The Weirdening
A slogan that seem to be sticking.
So, I think it largely started here (now sure if it is the first instance, however):
And then better defined here:
It has clearly taken off and gotten into the political bloodstream. And while I try not to be a vibes guy, I will confess it does seem to be more effective, at least in the short term, than phrases like “existential threat to democracy.”
But the real evidence that it is having an effect is right here:
Two things strike me. First, it is getting under his skin, which is a tactical mistake on his part. Second, doing a version of “Oh yeah? You’re the weird one!” is not exactly an awesome retort.
Bonus clip:
Of course, a main reason the attack line is working is that Trump and Vance are weird.
See, also, The Atlantic: What’s Genuinely Weird About the Online Right.
I think you mean it is a mistake on Trump’s part (as phrased it is ambiguous a bit).
I think this works because unlike “threat to democracy” or most of the usual Democrat’s attacks on Trump, it’s ordinary Joe language – not egghead intellectual or college educated dorm-room phrasing and intellectual concern-mongering or overly abstract (this to avoid the habitual misreading amongst the LEfties here is not a statement indicating such concerns are misplaced or unfounded, it is that they don’t land home outside of the already convinced audiences) – the kind of thing Trump normally uses to great effect against this opponents.
It’s been amazing how much difference a generational shift has made, in terms of Democratic messaging. The Silent Generation/Baby Boomers are operating from a playbook where the other side is operating in good faith, and everyone is moving toward the same goals, but have differences in approach. When you could have a drink with members from the other side.
And Kamala’s team has actually been paying attention for the past two decades, witnessed bad faith attack after bad faith attack, breach of norms after breach of norms (yes, I know, they started it and so on), “when they go low, we go high,” and has decided to respond in kind. There are still actual policy proposals, but there’s also just pointing out what everyone sees. Everyone could see Joe Biden was old, and that for some reason became a focus. Well, everyone can see that Trump is also old, a pathological narcissist, a convicted felon and rapist, but for some reason, those things weren’t really talked about as much. And now the Harris campaign is putting out press releases that contain lines like “Are you OK, Donald?” I don’t know if it will make a difference, but it’s nice that the Democratic nominee is at least willing to stop pretending that the other side is normal and operating in good faith, and that if we just keep extending our hands, the fever will break.
And of course there’s JD Vance’s strange attraction to couches, which, yes, probably isn’t real, but that doesn’t matter, because he acts like someone who is strangely attracted to furniture. And as someone said, “Who is this clown?” is an incredibly effective insult, because it says that your opponent is a clown, but not even one of the good clowns. The Republican Party has be off in some sort of manufactured reality of their own for at least a decade, and it’s time to stop pretending otherwise.
“Weird” works because it communicates dismissiveness, which is infuriating and hard to rebut.
You’ll get no argument from me on that. And anytime anyone has to spend time explaining something in politics, things have already gone wrong for them.
What’s also really important about this line of attack is that, so far, it’s been exclusively been directed at candidates and campaign leaders versus voters. That makes it much more powerful, in so much it’s “punching up” (or at the very least “across”).
Its a far better approach than making comments about MAGA/Trump voters (see “guns and religion” or “deplorable”).
@Kevin: Bankrupt “generations” based analysis is really not at all of any utility – why Americans remain so wedded to such marketing just-so tales rather escapes (it is not as if the staff of these campaigns as one can easily see are all of one generation).
@Lounsbury: I have clarified, as I take the point about the ambiguous phrasing. Thanks.
@Matt Bernius: That is an excellent point.
It’s a social media accusation orchestrated to keep the young college-credentialed women from migrating to Trump/Vance. One of the media Borg who jumped on this actually said “you wouldn’t want to eat with them” in a throw to lunch table politics of middle school.
But J.D. Vance is “weird” in today’s America. Imagine joining the Marine Corps as a grunt. Imagine marrying and having children in this day and age. That’s so weird.
Exercise of freedom of thought is so weird to those deeply ensconced in the Urban Mono-Culture. And worse yet, J.D. Vance has actually changed his mind since leaving law school. Who does that?
As for Trump, well to paraphrase Barbara Mandrell, he was weird when weird wasn’t cool.
Labeling Trump and Vance “weird” does not negate the other bad stuff (authoritarianism, misogynism, etc.). I mean if you look at history, would you call young Adolph “normal”?
