Jason Lim is a Washington, D.C.-based expert on innovation, leadership and organizational culture.
Snappy and sloppy slogans
By Jason Lim
This day and age of social media clickbait masquerading as news almost makes you long for the days of the “MTV Generation,” who were accused of having an attention span of less than a minute. Well, a minute today would be a lifetime as we now have to measure attention spans by counting how many micro-doses of dopamine our brains ring up at every ping of our wearables.
Former U.S. President Barack Obama might have inadvertently coined the 2020s version of the “MTV Generation” when he warned against the danger of “snappy slogans” when trying to push complex and nuanced policy positions in the public sphere. According to reports, Obama said “political candidates lose support when using snappy slogans like defund the police.” It could actually work against you by turning off a big chunk of the audience that you would need to push through the changes that are represented by the slogan. In fact, analysts have said the “Defund the police” slogan drove many to vote for Republican candidates for fear of literally losing the police force in their communities.
Obama's thoughts were echoed by President-elect Joe Biden recently when he told a group of civil rights leaders to curb rhetoric about police reform in America ahead of the Georgia Senate runoff elections in January, according to The Hill. Biden is quoted as saying, “I also don't think we should get too far ahead of ourselves on dealing with police reform in that, because they've already labeled us as being defund the police anything we put forward in terms of the organizational structure to change policing ― which I promise you, will occur.”
What I found interesting was the pushback that Obama got from some progressives and Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists for his remarks. They were essentially calling him out for not being “woke” enough to internalize “defund the police” as an appropriate slogan. Mind you, Obama wasn't criticizing the substantive changes that the slogan represented; he was criticizing the slogan as a means to convince people to support their cause. However, even such a “suggestion” ran afoul of the purists.
Of course, historical context matters. The BLM movement was solidified out of the George Floyd killing that galvanized and elevated the long-running issue of police brutality against Black men. There was an understandable and inevitable anger to the shocking visual of Floyd's life ebbing away under the callous knee of the police officer. “Defund the police” reflects that anger.
Historical context cuts both sides, however. Obama was the first African American president of the U.S. and an elder statesman of the Democratic Party. While he may not be the progressive that some want, he nevertheless was, by and large, a successful president who governed for eight years. Accusing Obama of privilege and not fully empathizing with the plight of everyday Black Americans against what they feel is an onslaught of targeted police brutality seems out of touch with who Obama is.
There is one criticism against Obama that did resonate with me, however. It's a historical fact that Obama also used a snappy slogan to win the presidency. “Change we can believe in” and “Yes, we can” were, dare I say, just as snappy? They certainly took America by storm and played a big part in propelling him to the presidency in 2008.
So, it's not snappy slogans that Obama was criticizing. It's actually a sloppy slogan. Sloppy as in the slogan actually turns people off and works against the very changes that you are pushing for. This is exactly the case in point with “Defund the police.”
The meaning behind the “Defund the police” slogan is actually more a redistribution and reprioritization scheme for public monies to allocate more resources to social programs, mental health first responders, youth services, etc. that would either proactively address the underlying social issues that lead to crimes or deescalate situations using non-violent intervention. In some ways, it's a structural rescoping of the police's responsibilities to its core mission of enforcing laws and preserving order and property, instead of being the dumping grounds for all social and personal issues that need resolution.
But if you have to explain all that because you're defending against the first, negative impression that your slogan imparted, you've already lost your message. Which goes to the heart of my chief complaint with the purist progressives. Rather than adapting the messaging to the audience, the initial reaction is to accuse the audience of being shallow and not smart enough to understand.
That's the epitome of elitism. And it smacks of condescension and lack of humility. It feels like some adults in authority telling me to do something I don't want to do and telling me that it's for my good. When I ask why, I am told that I am stupid and lazy for not understanding the deeper meaning and goodwill behind the order. It didn't work when I was small boy, and it won't work with folks today.
Jason Lim (jasonlim@msn.com) is a Washington, D.C.-based expert on innovation, leadership and organizational culture.