Democrats are, finally, asserting their right to define the boundaries of normalcy – and their claim to be defending the nation’s true ideals against the reactionary assault
I think the “weird” theme turned out to be a good boost for the democracy vs. autocracy message. I’ve always thought that was good framing. But to be effective electorally, it has to be put into specific issues terms, e.g., democracy to protect voting rights, democracy to defend abortion rights, democracy to support unions against oligarchics, etc. And since the Republicans still don’t *officially* reject democracy, Trump can say things like “I took a bullet for democracy” or claim that he’s defending democracy against the 20 million foreigners from insane asylums he says the Democrats are bringing in to register as Democratic voters.
But encouraging people to listen for the “weird” means that voters started noticing that Vance not only sounds like some grumpy guy from 1950 sneering at “childless cat ladies” but he also wants to ban abortions and force women to stay in physically abusive marriages. And to notice that when Trump says things like, “We pledge to you that we will root out the Communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country," it sounds kind of, you know, Hitler-ish.
Well I guess we differ. I don’t write people off, especially my family, ever! This is ultimately in, my view a losing strategy, not only in politics but in life.
Elsewhere I've said that "weird" is not a political term, but an aesthetic one, and as such stimulates the listener's unconscious. Everybody has a specific, if unarticulated, understanding of what "weird" means, so everyone is repelled by the (bad version of) weird in their own personal way.
But what's also true, in a political sense, is what's implied, which is similar to when that physicist at Columbia (I forget his name) dismissed string theory by saying that "it's not even wrong." Saying Trump, Vance, etc. are "weird" is to categorize, and dismiss, them prior to any judgment about their policies (to the extent that Trump has policies). Because they're weird, their policies don't even qualify for consideration on the merits. They're not even wrong.
"While the idea of “compassionate conservatism” in the Bush years or the Republican National Committee’s famous “Autopsy” report after the 2012 election that called for moderation and outreach to traditionally marginalized groups were still driven by the belief that it was both possible and necessary to reform the conservative political project in a way that would attract democratic legitimacy, today’s Right has openly turned against majoritarianism."
I gotta ask - in light of the above, how can we explain the significant gains of the GOP among Hispanic and Black American voters of late? I'm sure part of it is folks turning away from the Dems (which they probably deserve) but why would they turn towards the GOP rather than just sitting politics out? Especially considering that the GOP is so openly hostile to marginalized minorities...
An outstanding analysis. Another thing that I think has shocked certain mainstream media entities is just how much liberals have lost faith in their analysis and judgment. The “vibe change” for Democrats has also been a masks off moment for the NYT, as liberals have almost completely lost faith that certain institutions they expected to defend US Democracy. Not a moment too soon.
I hate to say it but that's probably the best, most effective response I've seen from a GOP pol. I dispute that he and his ilk are the "good kind of weird," but it's that kind of rhetoric that tends to disarm an attack.
Fortunately, most of the GOP is too flustered to do anything but spin their wheels.
I come from a white working class family. We were not religious. I considered myself conservative for many years. I thought differently when I sensed the dark side of the Republican party. That was when Reagan was elected in 1980, and again in 1984. My views shifted from the loud mouth rhetoric from the racist, bigots, and the whole set of paranoid reactionaries.
In short, you nailed it quite well about the difference between the two parties. In Canada, we view American liberals as conservative, and the conservatives as being far to the authoritarian right.
I just recently discovered and subscribed to your newsletter. And could not be happier to read your viewpoint. I wish you get a column in the New York Times in place of booted arbiter of civil discourse.
The last time the Democrats went after the republican party as weird was LBJ's 1964 campaign portraying Goldwater as a warmongering nut. Anyone remember the Daisy ad? It seemed to have worked pretty well.