It’s asymmetric warfare. Humor as a weapon. And conservatives are no good at humor.
@Lounsbury:
Democrats defied expectations, flipped the Senate, and one had the best midterms ever for a party facing economic headwinds after Biden made the 2022 election a referendum on the MAGA threat to freedom and democracy, a tack the pundit class wrongly said would not work.
And Democrats have been running ahead of their polling and winning elections all over the country ever since 2022 — despite the, dare I say it, rather weird notion that Democratic messaging on democracy isn’t working.
2022 exit polling had the “threat to democracy” running right behind inflation as the top voter concern.
@Matt Bernius:
Obama said this during the 2008 primary, then went on to win that primary and the 2008 general election, and get re-elected.
Conversely, there’s no evidence yet that Democrats correctly identifying Trump and his running mate as creepy weirdos will bear any electoral fruit. But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t tell the truth.
It’s also true that Trump-Vance are an existential threat to democracy, and that Trumpers are deplorable af. Truth hurts. Truth-telling works, long term.
@JKB:
Just curious, since you keep bringing this up, are you married with kids?
And out of fair play: I have been married 34 years, and have three children (one of whom is recently married himself, and another who is engaged).
And for the record, Vance’s weirdness is not his martial, parental, of veteran statuses. It is in his embrace of a number of out-of-the-mainstream ideas.
@JKB:
Some might say that your obsession with “young college-credentialed women”–in the last 7-sh days you’ve blamed them for men’s failure to find partners AND suggested that they are also apparently committing Mai Lai level crimes against humanity by protesting AND also called them harridans in general–is…
wait for it…
weird.
Seriously, if this isn’t an act, you really should consider some type of emotional/mental health support as it feels like you are really working through something and not making much progress. Speaking from personal experience, getting help is incredibly impactful.
Also:
This is really not the win Trump supporters thing it is. Amazingly, in English, the same word can have different meanings depending on context.
For the record: I’m married (for almost 20 years) and we don’t have kids (in part because a history of genetic diseases on one side of the family and passing the window where adopting was a viable option). Also I have two brothers, both of whom are more to the right than me–both are married to college-credentialed women and both have children. So they apparently are doing something wrong according to… people.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Additionally, and I haven’t had a chance to write on it yet, it’s also his *weird* obsessions with vindictive framing of policies.
Theoretically, he should embrace Biden/Harris policies like extending the Child Tax Credit as those are designed to help families with children. The CTC extension had passed the House without much issue. Sadly that extension died this year in… wait for it… the Senate (which he has some control over).
However, instead of pushing “carrot” policies, his usual drum beat is punishing people who don’t have children. I mean he says he isn’t interested in punishing families that tried to conceive but couldn’t–that’s might magnanimous of him–but there’s no way to enshrine that type of exception in policy. Beyond that, using the Tax Code to punish seems somewhat contra to the broader anti-IRS enforcement vibe that the Republicans have been running on for a while.
Paul Ryan remains the most normal Republican VP pick in the last 30 years. But when you look at the pics of the photo shoot of Paul Ryan in the gym [esp. the one of him doing a one-arm bicep curl] – he’s making some stupid humor face like he wants to be on the cover of Mad Magazine…. because he can’t help himself because these guys are familyblogging weird. Never forget, of course, that Ryan’s “anti-poverty” policy assertions were just anti-people-living-in-poverty.
But Republicans are weird… because they really are unaware that their beliefs are absolutely out-of-touch with normal citizens. When you’re ready to laugh.. watch this for the ad.
It’s only funny, of course, until you realize Republicans actually believe this. I can’t begin to comprehend focusing on the genital pleasure experienced by other people, but that’s just one of many reasons I don’t fit in with Republicans.
Trump’s tweet clearly shows he hasn’t got many replies different from ‘No, you’re the puppet!’
I grew up poor in the midwest, went into the military, got married and had kids. That all seems pretty normal to me. It’s the stuff after that. What kind of person actually takes on someone like Yarvin and Thiel as their gurus? It’s one thing to say our country has problems but to decide that the way to do that is to do away with democracy and establish a CEO/czar/king to fix everything is just weird. How would that work? (OK, just to answer my own question probably like having a Putin.) Anyway, a lot of those Silicon Valley rich guys who seem to think their wealth also makes them philosopher kings seem pretty weird to me.
