I would say that political factions need to do a better job, semantically, with naming their movements...but part of me thinks it's something they do on purpose.
They pick emotionally-charged naming conventions for their movements, that definitely imply something more sweeping in order to pander to the more radical element of their own base, but claim it "technically" means something different in order to grant themselves plausible deniability when critiqued for it by the other side.
For instance, the naming convention of "Defund the police"...to anyone hearing that name for the first time, it clearly sounds like "get rid of the institution of law enforcement". And clearly some on both the far-left and far-right are taking it that way. (with some on the far-left supporting the notion of getting rid of the police, and some on the far-right interpreting it that way and expressing backlash against that notion)
So they can stand up at a rally and say that it means "Law Enforcement is a racist institution, and needs to be abolished" (to an applause)
However, when called out for it by the opposing side, flip the script on what "Defund the police" actually means, and switch to the defense of "Well, it doesn't really mean defund the police, it just means redirect some of the public funding away from the police, and toward other social programs"
Despite the fact that in the dictionary, the word defund means: "prevent from continuing to receive funds."
That's come back to bite a few people in the rear...Democratic Mayors like Jacob Frey found out first hand when he was booed for saying he wasn't going to abolish the police.
The "One slogan that means two different things based on who you're talking to" is a bad strategy.
Mean what you say and say what you mean...
"Defund the police" is the far-left's semantically overloaded equivalent to the far-right's semantically overloaded "Religious Freedom".
When members of the far-right are amongst themselves, their "religious freedom" talk sounds a lot like a defense of discrimination against LGBT people...however, when called out for it by the opposition, it suddenly becomes redefined as "no, it's not about discriminating against anyone, it's just about making sure the government can't make you do anything that violates your religious convictions"
The left is pulling the same thing with the "Defund the police" slogan.
Allows them to pander to the more extreme elements of their own base, but then takes on a more mild definition when describing it to moderates and people on the other side.