Please, let's not get ahead of ourselves . . .
Are Democrats becoming too complacent about November, thinking Kamala is such a refreshing breath of fresh air in the presidential race, generating so much enthusiasm and funding, that she’s bound to win! Reality check: although ahead in polls, she’s still within the margin of error in most swing states, while dominating the front pages for the past month and Donald Trump pretty much sitting on his hands. Remember it is the Electoral College that chooses the president, plus Republican state officials in many places have been able to put in place lots of niggling election rules designed to suppress likely Democrat votes.
And what a strange election campaign. The voting public really doesn’t know exactly what policies Harris will pursue if elected because she’s carefully treading the line between saying too little and too much. Wisely, I believe. And we can’t believe a word Donald Trump says about what he would or wouldn’t do because his candidacy is just one long fact-check and Tonypandy claims about his presidential record. I have no doubt, as but one example, that Trump would happily sign a national abortion ban if passed by a Republican congress despite his claims of happiness that the matter is in the hands of the individual states; we can easily dismiss as totally unsupported and frankly absurd the claim by J.D. Vance -- himself a notorious member of the extreme anti-reproductive rights camp -- that Trump would veto such a bill.
I think Trump voters fall into three camps. First are the solid rock-ribbed Republicans who would never vote for a Democrat for president for the same reason that I admit to being a yellow dog Democrat (up to a point; I’d personally draw that line to exclude someone who would overthrow the government or distort democracy beyond recognition), but I do vote loyally mindful of the 4000 presidential appointees including Justices and judges, cabinet officers and agency heads who can so dramatically affect our lives. As such I frankly cannot be too critical of “yellow dog Republicans” (other than my conviction that they’ve got it completely wrong), and I’ve often enjoyed long conversations with some, often surprisingly ending with almost-agreement on what might be done to address pressing issues. But we likely will not move many of these folks.
For one set of Republicans, however, I do carve out a major exception to this expression of respect: the hypocritical power grabbers, numbering perhaps hundreds or a few thousand nationally, who so fear the potential loss of their grip on authority if Trump loses that they would sacrifice the Republic. They belong to the “hold my nose and vote for Trump” camp just to preserve their personal grab for power and range from Lindsay Graham, Mitch McConnell, and several other Senators to Governors and Congress members, plus primary election MAGA toadies hungering for a Trump endorsement. You can often identify them by their past comments attacking Trump as “liar”, “fascist”, “dangerous”, “unfit”, “unhinged” followed by their subsequent boot licking apologia. These flaming hypocrites deserve a special place in Dante’s ninth circle.
But at the same time, let us not overlook an important subcategory of our Group One Trump supporters: traditional Republican loyalists with a conscience. In 2016 they bought into the hype from business and conservative leaders who quietly acknowledged Trump’s peculiarities but put it about that they would control him. Since then they have seen the light, and it isn’t pretty. Prominent among these are Stephanie Grisham, Trump’s White House Press Secretary, Anthony Scaramuccci, Trump’s White House Communications Director, plus the 200 Republicans who previously worked for George Bush, John McCain or Mitt Romney and this week publicly endorsed Kamala Harris. I’m convinced that nationally there are multiple thousands of such traditionally Republican voters.
Circling back to our theme for the day, the second kind of Trump voter is what I too rudely referred to as MAGots. (Regardless of what we think in the recesses of our heart, we must avoid the Hillary Clinton “deplorables” quicksand, so moving forward I’ll try to restrain my baser impulses.) But these red-hatted loyalists are definitely not traditional Republicans but are people who have joined the Cult of the Donald. They are worshippers, not supporters, and they will not be swayed.
Category three of Trump voters: America often falls in love with entertainment and sports stars-turned-politicians -- for example, Arnold Schwartzeneger, Jesse Ventura, Bill Bradley, Jim Bunning, and we can’t overlook Fred Grandy, Gopher from the Love Boat whose goofiness earned him four terms in the House of Representatives, and honorable mention to Mayors Sonny Bono and Clint Eastwood. The undisputed king of celebrity politicos was of course Ronald Reagan -- but let’s not forget that Reagan also spent an leadership internship as the very popular head of the actors union and twice served as governor of California so had definite leadership experience for better or worse. Trump isn’t half as intelligent as was Reagan (and several of those other star politicians) and doesn’t have a wife like Nancy who was also smart, savvy and actively involved.
I believe this third type of Trump voter comes from the ranks of the celebrity fan. They plainly are drawn to famous people and don’t much care whether the candidate has any education or experience in government -- or has demonstrated any useful talent other than athletics or theater, as if those were qualifications for running government. These citizens confuse popularity with ability and tend to believe they themselves -- without any background, political education or experience, could do a better job of governing than anyone in government today although they generally have a tough time articulating any coherent policy, but they project that certainty onto the celebrity candidate.