Is it weird that he totally reverses himself on so much he says in a short period of time? Maybe not, maybe he is just Lindsey Graham 2.0. Is it weird that he pretends to care about the working class while promoting policy that will mostly benefit the rich, while he is also a private equity guy? I think that’s just the perfect Republican. Is it weird the he is so invested in creating a theocracy? Maybe a bit, but hard to tell if it’s real or just pandering to the right wing base. Pretty clear he will say anything if it will help him move up the financial/power ladder.
Steve
I hadn’t thought about the “punching up/across” aspect, but @Matt Bernius, that’s a very good point.
I think there are a number of reasons this has gained traction. First, it’s accurate. There’s just no trying to explain away support for government accessing period trackers (Vance) or Trump saying that Melania’s reaction to him being shot at means she “likes or maybe loves” him. Second, it’s dismissive. Third, it’s less overwrought than the (entirely accurate) “threat to democracy” claims. Fourth, everyone’s a bit weird. The GOP, in recent years, has gone all-in on “othering” people. They think–for some reason–that they are indicative of what is the American norm, which is both arrogant and wrong.
I’m a tiny bit irked that this got buried in WaPo’s Style section, because I think Monica Hesse is onto something here:
@JKB:
Yeah, it’s being labeled as weird that is making Trump and Vance unappealing to college educated women. Excuse me while I try to unroll my eyes.
BTW, if you are going to try and unweird Vance, try to explain why he thinks childessness is a sign of sociopathy and then apply that thinking to, say, Dolly Parton, Oprah, Marisa Tomei, Keanu Reeves, etc. Or maybe people more in that sphere: Angela Merkel, Shinzo Abe, Emanuel Macron, Theresa May, Julia Gillard, Park Geun-hye. Note: most are women which provides the undertone to Vance’s comment – he doesn’t think women should be in politics (or anything else that requires them to be out of the kitchen).
@JKB:
One of your issues is that you don’t see women as actual people.
Why aren’t these bitches voting to restrict their own reproductive rights/willing to fuck me? It must be because they fell for some middle school bullshit! (Like the childish, irrational creatures that they are.)
That’s a weird attitude man.
I tell you what, you write up an explainer of how Vance is “weird” for thinking differently than Left-side of the spectrum social media masses. And I’ll keep pointing out that Democrats think he’s weird for being a Marine, marrying and having multiple children. We’ll see which sticks.
And I never married, nor had children. Not sure why that matters. Orphans are outside observers to the conformity of most to expectations.
@Matt Bernius:
I never blamed “young college-credentialed woman” for men’s difficulty in finding a partner. Quite the opposite, it is these women who have difficulty finding a partner as long as they maintain the historical pattern of women seeking a partner who is better educated and higher salaried than they are.
The modern value of marriage is only if you want children. And that mostly is to keep the religious nuts from calling them bastards to their face. Yes, some marry and children are not produced for whatever reason, remaining married is then a preference. But if children are not the goal of the marriage, there really isn’t a good reason to marry. All aspects of a “companionate” marriage are available to men and women without financial entanglements of marriage.
@Pylon: Or George Washington and James Madison.
Weird is good. But I think to win this election, they need to hit bread-and-butter issues hard. Specifically:
1) Crime spiked under Trump and fell under Biden
2) We had a temporary inflation, caused by the pandemic, but it’s now back under control without crashing the economy
3) Trump blocked a bill that would have addressed the immigration problem
I saw a really good ad they ran on (3). Harris has flip-flopped on the issue but this was a good solid hit that I think will do more to move votes than “weird”.
I might have gone with, ‘creepy’, rather than weird, but weird works. It’s a frame, a neat little box in which we can stuff all their crazy. Like any good frame it defines what matters, and excludes what we don’t want to pay attention to. Framing – usually via nicknames – has been a Trump superpower. He just got a big dose of his own medicine.
In war one side always accuses the other side of tactics too low-down and evil for the good guys to sink to. Those evil, evil Japanese and their ‘sneak attack’ killed civilians at Pearl Harbor! Why, we would never. . . If you want to win you do what works.
@drj:
Actually, I was pointing out that the meme is targeted at what has reportedly been one of Biden’s, now Harris’ strongest constituencies. It seems “weird” to have to spend the effort to shore up base support.
