Why Calling Reactionaries “Weird” Is Effective
Kamala Harris’ ascension to the top of the Democratic ticket has been accompanied by a shift in the way Democrats on the campaign trail are talking about Republicans. After Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, now Harris’ running mate, called Republicans like J.D. Vance “weird” in cable news interviews last week, Democrats nationwide (including Kamala herself) have also adopted this line of attack against Republicans to discredit the regressive policy positions they support. Here’s a compilation of Walz doing this:
We would all love to live in a society where voters evaluate ideas and arguments logically and not based on whether they’re delivered with the right phrasing. Unfortunately, we don’t, and Republicans fully understand and exploit our sensitivity to language — this is why they’ve attacked queer people with buzzwords like “grooming”, falsely accused Democrats of wanting “open borders”, and why Trump comes up with a new nickname for every political rival of his.
Today, I’m going to talk about why Democrats are embracing “weird” as a descriptor for Republicans, what they’ve tried in the past, and why I’m expecting their new line of attack will work.
What Democrats Have Been Doing
Up to this point, Democrats have mainly tried two lines of attack against Trump and the MAGA movement:
1. “They go low, we go high”
Popularized by former First Lady Michelle Obama, this phrase suggests that, in the face of bullies like Trump, we should continue to be cordial and treat our political opponents how we would want to be treated. Follow the Golden Rule and ye shall be rewarded, right?
Not only does this approach not hold reactionaries accountable for the harm that they cause (and justify Democrats moving to the right to placate their opposition), but it also sounds self-righteous and holier than thou. For decades, Republicans have attempted to paint Democrats as elitist and pretentious, and Democrats play into that perception by posturing in a way that morally elevates themselves.
2. “Trump is a threat to Democracy”
This is a line of attack that both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden leaned into during their presidential campaigns. In their defense, this claim is true — Trump is a serious threat to democracy, and I wouldn’t imagine most of my audience needs convincing of that. However, that attack hasn’t been effective with swing voters, and there are a few possible reasons why.
The first problem is that Democrats often don’t act like they actually believe this. By the time Joe Biden dropped out of the Presidential race and gave the Democrats a better chance to beat Trump, calls for him to do so had grown for over three weeks. Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME), who represents a red-leaning district, said openly that he thinks Trump will win in November and that he’s fine with that. Even though it’s not guaranteed they would survive a possible Trump presidency, Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan haven’t stepped down and allowed themselves to be replaced, just as Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn’t.
Even putting that aside — the “undecided” voters that Democrats are hoping to win over are also hearing (and maybe believe) some of the rhetoric from the political right about how extreme the left has supposedly gotten. When people hear that Trump is gonna end democracy, they’ve probably already heard from right-wing propagandists like PragerU and Jordan Peterson that the left is destroying Western civilization. It’s no wonder that, to voters not already on the left, people sound overdramatic when pointing out the threat Trump poses.
Why “Weird” Is A Better Alternative
It De-Normalizes Their Ideas
I’ve talked on here before (and will continue doing so) about the Overton Window and how, on any given issue, both progressives and reactionaries can engineer social change by getting the American public used to their ideas. Once people have heard about a particular idea enough — whether that be marriage equality, building a wall, or restricting birth control — it often becomes normal and acceptable as a position for elected officials to take.
Thus, to enact extreme ideas like the ones proposed in Project 2025, Republicans need to be vocal in their advocacy for reactionary causes and share a common set of talking points across the conservative movement. Ideas that threaten democracy, unfortunately, have become our new normal.
Calling reactionary ideas and rhetoric weird calls attention to the fact that those ideas are, in fact, not normal. Yes, it is weird to shame people for not having children, as JD Vance is doing. Yes, it is weird to mandate that religious texts be shown in public school classrooms. Yes, it is weird to want specific ethnic or religious groups banned from entering the country. Yes, it is weird to insist that gender is only about having a penis or a vagina.
Correspondingly, calling those ideas weird positions Democrats’ ideas as normal. Of course, we want all Americans to have healthcare. Of course, we want workers to be paid a living wage. Of course, we want paid leave. To care about the well-being of your fellow Americans is common sense, and liberals and progressives ought to insist that it is.
It Makes Them Small, Weak and Undesirable
Donald Trump’s entire political brand is that he is a strongman. Throughout the Republican National Convention (which I covered), various speakers talked about how strong Trump is and how “tough” he is, especially after the assassination attempt he survived. The “threat to Democracy” line of attack (while correct), makes Trump seem extremely powerful, which is a major part of his appeal in the first place.
Every voting adult went to school at some point with kids who were “weird” and made them uncomfortable for whatever reason. Rather than being influential, attractive, or desirable, these kids were most likely seen as fringe outcasts — which is how the right wants America to see the left and minorities.
For this reason, the “weird” line can be especially effective against Vance and down-ballot candidates. In the 2022 elections, Republicans hoped for the kind of wave that the non-presidential party usually gets in the midterms. They didn’t, largely because they ran candidates who were as extreme as Trump (if not moreso) but lacked his charisma. There’s only one strongman at the top of the ticket, and if his followers are recognized as the weirdos they are, his cult looks a lot less desirable to be part of.
It’s Mean, But Not That Mean
I spent a good amount of time above talking about why being too mean or too nice has not worked for the Democrats in the past. Unlike the “you go low, we go high” approach, the “weird” line of attack positions Democrats as normal rather than as superior. Thus, it levels politicians wielding this attack with the voters they’re trying to convince.
It also strikes an appropriate level of dismissiveness, as it accurately portrays extreme ideas as unworthy of consideration. Rather than telling people outright that what Republicans are doing (to women, to LGBTQ+ people, to religious minorities, and to working people) is not okay, it encourages people to connect the dots for themselves and realize: “Wait…that is fucked up.”
That said, “weird” as a descriptor also carries some degree of compassion — I regularly describe myself as a “weirdo” with my friends, and most people see themselves as some degree of quirky. Those “weird” kids I referenced earlier that you went to school with probably weren’t bad people, they were just a little off. Thus, when using this line, Democrats are more likely to come across as reasonable rather than as divisive (which, unfortunately, the “threat to democracy” line does.)
So What?
Politics is a rapidly changing field, and we can’t say for sure whether “weird” will stick around as a talking point for Democrats. On Tuesday, August 6th, though, Tim Walz was chosen by now-Democratic nominee Kamala Harris as her running mate and Vice Presidential candidate. Evidently, Harris liked this line (and Walz’ impressive accomplishments in office) as much as I do — you can bet that his now signature line will be a key part of the Democrat’s messaging to voters between now and the November election.
I’m hopeful that Democrats will stay willing to change up their messaging and present their ideas in a way that is clear, effective, and grounded in reality. If Harris and Walz can deliver a progressive message in a digestible way, they can and absolutely should win in November.
