I think the "weird" thing is overblown. Trump and Vance have policy positions that are deeply unpopular and criticizing them as "weird" sticks. But if you just call them weirdos, it won't stick. Everything has to be connected back to the actual stuff they think is weird. Let's take "childless cat ladies" as an example. It's fine to call it weird, but Dems should evolve the messaging to say something like, "that's weird, but it is also mean, and unhinged. Who are these people?"
Weird itself on a macro level is not the winning message. But it is something they can build on.
I think one reason that calling conservatives "weird" in this context is specifically because it undermines the way they try to position themselves in elections. They like to frame themselves as representing normal, "real Americans," and as speaking for the "silent majority." Portraying conservatives as a bunch of weirdoes pushes back against this framing. That's why this tactic doesn't bother me in this instances, even though I'm usually against shaming people for being weird. They started it!
It's notable that, of all people to coin "weird," it was Bernie's preferred VP candidate.
Walz's whole point was that, instead of talking about kitchen-table issues like prices, Trump and Vance are going on about weird culture war stuff that not many voters care about. (Did anyone else watch Trump's ATL rally, where he randomly started mocking Brian Kemp -- the governor of the state he's trying to rally in -- for not going along with the fake elector scheme?)
I guess what I'm saying is that "weird" is partly a response to an unusual lack of messaging discipline on the part of MAGA. For that reason, even some progressives can get in on it.
I remember reading an interview with an activist pushing straw bans back in 2018 or whenever. The person admitted that getting rid of plastic straws wouldn't change much. Instead, they stated, the usefulness of the pitch is that having or not having plastic straws at restaurants (and customers using or not using them) was a highly visible act, and thus social pressure could be leveraged to get people to do what they want. I found it a disgusting and cynical admission. Though an ultimately minor example, using guilt to manipulate people is a truly toxic political strategy and Democrats should have nothing to do with it.
I don’t think the plastic straws thing is about liberal jurisdictions. The first place I became clearly aware of a plastic straw ban was when I visited Orange Beach, Alabama, part of the “redneck riviera”. They know that people come there for the beaches, so they don’t want excess plastic marring those beaches. There are few places I’ve ever felt as out of place as there - nowhere else in the United States I’ve had similar trouble finding vegetarian food (Tokyo is the only place I’ve had similar trouble). But they’re out there banning plastic straws too.
"Weird" is actually a great angle if you aim to win over moderate Republicans. For humans in general, social deviance (being "weird") can generate a disgust reflex, *especially* for people on the right who view contamination/purity as a moral pillar (see: Jon Haidt). Anything that makes someone seem like a pollutant should play well to this crowd.
I worry that weird is a subtle dismissive attack on a religious world view. I would sort of agree that religion is weird (and appropriately so), but further wedges into the religious/non religious divide is not going to end well.
I don’t think anyone believes that the weird thing about Trump is his dedication to Christianity - and I don’t think anyone would assume that that’s what anyone else finds weird about him either.
Love the way you put that. On climate change, Dems need to let the public catch up to us on the issue before legislating on it. When Lincoln started allowing former slaves to serve in the Army they weren't allowed to wear the same uniform or receive the same pay. After the assault on Fort Wagner, the public was much more open to the idea of African Americans earning the same pay and wearing the uniform. You can encourage good behavior but you have to bring the public along first before you can legislate.
Regarding calling Democrats "busybodies" - am I the only person to notice that there are TONS of regulations that we're all 100% fine with and a very small subset that get shouted about as "Democrats trying to tell you what to do!!!". No one is out here arguing about letting consumers decide between leaded vs unleaded gasoline or letting Honda sell a car without seatbelts for $2K less. There are DOZENS of things that are regulated about what McDonald's can sell or how they have to prepare what they sell, but "no plastic straws" is qualitatively different? I'm not saying that you can't argue against an idea or that some regulations aren't bad ideas, but don't act like the regulation that you don't like is some novel thing and that free markets reign everywhere. It's all shades of the same color and it's foolish to act as if we all had 100% freedom until we started using paper straws.
Spoken like someone who has no idea what it was like when seatbelts were introduced. Go back and watch a news report from the time when seatbelts were mandated. People were PISSED. According to them, it was the end of all personal freedoms. That's what you don't seem to understand; something is only normal because you've experienced it your whole life.
Yes, I know. I was around when they were made mandatory *and* have family members who hated it at the time. *However* you said "letting Honda sell a car without seatbelts". I'm definitely not old enough to remember cars without seatbelts at all.
I'll tell you what's weird. What's weird is some schlumpy anonymous Midwestern governor seemingly randomly drops into a conversation that he thinks Republicans are weird and that act alone shoots him up the rankings to be the VP nominee and possibly the future leader of the free world.
