Cori Bush wants to defund the Pentagon

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

The language is probably not ideal for swing districts but Bush isn't in a swing district, Pentagon funding is extremely bloated and (from a progressive standpoint) it's healthy to have the Democratic base animated against advocacy of feeding yet more to the beast. If there isn't enough money for <insert important social service/tax cut/deficit reduction>, it's one of the best sources around.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

The language is probably not ideal for swing districts but Bush isn't in a swing district, Pentagon funding is extremely bloated and (from a progressive standpoint) it's healthy to have the Democratic base animated against advocacy of feeding yet more to the beast. If there isn't enough money for <insert important social service/tax cut/deficit reduction>, it's one of the best sources around.

The vast majority of people are going to assume "defund" means "$0".

The vast majority of people (who might not assume this and probably wouldn't switch their vote on a single and usually low-salience issue) do not live in MO02. This assumption probably won't last if/when cuts actually happen and while they do last, they make smaller but substantial cuts look "moderate," giving cover to those pushing vital reforms.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

When did defund stop meaning Zero Dollars?

When it was subbed in for "abolish," which makes the intent to dismantle perfectly clear.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

When did defund stop meaning Zero Dollars?

When it was subbed in for "abolish," which makes the intent to dismantle perfectly clear.

This is an intent to dismantle the English language.

I'll admit it isn't especially clear itself, but if defunders really wanted to defund down to the last dollar, they'd simply stick with the longstanding and more well-known "Abolish [X]" slogan (as they have with ICE, but not the police). It's not the sort of language I'd be keen on using in a closely fought presidential campaign because of the ambiguity, but it is clearly meant as a banner under which to unite those committed to shallower cuts and full-fledged abolitionists.

Milder policy plans with caveats attached, when proposed by backbench Representative-elects, tend to generate fewer waves and are usually less likely to move a party's internal Overton window as a result. I'm not sure this will work, but the Democratic Party is still overly committed to throwing money at the Pentagon and would do better if its representatives feared more backlash when choosing to do so.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

This is why we need to move away from "defund".

You still need a snappy, concrete and galvanising alternative and anything like "Cut the Pentagon," is going to provoke similar reactions, although probably not to the same extent. The goal should be to promote substantial reforms many can get behind and Representatives can be pushed towards, but they're unlikely to catch fire if they can only be properly expressed in long form. Great examples of what not to do here are some of Harris' plans from the primaries - pretty solid policy wonkery but really hard to boil down (particularly her healthcare proposal), unlike the best of Warren's pitches.

If it can't spread to primary voters who aren't into 80-page policy documents, its influence will be limited. If it's a weak rallying cry like "expanding access to healthcare," it will easily be boiled down into nothing by those who wish to do nothing.

My wing of the party has a major messaging problem and it needs to be fixed if we're going to want to beat Kamala/Mayor Pete/whichever establishment-wing candidate they put up after Biden.

I agree that it wouldn't be helpful at all in a presidential primary where there are a mix of other factors messing with the dynamics like electability etc., but I don't think Bush is angling for this. It's a big reason to doubt the strength of an AOC bid, though.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Calling her a moron for wanting to decrease the budget of a bloated, useless institution whose own paid cronies in academia advocate the exact same is PROOF that so many of you treat politics like fan football or an MMO rather than something that actually impacts people's lives.

Cori Bush is an icon, a treasure to working people everywhere, and smarter than all of you who think you know so much lol

Imagine actually believing this. When she said defund, she clearly meant to remove all funding from the Pentagon, not just “decrease” the budget.

How is this clear? The go-to terminology for abolitionists (for various institutions) has always been ‘abolish’. ‘Defund’ carries a broader scope because it doesn’t imply how much of the infrastructure it wants to leave intact (to defund to $0 would be to abolish), although it implies more aggressive cuts than the euphemistic ‘efficiency savings.’

I agree the room for ambiguity means the term can be cast that way and it’s not wise to deploy ‘defund’ in the context of pushing high-salience issues like police reform through electoral politics. That ambiguity is not the same thing as an unambiguous commitment to abolition - if it was, why would the term have come into use at all? It’s not as if ‘Abolish,’ has been abandoned wholesale in other political contexts - Bush herself uses it w.r.t. her position on ICE.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Calling her a moron for wanting to decrease the budget of a bloated, useless institution whose own paid cronies in academia advocate the exact same is PROOF that so many of you are whiny white incels who treat politics like fan football or an MMO rather than something that actually impacts people's lives.

Cori Bush is an icon, a treasure to working people everywhere, and smarter than all of you who think you know so much lol

Imagine actually believing this. When she said defund, she clearly meant to remove all funding from the Pentagon, not just “decrease” the budget.

How is this clear? The go-to terminology for abolitionists (for various institutions) has always been ‘abolish’. ‘Defund’ carries a broader scope because it doesn’t imply how much of the infrastructure it wants to leave intact (to defund to $0 would be to abolish), although it implies more aggressive cuts than the euphemistic ‘efficiency savings.’

I agree the room for ambiguity means the term can be cast that way and it’s not wise to deploy ‘defund’ in the context of pushing high-salience issues like police reform through electoral politics. That ambiguity is not the same thing as an unambiguous commitment to abolition - if it was, why would the term have come into use at all? It’s not as if ‘Abolish,’ has been abandoned wholesale in other political contexts - Bush herself uses it w.r.t. her position on ICE.

I didn’t mention anything about her wanting to abolish the military, I think she morso wants to remove all funding, which is what the tweet implied. It’s clear because you have to look at the context of the word. Leftists use “defund” when talking about the police or military the same way conservatives use “defund” when talking about Planned Parenthood. When they say “Defund planned parenthood” they aren’t saying “reduce their budget”, they mean cut off all federal spending to the organization. I believe the same interpretation should be applied in both cases.

Planned Parenthood could survive without any federal spending so it is plausible to defund that to $0 without dismantling the organisation. In neither case is it clear that the term mean "dismantle."