If you want to play an optics game, you have to think like the GOP - that means shifting the terrain of a debate entirely, not accepting the existing frame.

Playing this out, “defund the police” wouldn’t mention the police at all. It would become “committing to our communities.”

Not saying you should or shouldn’t do that, but internet left brain is solely motivated by morality and a desire for justice. We don’t question whether or not our moral frames are sufficiently transferable and adaptable to sway people not already on our page.

Standard left argumentation hinges on two related assumptions that are both obviously false:

1. Moral arguments ought to be rhetorically effective in virtue of the universal appeal of justice.

2. Moral frameworks are universal and exist independent of ideological frameworks.

It’s bizarre to me that most leftists pretend to be big time theory understanders but somehow miss that axiological frameworks are just as real and powerful as epistemological or ontological frames. In fact, they’re inextricably intertwined. That’s ideology, baby!

Assuming the end game is what matters, ask yourself what’s easier:

1. Getting people to overhaul their value system in one big swing leading to changes in material conditions.

Or:

2. Leveraging existing value systems to create changes in material conditions.

If that makes you mad, then I’d wager that the end game isn’t what matters to you. Justice and validation matter equally or more. I get it, but the moral arc of the universe is aimless, if not headed into the toilet. We have to reconcile ourselves to our playing field.

Ponder this:

Are you more invested in getting people to agree with you morally or in getting people on your side materially? You can’t have it both ways at the same time, I promise.