I don’t see “weird” bringing in many of the working people migrating to Trump back to Democrats.
@JKB:
Have you just discovered American politics? Both parties have always had to shore up their bases. It’s Job #1 in any political campaign. Granted, it’s different when the ‘party’ is nothing but a cult of personality, but cults in American politics are of course, weird.
I’ve been saying for years that the GOP has gotten weird. Look at the words and actions of the gun nuts, the religious nuts, and the neonazi nuts, among others. Christmas cards from members of Congress showing dozens of guns? Handmaid’s Tale hopefuls? They are basically now the base, and they are weird. I’ve just assumed that most normal people aren’t informed enough to see it, because they’re not on social media, don’t watch CPAC, etc. But it’s front and center now, and there’s little normalcy to balance it. (And I haven’t even mentioned the obvious weirdness that is Trump and his people.)
For the record, I’ve been married 36 years (Take that Steven!) and have two children (You got me there). Also, I have engaged in activities, such as tabletop roleplaying, that get one labelled as “weird”. So I’m not thrilled with the label any more than some of the gay/trans commenters are.
Given how much interaction I’ve had with people who have mental illness, I’m not really all that comfortable with labelling that “weird”, either.
I mean, I’m with Steven Stills in “let your freak flag fly”.
But I’m kind of ok with calling out the inherent panty-sniffing in a lot of these positions. I am quite clear that Tim Waltz is not talking about D&D or gay people. And yeah, it’s much more “street”.
It’s not so much that they’re weird. It’s that Trump and the sycophants he surrounds himself with are Weird As F**k. Miller, Bannon, his adult sons and their wives, Vance, Thiel… etc. Not just weird. WAF!
@JKB: “And I’ll keep pointing out that Democrats think he’s weird for being a Marine, marrying and having multiple children. ”
And while you’re at it, why don’t you try pointing out one single Democrat who has called him weird for being a Marine, marrying, or having multiple children. If you think for one second, you might realize this also describes a lot of Democratic heroes. Like, you know, Mayor Pete. (Okay, Navy, but the point remains…)
If you want to counter Democratic accusations that JD is weird, you’ve got to fight against their actual reasoning. Vance is weird because he wants to use the power of the state to punish anyone who makes life choices different from the ones he’s made, and to entirely remake society into a fertility cult where sex is only allowed for reproduction and women exist only to reproduce.
@Hal_10000: “Harris has flip-flopped on the issue but this was a good solid hit that I think will do more to move votes than “weird”.”
But it’s not “weird” vs. issues. It’s all of the above.
@Matt Bernius:
You’re limiting yourself by only considering income taxes.
A large tax on contraceptives would work, perhaps earmarked for funding school vouchers. It would miss the incels, but they are a key Republican demographic so that would probably be a “good” thing. It would also miss normal people who just aren’t getting any.
Push to ensure that PrEP isn’t covered by health insurance, and you can get a lot of the gays, with a side effect of increasing HIV.
Depending on whether or not they want to punish old people for having recreational sex, they could go after the various viagras and viagra-like medicines.
Plus, as a sales tax, this scheme would take a disproportionately higher percentage of income from the poor.
See? Totally doable. If they can get their caucus in line to not just try to ban contraceptives all together.
@JKB:
Okay, I’ll play. Here’s a starter pack of things Vance has said or advocated that are, in fact, weird:
JD Vance supports menstrual surveillance.
He’s made statements that staying in an abusive marriage is preferable to divorce (included in that same link).
He’s advocated for allocating additional votes to households with children, thus penalizing households without children.
He further penalizes households without children by floating an idea that provides parents of children with a lower tax rate than households without.
And, the cat ladies comment.
I do not know of ONE Democrat who thinks he’s weird for having been a Marine, or married, or having kids. NOT ONE. If you’re going to make a claim like that, you’d best bring receipts, and by that I mean including the quote, naming the Democrat, and including an actual LINK to the place it was published.
I’m weird and happy to wear that descriptor. My wife (of 45 years) and my two kids are also weird. As Steven pointed out in the OP, letting people get under your skin is a mistake. Sticks and stones and all that. The reason ‘weird’ hurts the MAGAts is that they’re insisting they’re normal when they quite clearly are not. If Trump were smart he’d have quickly adopted the word. He’ll probably still try, but if he doesn’t do it right away it’ll be too late.
