I’ve never understood the phrase to mean “defund completely”, but “reallocate police funds” isn’t quite as snappy. I do know there are some people happy with 100% defunding the police, but I think it’s rather a leap to think that Brandon Johnson actually meant to eliminate the police force. There’s no political reality where that could happen in Chicago. I mean, do YOU actually think he’s going to try to push that? My prediction is very little happens with the police force, even though I wish it would get shaken up.
If you seriously, truly think that Johnson is planning, or proposing, dropping the CPD budget to zero, I don’t know what to say.
I do think that “defund the police” was/is a truly dumb slogan, because it was so easily misinterpreted as what you’re saying.
Retrain or reform would be more accurate. Of the 5 people running in my ward for the police district council 4 of them put on their website they were calling for abolishing the police. While may not have meant actually getting rid of any and all policing they did show they were incredibly ignorant that words have meaning.
I agree Johnson likely doesn’t mean to reduce the budget to zero. However, there are more than a few people supporting him who use the term defund interchangeably with the term abolish the police. I truly believe some of them are so stupid they actually stand for reducing the budget to zero. In fact I know a couple of them. It’s maddening.
…and yet:
This is not what “defund the police” means.
Non-progressives need to understand nuance, and context.
You are incorrect.
https://www.brandonforchicago.com/issues/public-safety
YOU said that Brandon was using “defund the police BS.” If you were correct, then this policy statement shows exactly what Johnson considers “defunding the police” to mean. And that doesn’t mean “allowing crime to run rampant.”
But it appears that what he actually stood for doesn’t align with what you claim it did.
So perhaps judge him on the things he has actually said, and not the things his opponents have claimed that he has said.
You are mistaken. I live in the 48th Ward in Chicago. 4 of the 5 candidates who ran for one of the 3 seats on the District Police Council called for ABOLISHING the police. I am a progressive and I understand what people mean when they say defund the police. It’s a stupid stupid slogan. And clearly it leads to other stupid people calling to ABOLISH the police. There isn’t any nuance to that. Retrain. Reform. Hold officers accountable. Those are honest and accurate terms. Why not use them?
Not only do you not live in Chicago you don’t live in the US so you may not realize he has said in front of the cameras that he wants to defund the police. It’s been all over television. The words coming out of his mouth. Either he is pandering to people or he doesn’t understand what the word means.
Hah. I was going to guess you lived in Andersonville or nearby (based on your description of friends and local candidates). The progressives there can be a little kookier than your average progressives.
Tell me about it. They drive me crazy with their ignorance.
Okay, but this is a topic about the Chicago mayor, not about other people who say define the police. Brandon Johnson doesn’t want to cut police funding to zero. End of story.
…“abolish the police” is a separate movement to “defund.” And Brandon Johnson has made it explicit that he doesn’t support either.
Then if you understand it, you should be explaining it instead of standing with those who choose to us it disingenuously
Didn’t I just post a link to Johnson’s policy statement? What does it say at the top? It says “Public Safety and Police Reform.” The policy uses the word “reform” five times. It uses the word “accountability” nine times. It uses the word “train” eleven times. He uses those “honest and accurate terms”. MULTIPLE times.
How many times doe he use the word “defund?” Zero.
I may not live in the US, but I can read the articles that I cited. I know what he said. Back in 2020.
So you concede that he didn’t run on “defund the police” in 2023? And that the policy statement on his website made that perfectly clear?
Nope: 1/24 Budget Correction
Also, if he did, it would have to be passed by city council AND be approved by the state.
Good to know. It would have been an incredibly stupid idea.
ETA: Johnson may not want to truly defund the police. But there is a large contingent of people whose support for him hinges on exactly that. I see their FB posts often and have to listen to them rant about it. They truly would like to see it happen. I blame him and others who misuse that word for encouraging their stupidity.
Forgive me for believing words have meaning.
…I’ve provided a link to him explicitly saying “I’m Not Going To Defund The Police.” I’m not sure what more you want.
It’d be better if you’d admit your actual error here–believing that words have only one meaning and that the meaning of words is objective, part of natural law, and divorced from either the intended meaning of the speaker or the understood meaning by the main audience.
If you’d admit that error, forgiving you would come more easily.
I agree some words can have different meanings but I’m not aware of “defund” being one of those. I will acknowledge people may use words incorrectly that are divorced from their accepted meaning. One of our major political parties and its current leader have been doing that for the last 6+ years. So yes, I will admit there are many people who use the term defund the police to mean reform, retrain or restructure the police but I would take the position they are the ones in error for doing so. Defund the police as a slogan has, in my opinion, done more to prevent the actual reforms and accountability needed because too many people don’t understand what is meant. And Brandon Johnson likely didn’t mean reducing funding to zero so I will admit I am likely wrong for saying he did. Maybe he was just pandering to those who truly want that to happen. That’s as close as I’m likely to get to admitting error on this topic.
And I will now stop replying to posts about this since this is turning into such a hijack. For my part in perpetuating that hijack I will admit being in error also.
…AOC spoke eloquently about what defund meant to her:
It was never the slogan that “prevented the actual reforms and accountability.”
It was a massive push-back from the people that would be affected by the reforms, by the people who would have been held accountable, the people who took that slogan and decided to make it political poison.
It was a victory for the propagandists and the police unions. And we can see just how effective that propaganda has been here in this very thread. The term has largely been abandoned for years by any mainstream progressive politician. The only people that still use the term are people using it as a political cudgel.
And Johnson won the race.
Brandon Johnson Defeats Paul Vallas to Become Chicago Mayor
The WSJ summary said:
Mr. Johnson, who also had support from other public-sector unions, wants to hire or promote 200 detectives and focus on addressing the root causes of crime. Mr. Vallas, who was backed by police and firefighters unions and the business community, had pledged to fill more than 1,000 police vacancies to get more officers on the street.
So, that looks to me like Johnson proposed a modest reduction in the police force.
Everyone, this is a thread about the Chicago Mayor and not Defund Police and lesser candidates. Please drop it now or start a new thread.
Not quite. At least if I understand the details from the coverage I happened on during the campaign. Vallas was claiming that a bunch of retired officers would flock back if he won. That was where is new hires were going to come from. Many doubt these officers, many who have now moved or moved on, would return. Others doubt they would adapt to new rules imposed by consent decree.
My impression is that Johnson would hire if they were there. But is indeed looking at preventing crime than cracking down harder on communities.
One does have to have concern about how the police management team will work with him.