I think weird works simply because it's a dirty dozens move. By the rules of that game, saying "I'm a lot of things but weird I'm not" is an L for Trump
I too appreciate the value of weirdness. In the current political setting though I like it because it diminishes rather than enhances the object of the remark. Saying Trumpism is a dire threat makes Trumpists sound powerful, which they likely enjoy. "Weird" has the opposite effect, says they are the outliers and nobody likes them. It works of course because it's true and they know it. At this point it's been overdone so maybe time to lay off, but it was a good instinct.
From a Scandinavian perspective: This is part of what made our Social Democratic parties successful, the framing of right wing parties as weird, un-Swedish/Danish, elitists etc. Unfortunately the Americanization of Scandinavian politics means our center-left has moved towards more elitist, anti-popular, academic views and opened the door for right-wing populists.
What is "the Americanization of Scandinavian politics"?
One of the most interesting things I've learned about modern politics is that vitrually every Western. Democracy has shifted from income polarization to education polarization. But I've never heard an explanation of why.
The US political debate is imported via social media. Suddenly you see BLM demonstrations in Stockholm, cancel culture in the universities and the far right talking about making Sweden great again.
True - but this change from economics to education polarization has been happening steadily since the 70s. So from what I can tell, it preceded social media, even if social media might be fueling or accelerating it now.
I'm certainly not faulting you for not having the answer, as far I know, nobody does!
> A writer who was never weird would be boring and borderline useless to read. Vance — in his book, in his Frum Forum blog posts, in his articles from around the time the memoir was published, and in many of his podcast appearances as he moved toward the MAGA right — is a very interesting thinker. If I had to pick a member of the senate GOP caucus to become president, I’d go for a sensible, boring moderate like Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski, and if you made me pick someone more rightwing, I’d look at boring workhorses like Todd Young and Shelly Moore Capito. But I’d still rather read Vance’s book.
How much of Democratic "weirdness" is downstream of the dominance of modern humanities culture? I think a lot. Until the '90s, most political actors did not have college degrees. Now many Democratic staffers and players have been trained by progressive Literature and History professors.
I think the "weird" thing is overblown. Trump and Vance have policy positions that are deeply unpopular and criticizing them as "weird" sticks. But if you just call them weirdos, it won't stick. Everything has to be connected back to the actual stuff they think is weird. Let's take "childless cat ladies" as an example. It's fine to call it weird, but Dems should evolve the messaging to say something like, "that's weird, but it is also mean, and unhinged. Who are these people?"
Weird itself on a macro level is not the winning message. But it is something they can build on.
I think one reason that calling conservatives "weird" in this context is specifically because it undermines the way they try to position themselves in elections. They like to frame themselves as representing normal, "real Americans," and as speaking for the "silent majority." Portraying conservatives as a bunch of weirdoes pushes back against this framing. That's why this tactic doesn't bother me in this instances, even though I'm usually against shaming people for being weird. They started it!
It's notable that, of all people to coin "weird," it was Bernie's preferred VP candidate.
Walz's whole point was that, instead of talking about kitchen-table issues like prices, Trump and Vance are going on about weird culture war stuff that not many voters care about. (Did anyone else watch Trump's ATL rally, where he randomly started mocking Brian Kemp -- the governor of the state he's trying to rally in -- for not going along with the fake elector scheme?)
I guess what I'm saying is that "weird" is partly a response to an unusual lack of messaging discipline on the part of MAGA. For that reason, even some progressives can get in on it.
I remember reading an interview with an activist pushing straw bans back in 2018 or whenever. The person admitted that getting rid of plastic straws wouldn't change much. Instead, they stated, the usefulness of the pitch is that having or not having plastic straws at restaurants (and customers using or not using them) was a highly visible act, and thus social pressure could be leveraged to get people to do what they want. I found it a disgusting and cynical admission. Though an ultimately minor example, using guilt to manipulate people is a truly toxic political strategy and Democrats should have nothing to do with it.
I don’t think the plastic straws thing is about liberal jurisdictions. The first place I became clearly aware of a plastic straw ban was when I visited Orange Beach, Alabama, part of the “redneck riviera”. They know that people come there for the beaches, so they don’t want excess plastic marring those beaches. There are few places I’ve ever felt as out of place as there - nowhere else in the United States I’ve had similar trouble finding vegetarian food (Tokyo is the only place I’ve had similar trouble). But they’re out there banning plastic straws too.
"Weird" is actually a great angle if you aim to win over moderate Republicans. For humans in general, social deviance (being "weird") can generate a disgust reflex, *especially* for people on the right who view contamination/purity as a moral pillar (see: Jon Haidt). Anything that makes someone seem like a pollutant should play well to this crowd.
I worry that weird is a subtle dismissive attack on a religious world view. I would sort of agree that religion is weird (and appropriately so), but further wedges into the religious/non religious divide is not going to end well.