@JKB:
That’s one and the same with blaming women for men not having partners. You do realize that most women would have men as partners, right? It’s not really “uppity women are just hurting themselves” as you pretend.
Also, bisexuality in women is more common than in men, and woman-woman relationships always have someone making more than the other, so this probably hurts the men more.
I recommend those men try to make themselves more appealing to women. Actual women, not just the fantasy of what men think women want. There’s a reason all the Right Wing Dating platforms have very few women on them.
@Michael Reynolds:
Indeed, to be clear, I am weird six ways from Sunday, not the least of which being someone who has written a political blog for 21 years. That’s fuckin’ weird.
Likewise, as a former resident, I want to “Keep Austin Weird” and have frequently bemoaned the fact Troy, AL lacks adequate weirdness.
Further, I have often told my colleagues, and I quote myself, “we are the weirdos who liked to study and went on to do what only about 2% of the population did” which is definitionally weird.
But, of course, weird is a multifaceted term, and clearly Trump and Vance are not enjoying its deployment in their direction.
It resonates for a reason.
@JKB:
I ask because the general topic has been a bit of a mono-mania for you of late.
I would never, in any way, disparage your life circumstances, as I understand we all have our own pathways. endure our own circumstances, and make our own choices.
And not to sound snarky, because isn’t my intention, you might try that when you look at the lives of others.
@Michael Reynolds: That brings up a good point that I had not mentioned. There is good weird and there is bad weird. As you said, “creepy” might be a better word for the latter, and it’s not used as a compliment by most people.
Trump may try to latch on to the word, but if he does, it’ll be clumsy and at odds with reality. I can certainly see the base adopting it, sort of like “deplorables” and wearing ear-diapers, but if anything it’ll just add to the creepiness for most people.
To the people worrying about the term “weird:” it obviously doesn’t include gays and D&D anymore. (The 1980s are long past.)
Rather, it’s about unhealthy obsessions with other people’s genitalia, wearing fake diapers to express support for your favorite political candidate, hoarding gold, or worrying about the preferred footwear of green M&Ms.
@Jay L Gischer:
Think of it in the same was as Chutzpah. Both have different meanings.
One meaning of chutzpah is audacity. The other is shamelessness.
So, one meaning of weird is “odd and out of the ordinary.” the other is “bizarre and disturbing.” Convicted Felon and Vance fit the second meaning so well.
@JKB:
OMG, @JKB, you’re in the news:
You could get together with your boy Ludwig.
@Jen:
Doesn’t this already happen with the tax deduction for dependents? And the Democrats want to crate a child tax credit. All normal stuff. A tax credit is better, of course, as it helps those who need it most.
It’s the suggestion of some carve out for those who are trying to conceive that is weird.
Wait, did you say “tax rate” as in a decreased marginal tax rate for people with children, rather than just a lower effective rate because of tax deductions and credits? So wealthy families kids will get way more of a benefit? Is that the proposal? Oh, that JD is such a scamp!
@Steven L. Taylor:
Oh, Professor, I don’t think you’ll have any trouble convincing us. You write here, and take abuse here, all for free.
@JKB:
It provides some context for your lived understanding of dating and marriage. It helps provide contexts about potential biases.
We are at an impass on this one. I still contend that (a) this is making assumptions about women’s views without any actual data and (b) by placing all responsibility on women you are effectively blaming them for the flip side formulation.
If you seriously believe this is the case, that tells us far more about your biases (and lack of imagination) than it does about why people get married. Which returns us to that lived/living experience point.
It also again makes me feel pretty bad for you and the way you have grown to think about relationships.
And yet in the real world people look beyond this type of emotionally and socially immature cost/benefit perspective and get married for reasons that matter to them.
Again, I feel really sorry for you that you see things this way. Having a more open perspective makes the world a much more welcoming place.
I’ve already made my views known about this line of attack, but in summary: I didn’t really get it, but am fine with anything that works. Several posters enlightened me as to how they thought it worked, and judging by Trump’s pathetic response: yup, you’re right.
That said, all this comes down to: who is this supposed to sway, and does it work for them? I don’t have an answer for that, because I couldn’t be swayed to vote for Trump even if I had had to vote for a zombie Biden.
