I disagree. I think the language was chosen to be inflammatory and overstated. The reason I think that is because everybody I know, from Republicans to moderate

I disagree. I think the language was chosen to be inflammatory and overstated. The reason I think that is because everybody I know, from Republicans to moderate progressives to socialists, assumed it was much more radical on first hearing. Moderate progressives in particular were a bit alarmed by it, and then on hearing what it actually meant, were immediately on board because it's a bundle of familiar ideas that they already supported. To put it another way, if the intention was to create a succinct label that gave people a generally accurate impression before they heard the details, it was a complete failure. Conservatives in particular love it because if they want to misrepresent it as something radical and alarming, they just have to repeat the same name that its proponents use. (Not that that is necessarily going to work for them -- I think it comes off as a bit too obvious and lazy, especially since proponents have stuck with the label and coalesced support around it.) I don't necessarily think it's a bad name, because it has attracted a lot of attention, and the idea has gained momentum, but it's just too obvious to deny that "defund the police" was designed to be misunderstood. For good tactical reasons, maybe, but obviously intended to mislead.