Notions of any American "true ideal" are historically dubious. At best, as argued in Rogers Smith' "Beyond Tocqueville..." essay, there are multiple traditions in US history. While it is possible that the Democrats are "learning to bite" (I'm not convinced they haven't already known how -- just ask Bernie Sanders), what does this imply beyond electioneering rhetoric? Obama's election represented a massive breakthrough, but after eight-years of corporate-friendly and tepid reform, many soured on the bait and switch of "hope and change." "Defining the boundaries of normalcy" means that the Democrats are the conservatives now. The problem with this is that people are materially suffering under a Democratic Administration and it's going to get worse, something that will change as much under a Harris Administration as it did under a Biden, Obama, or Clinton Administration -- not much.
The GOP is the more aggressive party because, among other things, it has the winds of capitalism at its back. The Democrats of course support capitalism, but in attempting to tame it without fundamentally challenging it they produce a compromised ideology and reactive posture; their initiative is highly circumscribed given the primacy of the market and global competition. Just look at Gavin Newsom clearing out the homeless; massive free housing is completely off the table for the erstwhile golden boy. The GOP does not have to deal with any such hypocrisies and can let it rip without any of that admittedly repulsive sanctimoniousness.
Much as other commentors, I appreciate your writing on this subject. I've believed the Dems needed to start owning their patriotism in a way which defined everyone in the nation versus the Repubs very limited and exclusionary view.
Now, my concern is the dark money flowing into PACs that can sabotage Dem messaging and candidates. I hope the Dems have some sort of game plan once the truly negative and false ads start bombarding TV, YouTube and social media apps.
Thomas, thank you so much for this cogent analysis. You have a wonderful way of sorting through and out the tides of the time to a clear vision of the underlying dynamics. I always appreciate your grounded explanations. And I agree. The Democratic Party finally seems to appreciate the complete abdication of democracy on the part of the right and the fact that there is no compromise with that stance. Finally, we are on the offensive! And the joy!
I think the “weird” theme turned out to be a good boost for the democracy vs. autocracy message. I’ve always thought that was good framing. But to be effective electorally, it has to be put into specific issues terms, e.g., democracy to protect voting rights, democracy to defend abortion rights, democracy to support unions against oligarchics, etc. And since the Republicans still don’t *officially* reject democracy, Trump can say things like “I took a bullet for democracy” or claim that he’s defending democracy against the 20 million foreigners from insane asylums he says the Democrats are bringing in to register as Democratic voters.
But encouraging people to listen for the “weird” means that voters started noticing that Vance not only sounds like some grumpy guy from 1950 sneering at “childless cat ladies” but he also wants to ban abortions and force women to stay in physically abusive marriages. And to notice that when Trump says things like, “We pledge to you that we will root out the Communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country," it sounds kind of, you know, Hitler-ish.
Well I guess we differ. I don’t write people off, especially my family, ever! This is ultimately in, my view a losing strategy, not only in politics but in life.
Elsewhere I've said that "weird" is not a political term, but an aesthetic one, and as such stimulates the listener's unconscious. Everybody has a specific, if unarticulated, understanding of what "weird" means, so everyone is repelled by the (bad version of) weird in their own personal way.
But what's also true, in a political sense, is what's implied, which is similar to when that physicist at Columbia (I forget his name) dismissed string theory by saying that "it's not even wrong." Saying Trump, Vance, etc. are "weird" is to categorize, and dismiss, them prior to any judgment about their policies (to the extent that Trump has policies). Because they're weird, their policies don't even qualify for consideration on the merits. They're not even wrong.
"While the idea of “compassionate conservatism” in the Bush years or the Republican National Committee’s famous “Autopsy” report after the 2012 election that called for moderation and outreach to traditionally marginalized groups were still driven by the belief that it was both possible and necessary to reform the conservative political project in a way that would attract democratic legitimacy, today’s Right has openly turned against majoritarianism."
I gotta ask - in light of the above, how can we explain the significant gains of the GOP among Hispanic and Black American voters of late? I'm sure part of it is folks turning away from the Dems (which they probably deserve) but why would they turn towards the GOP rather than just sitting politics out? Especially considering that the GOP is so openly hostile to marginalized minorities...