Politicians are often awkward, and are often made fun of for it. Al Gore kissing Tipper, for example. Dukakis with a helmet. Howard’s scream. Was this actually affecting anybody’s vote? Again, I don’t know.
But Vance definitely has some backwards-ass ideas that are out of the mainstream. Only those in a tight little echo chamber think that this country wants to go the Christian nationalist route.
And Trump was indeed always weird, but never the good weird like Austin. His hairdo wasn’t something people wanted to copy, his creepiness was nothing to be proud of.
Also, my bona fides which are apparently required in this thread: I was married and divorced because my ex-wife came out as gay. But we had three children before she was gay (that’s meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but there’s also some serious discussion around that subject).
And, for all of the “but I’m weird and that’s a good thing” folks, YES. Exactly. We’re all weird, every single one of us. But the GOP doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge this and in fact has centered their entire brand on “we’re normal and they aren’t.”
That’s precisely why this appears to be landing. If your entire campaign shtick revolves around, as the excerpt above points to “a return to Pleasantville,” popping that bubble by pointing out that their ideas are creepy-weird is jarring.
Also, FWIW, I am a life long member of the “weird” club.
@Lounsbury: Bankrupt “generations” based analysis is really not at all of any utility – why Americans remain so wedded to such marketing just-so tales rather escapes (it is not as if the staff of these campaigns as one can easily see are all of one generation).
I don’t think generations are useless, but I’ll agree they’re overused. That said, I understand that most of the people in the Biden/Harris campaign moved over to the Harris/? campaign, but the change in tone that happened when the person at the top changed has been amazing. Maybe there’s someone of Biden’s age who would be open for snark, sarcasm, and Simpsons references, but I really do think Kamala being 30 years younger is a large part of that.
@Franklin:
I meant to focus on this, but got side-tracked. So in another thread, one commenter, maybe Stormy Dragon, brought up the fact that we using weird could backfire with people who were traditionally made fun of for looking different or wearing unusual clothes. Somebody else replied something like, “we’re not making fun of Vance for wearing eye-liner, we’re making fun of him for seemingly being the type of guy that would make fun of people for wearing eye-liner.” Okay, you and I understand that, and maybe we can go to even deeper levels, but where are the fence-sitters at?
I remember being a young dumbass libertarian from a white town being exposed to SNL for one of the first times. I couldn’t believe they were using black stereotypes in this one sketch!!! I didn’t immediately get that they were *making fun of* stereotypes, it honestly had to be explained to me. So I think it’s reasonable to ask if we are reaching the intended audience.
@Gustopher: It was actually a call for a higher tax rate on people who don’t have kids.
To add to my previous list of weirdness from JD, there’s this:
How TF is he going to parse who doesn’t have kids because they don’t want them, and who doesn’t have kids for medical reasons?
There’s only one way to do that, and it’s called turning your medical records over. THAT’S WEIRD.
@Franklin:
From what I understand, most people are like you. There are some amount of persuadable voters, but they’re by definition low information voters. This election is going to come down to turnout. The goal is motivating your side to vote, and motivating the other side to stay home. And “weird” absolutely does both. As does pointing out the hypocrisy. Kamala suddenly looks like she’s having fun; Biden never did.
And to respond to your other question/point, about maybe using “weird” as a description might be off-putting to the weird demographic, that’s unlikely. Drag queens know they’re weird. Goths know they’re weird. Punks know they’re weird. And on and on. They’ve deliberately set themselves apart from everyone else by adopting the clothes/behavior they do. They don’t want to be like everyone else. “Weird” isn’t an insult to them.
JD Vance is weird in the way someone who read _Atlas Shrugged_ when they were 15 and never recovered is weird. He believes that he’s representing a silent majority, that it’s normal to want to send your sperm to Mars, that lots of people are worried that being trans is a communicable disease, and that everyone looks down on those without children. But it isn’t, and they don’t. It’s weird to care so much about other people’s genitals. And it really bothers him when you point that out.
And Donald Trump is weird in the way that someone who’s never had to face consequences, and never been told “no,” is weird. Calling him that reminds people to actually look at the man, and ask yourself if you’d be comfortable inviting him into your house, let alone leading anything of import. And it tells him that most people aren’t taken by his schtick, and don’t respect him in the slightest. “A hobo’s version of a rich man,” to quote John Mulaney.
