get the changes you want done…The key is deciding, do you want to actually get something done, or do you want to feel good among the people you already agree with?” If we’re talking about winning congressional elections in “swing states,” then I guess President Obama has a point, but if we’re talking about the crux of the movement, he’s absolutely wrong.

There has been a lot of talk about the correlation between activist work and electoral politics, which is interesting, and in some cases damaging. Of course, rhetoric is an important factor in candidates winning or losing elections because, for a lot of campaigns, rhetoric is the heart of that type of work. What I want to make clear is what the movement is about and what it is not about, because there seems to be some confusion since the 2020 election.

Democratic House Minority Whip, James Clyburn, has made several appearances post-election detailing how “defund the police” has led to the loss of congressional seats. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez addressed this in a podcast, stating “these movements are not going away. And now they’re blaming us for their loss. And so I need my colleagues to understand that we are not the enemy. And that their base is not the enemy. That the movement for Black Lives is not the enemy.” I think it’s important to clarify what Black Lives Matter and “defund the police” or “abolish the police” is and is not. These are social movements demanding justice. Abolition started way before this summer’s tragedies of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and other Black deaths. Abolition, of yes police, has been a movement before the summer of 2020. Abolitionists have been speaking about these specific issues for years. Abolitionists, for years, have been addressing policing as violence, the prison industrial complex, racial violence, racial capitalism, and the legacy of slavery. These are not new concepts. I think the problem is that people are not reading and acknowledging the work of abolitionists.

Another problem is our desire to conflate social movements and activists with electoral politics and politicians. Political activists and community organizers are not engaging in these movements to elect someone. Black Lives Matter activists are not even running for office. The movement itself is not about electoral politics, even though a lot of Democratic politicians have reduced it to that. To Obama’s point of “losing people and elections,” I think a lot of politicians like AOC and Cori Bush (who do demand for this movement) have communicated pretty well the movement’s meaning—while using the phrase—and they won their seats. Abolition was never about winning congressional seats, but the Party made it about that and made it a PR issue which is what I’m most upset about. The activists who started the movement weren’t running for office but somehow people started conflating the two. Conflating the two is dangerous because these activists are not invested in these movements to win House and Senate seats. They are invested in these movements to stop police from murdering Black and brown people.

People who study rhetoric might argue that “defund the police” puts up a wall for our political discourse. They might recommend a more polite way that doesn’t make people uncomfortable. I argue people should be uncomfortable with the high rate of police violence. I would also argue that they might want to review Martin Luther King Jr’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail, specifically the section about the danger of the white moderate. People might argue the ideas of the movement aren’t being communicated when one says “defund/abolish the police.” I feel like people who say this don’t do the reading that’s presented to them because this is just inaccurate. Not only have politicians who co-opt this movement been explaining what policies they propose regarding “defunding the police,” but we have years and years of work from political scientists, sociologists, and organizers who detail what it means to “defund the police.” At this point, it is not a matter if it’s being communicated, because it has been communicated. The matter is have you listened? Have you done the reading? Have you asked questions for clarification?

There are way too many people doing work in this field—academics, activists, and politicians—to simply say no one is communicating what they mean. For Obama to reduce these movements to “winning congressional seats,” is depressing because ending police violence for members of these social movements is so much more important than winning an election. I also think this speaks to another issue: our dependency on thinking that electoral politics is the only way to make a change. Voting is a great act of civic engagement and voting does make political change, but it is not the only way of making change. People who see electoral politics as the only avenue for change probably do see Black Lives Matter or “Defund/Abolish the Police” as simply a slogan…a combination of energetic words, but it’s not. A slogan and a movement are two completely different things, and we should not reduce a movement to how marketable it is. We’re trying to save Black communities, not sell vacuum cleaners.

I know for a lot of people this may be brand new to them, but the movement itself is not, and the good thing about that is that there are tons of resources for people to educate themselves on these subjects. And because there is a plentiful amount of resources, most of which is accessible to all people, we should begin to address that it is not a slogan that people are turned off by, but instead a culture of ignoring systemic issues. The main question people ask when someone argues for abolishing the police is “well what about crime?” People assume that abolish the police means just get rid of the police and do something else. At this point, people just aren’t willing to educate themselves because years and years of work prove that assumption to be false. Getting rid of the police is neither the first nor the last step for abolition, but a single step within a series of steps seeking to end police violence.