I don’t think anyone believes that the weird thing about Trump is his dedication to Christianity - and I don’t think anyone would assume that that’s what anyone else finds weird about him either.
Trump is oddly deferential to religious elements of the right while pretty obviously being areligious and amoral.
I mean… he hits a lot of check marks for the way the Antichrist is described in Revelations.
How many more "weird" think pieces are are going to get between now and November :(
This is contagion level.
Love the way you put that. On climate change, Dems need to let the public catch up to us on the issue before legislating on it. When Lincoln started allowing former slaves to serve in the Army they weren't allowed to wear the same uniform or receive the same pay. After the assault on Fort Wagner, the public was much more open to the idea of African Americans earning the same pay and wearing the uniform. You can encourage good behavior but you have to bring the public along first before you can legislate.
> The vast majority of prominent Democratic Party politicians are very conventional bourgeois family types.
And us voters too!
Regarding calling Democrats "busybodies" - am I the only person to notice that there are TONS of regulations that we're all 100% fine with and a very small subset that get shouted about as "Democrats trying to tell you what to do!!!". No one is out here arguing about letting consumers decide between leaded vs unleaded gasoline or letting Honda sell a car without seatbelts for $2K less. There are DOZENS of things that are regulated about what McDonald's can sell or how they have to prepare what they sell, but "no plastic straws" is qualitatively different? I'm not saying that you can't argue against an idea or that some regulations aren't bad ideas, but don't act like the regulation that you don't like is some novel thing and that free markets reign everywhere. It's all shades of the same color and it's foolish to act as if we all had 100% freedom until we started using paper straws.
Seatbelts have much more evidence in favor of them and are more popular than plastic straw bans, which are useless and annoying.
Spoken like someone who has no idea what it was like when seatbelts were introduced. Go back and watch a news report from the time when seatbelts were mandated. People were PISSED. According to them, it was the end of all personal freedoms. That's what you don't seem to understand; something is only normal because you've experienced it your whole life.
Yes, I know. I was around when they were made mandatory *and* have family members who hated it at the time. *However* you said "letting Honda sell a car without seatbelts". I'm definitely not old enough to remember cars without seatbelts at all.
I'll tell you what's weird. What's weird is some schlumpy anonymous Midwestern governor seemingly randomly drops into a conversation that he thinks Republicans are weird and that act alone shoots him up the rankings to be the VP nominee and possibly the future leader of the free world.
"What a country!" as Yakov Smirnoff would say.
I think weird works simply because it's a dirty dozens move. By the rules of that game, saying "I'm a lot of things but weird I'm not" is an L for Trump
I too appreciate the value of weirdness. In the current political setting though I like it because it diminishes rather than enhances the object of the remark. Saying Trumpism is a dire threat makes Trumpists sound powerful, which they likely enjoy. "Weird" has the opposite effect, says they are the outliers and nobody likes them. It works of course because it's true and they know it. At this point it's been overdone so maybe time to lay off, but it was a good instinct.
Yes, the fact that it doesn’t make them seem bigger than they actually are is helpful.
From a Scandinavian perspective: This is part of what made our Social Democratic parties successful, the framing of right wing parties as weird, un-Swedish/Danish, elitists etc. Unfortunately the Americanization of Scandinavian politics means our center-left has moved towards more elitist, anti-popular, academic views and opened the door for right-wing populists.
What is "the Americanization of Scandinavian politics"?
One of the most interesting things I've learned about modern politics is that vitrually every Western. Democracy has shifted from income polarization to education polarization. But I've never heard an explanation of why.
The US political debate is imported via social media. Suddenly you see BLM demonstrations in Stockholm, cancel culture in the universities and the far right talking about making Sweden great again.
True - but this change from economics to education polarization has been happening steadily since the 70s. So from what I can tell, it preceded social media, even if social media might be fueling or accelerating it now.
I'm certainly not faulting you for not having the answer, as far I know, nobody does!
> A writer who was never weird would be boring and borderline useless to read. Vance — in his book, in his Frum Forum blog posts, in his articles from around the time the memoir was published, and in many of his podcast appearances as he moved toward the MAGA right — is a very interesting thinker. If I had to pick a member of the senate GOP caucus to become president, I’d go for a sensible, boring moderate like Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski, and if you made me pick someone more rightwing, I’d look at boring workhorses like Todd Young and Shelly Moore Capito. But I’d still rather read Vance’s book.
How much of Democratic "weirdness" is downstream of the dominance of modern humanities culture? I think a lot. Until the '90s, most political actors did not have college degrees. Now many Democratic staffers and players have been trained by progressive Literature and History professors.
It’s not just humanities where weirdness sells. Scientists and engineers also need their one weird trick that gets attention.