The concept of “law and order” has been used as a racial dog whistle. Nixon and Reagan used the term to advocate for harsh mandatory sentences and increase police militarization. Centrist Democrats attempted to co-opt the term in the 90s, with Biden and Clinton pushing harsh mandatory minimums in the crime bill and even advocating for increased use of the death penalty. 

Leftists claim to challenge both the liberal center and the right. Surprisingly, some of the left are calling themselves “law and order” leftists. In theory, this is a response to the lawlessness of Trump. From ICE executions, to rampant corruption, the idea is to frame a willingness to prosecute political corruption as a way to justify “good” uses of police. Popular figures in left media, including Krystal Ball and the co-hosts of the “Chapo Trap House,” have said, “We can’t abolish prisons because we have to arrest Donald Trump.” 

In reality, this reflects the intense anxieties of some of the left around what they call “woke 1.0,” the 2020 era where phrases like “defund the police” were common. Now seeing “defund the police" as politically unpopular, the left is walking back their “woke” 2020 rhetoric, with even Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently saying “woke 1.0 was crazy.” This was widely seen as her distancing herself from “defund the police.” The argument boils down to a simple position: “Let's save our political capital, not fight for unpopular things like 'defund,' so we can focus on popular things like opposition to ICE and cutting the war budget.” 

Police budgets have increased over 30% since 2014 to approximately 135 billion dollars, according to the Urban Institute. Does anyone believe a left afraid of even talking about challenging police spending domestically will succeed in stopping ICE or cutting the trillion-dollar military budget when the same logic of racialized fear powers both policing and immigration and military spending? 

In reality, the college-educated but downwardly mobile base of groups like DSA have their own anxieties around the Black community and violent crime, leading them to support police and be ashamed of their 2020-era rhetoric. 

The left should take lessons from working-class Black folks who have argued for shifting funding from police to community services for decades before Bernie and DSA. In a July 2026 protest, community rallied behind a 74-year-old elder assaulted by several youths. Baba Oday, a veteran of the Baltimore Black Panther Party, was assaulted in a 7-11 parking lot, where years before, a young man, Victorious Swift, was shot and killed. That young man’s mother was one of the organizers of the protest. 

Rather than calling for more police, the protestors argued for increased use of security guards, more lighting for this parking lot, and a reward for finding those responsible. There were several speakers who called out the right-wing Democrat state's attorney, Ivan Bates, and called out Baltimore's 700 million dollar police budget. They also, critically, balanced constant analysis that argues our children need support and we should not just criminalize them all, while also calling for the young people who did the assault to turn themselves in to the community so they can help them work their way through the criminal legal system. This is the subtle balancing between “accountability,” caring for victims of crime, and recognition of the limits of policing and a social justice analysis. 

This is not to say there was uniform support for the phrase “defund the police.” But the fact that almost no protestors called for increased police presence shows a deep commitment to a political principle of being willing to challenge police power in a way the much-vaunted ascendant left seems to ironically be running away from as the cost of entering the political mainstream. 

Rather than embracing “law and order” leftism, which will inevitably be weaponized against Black people, the left needs to gain a deeper understanding of policing and crime to expose folks to the best version of the defund the police argument. They could start by centering a progressive vision of public safety as centers for grassroots violence intervention, groups in We Our Us and the Peace Team in Baltimore, over police funding as the core of a progressive public safety movement. Over time, the successes of these groups will put pressure on police to justify their budgets and create the context where advocates can challenge expensive investments like Flock cameras and the Axon (the maker of tasers and surveillance cameras) 153 million dollar BPD contract. The cost of police spending should be robust community control of the police, through efforts like giving police accountability boards more autonomy and independent investigative powers. 

Cities should also fund state attorneys offices and city solicitors willing to make good cases not only against violent criminals but also crooked cops and corporate criminals. Speakers at the protests talked about violent policing, mass arrests, and the flooding of our communities with drugs represents a form of structural violence. Baltimore City’s recent legal victories over opioid distributors show a Black city effectively using the law as a tool. 

This shows how we can shift from the white left’s “law and order leftism” to a progressive vision of Black power public safety reflective of the people most impacted by violent crime and structural violence, making calls for public safety a tool against both violent crime and corporate/police violence.