Defund or Refund?: How Mass Media Manufactured Outrage Around the Defunding that Never Was

        “Defund the police is an absolutely stupid slogan,” said Democratic strategist Adrian Hemond. "Community safety to protect and defend in every way is our oath of office," claimed Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Within the past few weeks, there have been countless articles and statements in the media arguing that "Defunding the Police" would embolden crime and prevent police from doing their jobs. Despite the fact "police budgets, along with total spending, have been on an upward trajectory for the last decade," police unions (and the media) have continually manufactured outrage regarding the underfunding of police. According to Derecka Pernell, this moral panic stems from the assumption that when "crime is up, we need more money...[and when] crime is down...we need more money to keep it down." In other words, the deceptive reporting about "rising" crime rates (which, except for homicide, is on the decline) is simply a nation-wide PR campaign from police unions that want to further militarize and control who they deem to be part of the racially-coded "dangerous classes." Given that the 2022 midterms are coming up, the timing of this rhetoric can not be any more perfect. It seems that the Democrats are adopting the same reactionary and racist "law and order" rhetoric that defined their Republican predecessors in the 1980s and 1990s. Although I personally think this is not a good strategy, it seems that the moderate wing of the Democratic Party is hellbent on presenting themselves as pro-police in order to appeal to a more conservative electorate. Although I could easily talk about the illusions of choice that voters are presented with each election cycle, the purpose of this article is to highlight how police "defunding" is a myth and how punitive justice fails to address and reproduces crime. Hopefully, by the end of this article, we will be able to identify the true causes of crime that the media refuses to cover.

        

        Before we delve into police budgets, it is important to examine the prevailing attitudes surrounding policing in this country and the failures of punitive justice. Since the 1980s, police have typically engaged in what is called "broken window policing" or the idea that "policing low-level offenses can prevent more serious crimes." In other words, modern-day police practices stem from the idea that allowing smaller crimes to go unpunished will result in disorder and anarchy (in the pejorative sense). However, as shown in New York City, this method of policing has resulting in the aggressive over-policing of minority communities (stop and frisk), which has resulted in more arrests, fines, violence, and even death that disproportionately targets Black and brown males. Although the police have always served as an instrument of control for the ruling class, it is becoming undeniably clear that the growing militarization and the "at war" mentality of contemporary police forces are increasingly resembling something of an occupying force in America. Given the normalization of this kind of policing, it comes as no surprise that the ruling class has deemed any alternative to over-policing (i.e., defund the police) as something that would only "embolden criminals." As a result, punitive justice is heralded as the best and most effective way to prevent crime, but, if that was the case, the U.S. would be the safest country on the planet, with 1.9 million people confined nationwide at a rate of 573 per 100,000 people each year. It is also important to consider that most crime today stems from poverty, alienation, and authoritarian social relationships that shapes individuals to engage in antisocial, self-interested behaviors, all of which CANNOT be solved (and is even reproduced) by punitive justice/policing. This is evidenced by the fact that, despite having more funding and support than ever before, police are not actually that effective at solving what they consider "crime." According to The Conversation, police solve only 2% of all major crimes out of the 11% of all serious crimes that result in an arrest. This raises an important question: if police/prisons don't adequately solve crime and police budgets have been steadily increasing, then why does the police need even more funding? Jamelle Bouie puts it best in his op-ed in the New York Times, stating that "police departments and their allies have skillfully used anxiety over “defund” to successfully lobby for even larger budgets. It [the "funding the police" movement] is a solution to a problem that does not exist." To put it simply, you are being lied to by not only the police and politicians but the media as well.

       

        In many ways, this article is a companion post to Copaganda: Mass Media’s Role in Perpetuating White Supremacy that I wrote in January. Copaganda is still a pervasive problem among legacy media outlets; every week it seems that there's always a pro-cop article in the NYT or WaPO that engages in bad journalistic practices (i.e. one-sided sourcing, lack of evidence, etc). With the recent demonization of "Defund the Police" by Democrats and liberal media outlets, it seems that the Democratic Party is purposefully engaging in copaganda and intentionally misleading information in order to attract more conservative voters. As with the majority of reactionary media narratives, the moral panic behind "Defunding the Police" serves a sinister ideological purpose. Namely, it calls for the further funding of police and the subsequent militarization that accompanies it without any regard to how over-policing harms Black and brown communities that Democrats claim to represent. Whether or not this strategy will prove successful in November is yet to be seen, but, if the Democrats failure to address the needs of the working-class is of any indication, I doubt that this strategy will be as effective as they think it will be. Although our society is uniquely right-wing, voters can still feel effects of inequality and alienation that the media tries to cover up. Ultimately, both the Republican and Democratic failures to address these issues has increased the apathy among young people toward electoral politics, who *rightfully* feel that they have been set up for failure by our politicians and leaders. However, there's room for optimism as questioning the efficacy of electoralism isn't a bad thing; real material change requires taking action into our own hands and self-managing our lives. Our freedom begins when we decide to act for ourselves, not waiting for those vested with power to make decisions for us. Only through self-activity can the goal of human emancipation be completely realized.