Trump has struggled to pigeonhole Harris and Walz
“Thrice-wed philandering felon, fraud and sexual abuser” has a certain ring to it and offers a helpful summary value. The phrase is useful shorthand for social media.
But such a label has limits.
While that description of Donald J. Trump is accurate, for instance, it falls short. It omits qualities of his such as racism, sexism, demagoguery and ignorance. Such a tag, label or meme may have a bumper-sticker utility, but can go only so far and can often mislead or be misused.
On that point, Trump and his aides have scrambled to come up with pithy terms to attack Vice President Kamala Harris and her new running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. Trump has tried out “the most Radical Left duo in American history.” And one of his campaign videos says Walz “will be a rubber stamp for Kamala’s dangerously liberal agenda.” Parroting that, House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik lambasted “the most radical Far Left-wing ticket in history.” And, of course, there’s the “DEI hire” label.
Will such terms stick?
Under Trump’s guidance, Republicans have sought to reduce people to such abusive monikers and juvenile nicknames, such as Trump’s “Crazy Kamala” or the bizarre “Kamabla.” Presumably, they believe such caricatures will cement identities in voters’s minds. As a clever marketer, Trump knows that this gimmick, born of consumer advertising, locks in simple associations (think “soft” for Downy or “electric” for Tesla).
But, really, will anyone who looks even slightly beyond them buy those reductions? Will most Americans, particularly all-important independent voters, warm to Trump’s approach? Writing for the conservative news site, The Free Press, columnist Joe Nocera sketched out the flaws in Trump’s tack for Walz under the headline “Tim Walz is no radical.”
“He signed a bill that provides free breakfast and lunches for Minnesota public schoolchildren. An advocate for fighting climate change, he took a page from the Republican playbook and championed legislation to reduce government red tape for renewable energy projects,” Nocera writes. “On his watch, abortion rights, a critical issue for Democrats, were enshrined in state law. An NRA darling in Congress (he’s a lifelong hunter), Walz as governor supported expanded background checks and red flag laws. They are also now the law in Minnesota. Plus paid parental and medical leave. Plus a ban on non-compete agreements (giving workers the ability to easily switch jobs). Plus bills to strengthen worker safety.”
Are those measures the sort that most Americans will scream “radical” about? Certainly, a Trump Administration would revile such moves, but do they make one swallow Trump’s belittling sobriquets? As Nocera put it, “Call me crazy, but I think a lot of voters will find this ‘progressive,’ ‘extremist,’ ‘socialist’ agenda attractive.”
As Walz said of this caricature of him in an interview on CNN, “What a monster! Kids are eating and having full bellies so they can go learn, and women are making their own healthcare decisions, and we’re a top-five business state and we also rank in the top three of happiness … Look, they’re going to label whatever they’re going to label.”
To be fair, Walz came up with a very sticky label for Trump and his running mate, JD Vance. He memorably called them “weird,” a word that emphasizes the essential oddness of both men. It also reflects the sort of Midwestern folksy jargon and commonsense judgment that Walz is known for. Indeed, some observers credit his use of the word for getting him the VP choice or, at least, moving him up the ladder.
“Weird,” moreover, is apt and avoids the incendiary tones of more provocative labels for Trump and Vance. It makes them look ludicrous, just the type of characterization that the thin-skinned and humorless Trump can’t abide.
Still, such a term, like other labels thrown about by both camps, can do only so much. More sophisticated critiques are necessary, and we will surely see them.
Some on the right have already attacked Walz, for instance, for being slow to deploy the National Guard to contain the riots that followed George Floyd’s murder in Minneapolis in 2020 – a slipup Walz fessed up to. “Walz and his team have said they dealt with the issues as best they could,” Reuters reported. “The two-term governor acknowledged his decision to delay deploying the National Guard and called the city’s response an ‘abject failure,’ during a press conference a few days after protests gripped the Twin Cities and the greater Minneapolis area, causing extensive damage to buildings, businesses, and a police precinct that was overrun by rioters and set ablaze.”
To many, a single misjudgment in a long career hardly seems like a fatal flaw. Of course, we will never see an acknowledgement of a mistake by Trump, who lacks the capacity for self-criticism. But we will see Walz’s hesitancy highlighted on Fox and other venues.
Voters will have to evaluate the successes and failures of both Harris and Walz, since both folks have histories to assess. Similarly, they will need to evaluate their characters and resumes.
What sort of judgment will people apply? For Walz, they can assess his background as a teacher, long-term congressman, governor and champion of legislation that seems to have helped people’s lives. For Harris, they can evaluate her role as being in the room for three and half years when Presidential decisions were made and for traveling the world to shore up relationships that Trump damaged, as well as her record in law enforcement.
Do these things paint a bold, bright contrast with a chaos-inducing criminal who killed a bipartisan effort to reform border regulations just to advance his candidacy? Do they differ from Vance’s comparison of Trump to Hitler, as well as his labeling the man an “idiot” and “reprehensible” before Trump elevated the young opportunist to his ticket?
If we get the chance to see debates between Trump and Harris, as well as between Vance and Walz, we may better be able to evaluate these folks. Certainly, they would in those settings toss labels and memorable lines at one another, some of which could easily stick.
Recall the folksy “there you go again” phrase Ronald Reagan used in his 1980 debate with Jimmy Carter and Reagan’s 1984 quip against Walter Mondale: “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” Then there was Lloyd Bentsen’s jab against Dan Quayle in 1988: “I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.” And Barack Obama’s memorable phrase in a faceoff with Hillary Clinton in 2008: “You’re likable enough, Hillary.”
It’s hard to imagine Trump or his staffers having the wit for such lines. And, indeed, since Trump has sought to rig a debate by changing rules he earlier agreed to for a faceoff with President Biden, one may not happen between the top candidates. As for Walz and Vance, both men seem to be spoiling for a fight.
When Harris jumped in after Biden stepped out, she seemed to set Trump back on his heels. He and his team can’t seem to quite pigeonhole her as they would like to and he has gone off-script at times (“she happened to turn Black”). Now, Walz’s arrival has “terrified” Trump, says the former president’s niece, Mary Trump.
“You can see why Donald is terrified,” the clinical psychologist said, according to Newsweek. “Because his criteria for a running mate included somebody who would lick his boots, subjugate himself, and exhibit the kind of cruel weirdness that Donald, and the base of the Republican Party, revel in. Vice President Kamala Harris picked someone who has executive [experience] and actually wants to work to make the lives of Americans better.”
Is Mary Trump, whose book about Trump labels him “the World’s Most Dangerous Man,” onto something? Voters will have to decide.