It does mean I lose access to a lot of the background support. Jargon, in every field, brings in a whole wealth of connected concepts and helps you communicate precisely. But some words get "skunked" (overloaded with confusing, contradictory, or pejorative meanings), and I avoid them when I think I won't be understood.
I don't fool myself into thinking I'm actually persuading anybody. The best I can hope for is a vague notion that somebody might remember that they read something once. And that works best if I'm not automatically downvoted -- which I know I will be if some people reject it out of hand.
Or enforcing a certain subset of laws on all society.
And it's not just the "bigbiz-friendly" reds, it's also the blues with their "lets not punish non-violent crime". The fact is laws in the US (and elsewhere) are written, but unevenly enforced, as such what remains is quibbling over priority. I want to see more punishments for white collar crime, but I also want to see less leniency for repeated blue-collar crime too.
Because, as you noted, the "bigbiz-friendly reds" do not actually support law and order either, the term "law and order" is in reality a dogwhistle.
funny that you brought it up then. You also provided a WP article to define "dog whistle", but nothing supporting "reds do not actually support law and order" which seems the crux of you argument.
You also have to either take liberties with either "developed", or with "draconian", given some of the Asian and middle-eastern developed nations.