Ending with Obama’s comments, I want to quote Cori Bush, “It’s not a slogan. It’s a mandate for keeping our people alive.” If we wanted to say “reform the police,” then we would have said that. We said defund for a reason. To “defund the police” is not a slogan for something else. It is an act. I also would like to provide a guide with resources for understanding police and/or prison abolition. I am providing this resource so readers will know what it means to “defund and abolish.” Now that I have provided you the resources and materials, it is up to you to educate yourself on why we must end police violence and not simply reform it.

FacebookTweetLinkedInPinShare1

Filed Under: DC Authors Tagged With: Democrats, Republicans

About Erin Green

Erin writes for Democracy Chronicles from Maryland, where he is a doctoral student in English literature. He enjoys writing about abolitionist movements, cultural politics, poverty, and political rhetorics.

Some highlighted Democracy Chronicles topics

Africa American Corruption American Local Elections American State Elections Asia Capitalism and Big Business Celebrity Politics China Democracy Charity Democracy Protests Democrats Dictatorships Education Election History Election Methods Election Security Election Transparency Europe Internet and Democracy Journalism and Free Speech Middle East Minority Voting Rights Money Politics New York City and State Elections Political Artwork Political Dissidents Political Lobbying Redistricting Republicans Russia Socialism and Labor Social Media and Democracy South America Spying and Privacy Supreme Court Syria Third Party Voter Access Voter ID Voter Registration Voter Turnout Voting Technology Women Voting Rights Worldwide Worldwide Corruption

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Home | DC AUTHORS | The Post-2020 Election Discourse on Police Abolition

Primary Sidebar

donate button

Seeds of Discontent

By Jack Jones

There is a stirring in cities that have been decimated by corporate America and where their profit-driven relocation has caused pain of staggering consequence.

America After Trump

By Jenny Oak Tree

Our country must grieve and we must understand the trauma that has been created by Trumpism. Only then can the United States rise again.

democracy chronicles newsletter

DC AUTHORS

Teaching Voting Theory With a Card-Based Voting Game

By Steve Cobb

This uniquely inventive new game’s name ‘Concurrence’ is a play on words: it means “agreement” in English and “competition” in Russian.

U

By Aydasara Ortega

Data governance surfaces as key terrain on which to regulate firms engaged in datafication by responding to the injustices of informational capitalism.

On The Dynamics of Abortion. And Argentina.

By David Anderson, J.D.

There’s big news from Argentina lately. By a fair margin abortion was finally legalized there last month after decades of grassroots activism.

An Expat American in the Middle East Discusses Trump Concerns

By Steve Schneider

Democracy Chronicles author Steve Schneider interviews ex-pat American Jason Meursault who shares his overseas perspective on the Capitol riot.

Why Trump Should be Impeached

By Jack Jones

Trump’s tenure was a reign of terror. The 6 Jan insurrection is ground for Senate impeachment to prevent him from causing further damage to our democracy.

On Approval Voting and the National Popular Vote

By Steve Cobb

Though written without regard for alternative voting methods, maybe the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is OK.

Is Giuliani a Speech-Maker or a Criminal Instigator?

By Steve Schneider

Rudy Giuliani is Trump’s personal lawyer. He has spoken in two rallies that became criminal riots, including the Jan 6, 2021, mob attack on The Capitol.

MORE FROM OUR AUTHORS

VISIT OUR POLITICAL ART SECTION:

dc political art

DEMOCRACY CULTURE

Exorcisms Aimed at Overturning Election

Priest Ousted After Exorcisms Aimed at Overturning Election

Livestreamed exorcisms aimed at rooting out what he falsely claimed was widespread fraud in the Nov. 3 presidential election.

Swiss Preschoolers Learn Democracy

Swiss Preschoolers Learn Democracy in ‘Citizenship Project’

Swiss preschoolers line up to cast their ballots in a vote that will shape lives in the make-believe village where they call the shots.

Protest Art from Around the World

Foundation Publishes Protest Art from Around the World

Art has been a powerful medium of protest and creative expression to expose the deception and social bankruptcy of tyranny.

Protecting Californian Elections

How Bad Jokes Complicated Protecting Californian Elections

Public records show California’s scattershot cybersecurity approach ensnared some people who say they were joking.

MORE CULTURE

VISIT OUR US DEMOCRACY SECTION:

American Democracy