The thing to do at this point would be to admit you were just making stuff up. You dislike him. So your brain confabulated up some nonsense to support that. But NOW you want to go back and try it again. SURELY he wants to systematically reform the police the wrong WAY.
No, I think you miss the point. Firstly, I take offense to "defund the police", and still do, but I'm fine with police reform. That should be a clue that your premise that I "deduced that Mamdani hates America from the fact that he wants to systemically reform the police." is incorrect.
That is not my angle. Secondly, you are assuming that is his intention. Third while I did not provide it, my intuition does have some logic behind it. As mentioned earlier, the slogans tend to have their ends in them, yes? And of course, you have every reason to avoid "defund the police".
That is not your end. It is a means to an end. But now think about what sort of person would want that as their end. The most obvious suspect are pacifists. They are aware that the power of the state is backed by violence, and to call the police is to call the violence of the state upon a suspect.
They don't think this violence is right, and they don't want anyone to have that power. The natural question then is, "what to do with criminals?" Their answer takes a non-violent form. We can just remove all impetus for crime with wealth redistribution. Solving generational racial trauma.
Providing mental health support. "Social workers, not cops." Anyway, for them, the optimal policing is zero. That's why they will have slogans like, "Defund the police", and talk a lot about social workers. So, that's my theory of people who support that slogan.
Now, let's consider your theory, that when he says, "Defund the police", he means police reform. First, why the hatred towards police in general? This isn't for something objectionable the cop did, he just hates him cause he's a cop. That fits my theory. Doesn't fit yours.
Secondly, if he really interpreted the slogan like you do, he wouldn't be walking it back. "I will not defund the police". Clearly, he does not understand the term "defund the police" the way you do. I wonder why. Your version of "defund the police" is perfectly defensible.
This would make sense under my theory though. This sort of pacifism is quite indefensible in the post-woke era. You have a defensible interpretation of "defund the police". Again, I ask: are you sure Mamdini shares your interpretation? The evidence fits my theory better!
Quick summary to add: I think you are sanewashing "defund the police".
You've only known for, like, 5 minutes that it's potentially reasonable to want to systemically reform the police. You can't possibly be prepared for a debate on the subject, lecturing others about going about it wrong. Take a breath. Touch grass. Read a book on the subject you want to discuss.
Obviously you have no reason to think so. If you did, you would have given it already.
I did have a reason; I just wasn't ready to type it all out at the time. Sorry.