Before Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz became the Democratic candidate for vice president, he already was the author of an important early-days rhetorical theme: These guys believe weird things.
Does Donald Trump say weird things? Does JD Vance?
Is it a mistake to say it?
Does it break the Michelle Obama rule, “When they go low we go high”?
Is the Hilary Clinton “deplorables” adventure the appropriate cautionary tale?
The scolds have weighed in.
Thomas Friedman of The New York Times wrote, “I cannot think of a sillier, more playground, more foolish and more counterproductive political taunt for Democrats to seize on than calling Trump and his supporters ‘weird.’” OK, I’m not sure Democrats are calling all Trump supporters weird, but, whatever.
In The Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin offered a more nuanced word of caution:
“In casting Republicans as ‘weird,’ commentators, operatives and politicians should avoid making Trump seem merely daring or irreverent. And they certainly must not downplay the threat to the most vulnerable Americans and the life-or-death implications of Trump’s views. It is not ‘weird’ that he wants to round up 11 million suspected undocumented immigrants and stick them in camps before deporting them; it is monstrous. It is not ‘weird’ that he wants to abandon Ukraine and ingratiates himself with dictators; these are both a moral abomination and a threat to national security. And wanting to ban abortion isn’t ‘weird’; it’s endangering women’s lives.”
Fair enough.
While there are risks, branding Trump and Vance as weird is an attempt to break through the “bothsidesism” that plagues mainstream journalism. In fact, Rubin is one of the voices that has been highly critical of false equivalency in campaign coverage.
Consider: After Trump told the annual convention of the National Association of Black Journalists that Harris only in recent years “became a Black person,” we were treated to this headline in Rubin’s paper: “Harris faces a pivotal moment as Trump questions her identity” — as if his gobsmacking comments were her problem to solve. The Post eventually modified the headline to this: “Trump’s attack on Harris’s racial identity moves contest into new phase”; I’m not even sure what that’s supposed to mean. A new phase? Please help.
Meanwhile the Times had to be badgered into adding actual facts to its headline regarding Trump’s decision to pull out of an agreed-on September debate on ABC:
— Version 1: Trump agrees to a Fox News debate with Harris on Sept. 4
— Version 2: Trump proposes a Fox News debate
— Version 3: Trump backs out of ABC debate and proposes one with Harris on Fox
As Margaret Sullivan put it, “Quite a complicated journey to reality.”
Meanwhile, Trump congratulated Vladimir Putin — arguably a hostage taker — on the exchange that freed journalists Evan Gershkovich and Alsu Kurmasheva, Marine Paul Whelan, and 21 others.
This was followed by this posting by Trump on Truth Social:
“What are the chances that Crooked Joe Biden, the WORST President in the history of the U.S., whose Presidency was Unconstitutionally STOLEN from him by Kamabla, Barrack HUSSEIN Obama, Crazy Nancy Pelosi, Shifty Adam Schiff, Cryin’ Chuck Schumer, and others on the Lunatic Left, CRASHES the Democrat National Convention and tries to take back the Nomination, beginning with challenging me to another DEBATE. He feels that he made a historically tragic mistake by handing over the U.S. Presidency, a COUP, to the people in the World he most hates, and he wants it back, NOW!!!”
If you’re a reporter, how do you handle this? Ignore it? Get a response from Democrats, and write it up as if this is some policy disagreement?
Democrats had been looking for a way, without much success, to break the grip of false equivalency in the mainstream press without coming across as holier, and smarter, than thou. They found it, with its attendant risks, with one word: “weird.”
By doing so, they escape the trap of debating Trump and his allies about each of his comments and instead ask, why are we even talking about this? As Walz says, “Who’s sitting in a bar in Racine, Wisconsin, saying, ‘You know what we really need? We need to ban “Animal Farm.”’ Nobody is!”
Democrats hope Walz has it right: that “weird” diminishes the Make America Great Again playbook.
Jen Psaki, formerly of the White House and now at MSNBC, has talked about the campaign focusing on the choice voters face. For the Democrats, for now, the choice is joyful and optimistic vs. “weird.”