We keep hearing that Trump’s handlers are frustrated because he won’t stay “on message” and the Donald laughs this off. But face it, it appears to me that he’s right and the hired consultants totally misunderstand his appeal. I think Trump has stumbled into his strong suit: the performing political clown, the celebrity politician, the improv candidate. He’s a copycat Don Rickles, with a bit of W.C. Fields thrown in -- not that he’s especially good at this and wholly lacks the human touch of those two greats. These Trump supporters for the most part don’t care about his policy positions, but Trump has had just enough entertainment value to fill the occasional auditorium. As he ages, though, it seems increasingly difficult to listen to him blather, and recently even some of his loyalists have been seen getting up and leaving in the middle of his harangues.
This on-stage bravado after all is what transported him from a second-rate TV game show impresario to the national stage. Before that, this was his calling card in New York society: the rich real estate cutup, womanizing, stiffing his creditors right and left, blustering and yet somehow charming in a strange way at the society dinner table. This is why he was befriended by the likes of Morning Joe and Mika Brzezinski who sadly didn’t really take him seriously until it was too late. And this is what his fans love about him today.
Who then could possibly be an undecided voter this late in the game? Who are the people who don’t commit whom to vote for until they’re poised to pull a lever or check the box on a mail ballot? Maybe a small number from our group one subcategory, the Republicans with a conscience are hesitaters, but I sense that most of them have already committed to voting against Trump this year (or sadly will be sitting on their hands). Instead I believe the much larger number are in what I’ve arbitrarily labeled category three 2016 Trump voters, the celebrity camp followers. And I think the top Democratic strategists would do well to laser focus on bringing as many of these people over as can be moved.
For in many interesting ways Kamala too is herself a celebrity candidate, and that is driving a lot of her instant popularity even before she enunciates detailed policy positions. Many people are fascinated just by the fact that she’s a capable younger major party female candidate with intriguing heritage, a great stage presence (at least so far) and a ready laugh.
I sense two things could be fruitful for our campaign: First continue to attack Trump using the tools he himself reaches for instinctively. No, I don’t mean his racist or antisemitic tropes. I’m referring to mockery, humor, laughter -- the things that seem to knock him off his theme, the kind of stuff the Lincoln Project of disaffected Republicans is doing very well. (If you’re interested in some of their hilarious Trump needling, look at lincolnproject.us/) And maybe wrap up with a bit of kindness, with perhaps just a bit condescension. (“Poor Donald . . . .”) After all he’s the ultimate Potemkin celebrity.
This needs to be followed with a steady drumbeat focused on reminding people of Trump’s failures as president and as a human being. He’s no longer a fresh new renegade candidate like 2016; he’s an aged ((and would be the oldest president ever inaugurated at 78 years, 8 months; Joe was 78 years, 2 months in 2021), at least slightly demented and increasingly incoherent, outrageously narcissistic, habitual liar. He’s a loser, not only in 2020 but with almost all the followers he endorsed as replacement candidates in 2020 and 2022 congressional and gubernatorial races. After that message can come the policy formulations, which in my most humble opinion really don’t move the so-called undecided voter. I think these are the tools which might persuade our undecided friends. (I don’t personally have any of those, but perhaps you do).
Our biggest obstacle is that the vast majority of Americans have little if any grasp of economics. People generally don’t understand the correlation of prices and wages (which if fact have been rising faster), or that the administration has minimal control of prices or the rate of inflation in a capitalist economy. We cannot escape the fact that international forces have driven up the cost of oil, notwithstanding that under Joe Biden the U.S. is the world’s leading producer of crude. Interest rates are higher, but the trade off is that unemployment is at minimal natural levels. You just cannot address these issues in thirty second soundbites, and perhaps it is best we not try. To counter these attacks, we need to invoke the issue of trust -- and Donald Trump simply cannot be trusted. Not with the economy (the most rapid expansion of the national debt outside of World Wars was a product of his tax cuts for his cronies), not with our place in the international community or the climate, especially not with reproductive freedom. He can be depended upon to act cavalierly, irrationally, angrily, and always thinking only of numero uno. And he believes imposing tariffs which automatically add to the cost of goods is somehow a tax on other countries -- kind of like how he got Mexico to pay for the meager pieces of the wall he built.
Thus the debates, aside from providing a glimpse of policy positions, could not only be illuminating but also could help sway the few movable votes. After all, isn’t the debate another major superstar TV entertainment event?
Please comment. As always I’d be delighted to receive any feedback, including criticisms -- that’s what frank conversation should be all about -- and any suggestions for future discussions. The main point, however, is to encourage civil conversation between you and your friends on what I see as today’s important social and political issues. So please do invite one or two friends to join our slightly expanding circle and share the good word.
Arne Werchick, after fifty years as a litigation attorney, pro tem judge, law writer and lecturer, former Presiding Arbitrator of the State Bar of California, and past president of the California Trial Lawyers Association, moved to Hawaii and lives with his wife Ruth and their rescue dog Topaz. He can be contacted at liberalmind@werchick.com.