An outstanding analysis. Another thing that I think has shocked certain mainstream media entities is just how much liberals have lost faith in their analysis and judgment. The “vibe change” for Democrats has also been a masks off moment for the NYT, as liberals have almost completely lost faith that certain institutions they expected to defend US Democracy. Not a moment too soon.
Governor Cox of Utah is proud of being weird! https://x.com/spencerjcox/status/1749127070704341330?s=46&t=WT0tAWAjhE-MUkdq-NUKqA
I hate to say it but that's probably the best, most effective response I've seen from a GOP pol. I dispute that he and his ilk are the "good kind of weird," but it's that kind of rhetoric that tends to disarm an attack.
Fortunately, most of the GOP is too flustered to do anything but spin their wheels.
I come from a white working class family. We were not religious. I considered myself conservative for many years. I thought differently when I sensed the dark side of the Republican party. That was when Reagan was elected in 1980, and again in 1984. My views shifted from the loud mouth rhetoric from the racist, bigots, and the whole set of paranoid reactionaries.
In short, you nailed it quite well about the difference between the two parties. In Canada, we view American liberals as conservative, and the conservatives as being far to the authoritarian right.
I just recently discovered and subscribed to your newsletter. And could not be happier to read your viewpoint. I wish you get a column in the New York Times in place of booted arbiter of civil discourse.
Always get excited when a new essay of yours lands in my inbox.
Fantastic as usual.
I was furious when Feinstein hugged Graham. Furious. I think I was not the only one.
The last time the Democrats went after the republican party as weird was LBJ's 1964 campaign portraying Goldwater as a warmongering nut. Anyone remember the Daisy ad? It seemed to have worked pretty well.
“In your guts, you know he’s nuts.”
I have that pin. So far, in my red state, people don't "get"it.
Notions of any American "true ideal" are historically dubious. At best, as argued in Rogers Smith' "Beyond Tocqueville..." essay, there are multiple traditions in US history. While it is possible that the Democrats are "learning to bite" (I'm not convinced they haven't already known how -- just ask Bernie Sanders), what does this imply beyond electioneering rhetoric? Obama's election represented a massive breakthrough, but after eight-years of corporate-friendly and tepid reform, many soured on the bait and switch of "hope and change." "Defining the boundaries of normalcy" means that the Democrats are the conservatives now. The problem with this is that people are materially suffering under a Democratic Administration and it's going to get worse, something that will change as much under a Harris Administration as it did under a Biden, Obama, or Clinton Administration -- not much.
The GOP is the more aggressive party because, among other things, it has the winds of capitalism at its back. The Democrats of course support capitalism, but in attempting to tame it without fundamentally challenging it they produce a compromised ideology and reactive posture; their initiative is highly circumscribed given the primacy of the market and global competition. Just look at Gavin Newsom clearing out the homeless; massive free housing is completely off the table for the erstwhile golden boy. The GOP does not have to deal with any such hypocrisies and can let it rip without any of that admittedly repulsive sanctimoniousness.
Much as other commentors, I appreciate your writing on this subject. I've believed the Dems needed to start owning their patriotism in a way which defined everyone in the nation versus the Repubs very limited and exclusionary view.
Now, my concern is the dark money flowing into PACs that can sabotage Dem messaging and candidates. I hope the Dems have some sort of game plan once the truly negative and false ads start bombarding TV, YouTube and social media apps.
Thomas, thank you so much for this cogent analysis. You have a wonderful way of sorting through and out the tides of the time to a clear vision of the underlying dynamics. I always appreciate your grounded explanations. And I agree. The Democratic Party finally seems to appreciate the complete abdication of democracy on the part of the right and the fact that there is no compromise with that stance. Finally, we are on the offensive! And the joy!
Thank you! Excellent essay!
I’ve always loved the “Battle Cry of Freedom”, I got goosebumps hearing you recite the words, thank you!
Excellent analysis from beginning to end. Thank you for writing this..