A lot of exuberance over this seemingly successful branding. Noteworthy and understandable. I do wonder how long before we move on to the next thing. Perhaps we don’t.
@Franklin: asked a good question: “Who is this supposed to sway?”
Relatedly, I’ve been wondering whether all the discussion of this branding attempt (too soon to call it a success?) will be its undoing. Is it better (more effective) to just do the thing as opposed to talking about how you’re doing the thing while also doing the thing?
My initial thought was that it’s better to just do it — ie, that talking about doing it was neutral at best and more likely to be harmful.
And then I reminded myself of open label placebos, which have been shown to “work.” So perhaps this doing vs. talking issue isn’t really a problem.
And then I reminded myself that, although open label placebos can work, there isn’t any data showing that they work better than traditional (ie, deceptive) placebos.
As such, following the precautionary principle, if one is seeking maximum effectiveness of the “weirdening” branding, I would suggest they stop talking about doing it and stick to the just doing it part.
And I realize that talking about it provides the fun. So we’ll likely continue with that.
@JKB: For Portland, my recollection is that the slogan backfired some.
@Matt Bernius: The objection to Child Tax Credit schemes on the “R” side has always been that they reward “bad” parents. “Bad” in this case being a dog whistle for another b-word that also has a short “a” sound. No contradiction at all, just an updated dog whistle.
I was listening to the Mike Smerconish Tuesday 7/30 show, and he asserted that the “weird” attack on Trump, Vance, and other prominent Republican figures would backfire on the Dems by infuriating rank & file GOP voters to turn out in higher numbers. Basically, stop name-calling Republicans or they’ll get mad and turn out en masse to vote. Also, it will turn independent and on-the-fence voters to Trump. The assertion is as silly as it is moot.
First, GOP voters are going to turn out anyway; nothing has changed that Trump base voter dynamic. Second, there are no “independent” or “on-the-fence” voters. I say this because I hear two arguments from so-called independents and fence sitters. One argument is, “I’m a Republican/Independent and I’ll NEVER vote for Trump.”
These are the Never-Trumpers and ‘16 & ‘20 Trump voters who’ve had enough, particularly after the Jan 6th attempt to overturn the election. The other argument I hear, now that Biden dropped out and Harris is the presumptive nominee is, “The Dem name-calling is pushing me to vote for Trump.” That is utter bullshyt. Anyone making such a claim, that they WERE going to vote Dem but now are leaning toward Trump, was going to vote for Trump, in any case.
The more ironic feature of the “don’t upset Republicans’ feelings” argument is this: Aren’t they the “Fuck Your Feelings” crowd? So, their tender delicates are to be spared the harsh realities, but the rest of us have to silently endure their nastiness? GTFOHWTBS.
This is just my welfare two-cent analysis. Like I said last week, I’m finding my opinions on politics are as full of shyt as everyone else’s.
@Mimai:
Heh. Agreed, but here we are in this thread (not that this is the first discussion of it!)
@Franklin:
I’m not talking about it, you’re talking about it!! 😉
Fortunately, no one is listening… to that thing that is not being talked about.
@Kathy:
Yeah, there is letting your freak flag fly, and there is deeply beliveing in freaky, weird shit. They are two different things.
@Kevin:
My biggest fear with regard to this story about Vance is that it will ruin my appreciation for Edward Gorey’s The Curious Sofa.
@DeD: There are some attacks that can backfire – and some phrases will play badly – the “deplorables” (although not of course intended as public) reeked of Lefty academic elite snootiness and broad brush…
Weird does not have that – it is the person specific. That is a nice play.
It is not wrong to avoid being seen attacking socio-economic demographic fractions that you can shave off some percentage points on – in your Swing States any small pick-ups in labouring classes would be an outright boon.
But weird does not play that way, intuitively. On first seeing it my own reaction was “well played, finally not academe infused archness” (it also has the positively Trumpian ‘have it both ways’ play in a way perhaps Creepy might not).
@Franklin:
It is plausibly a play at crystalisation for the Free Float voters – a narrow percent of course – of discomfort with the creepiness of Trump & Vance without having to swallow the otherwise heavily intello-eggheaded critiques of the Lefty urbane bourgeousie, the arch ‘threat to democracy” [yes true enough but everyone turnaable on that is already sold on that].
Added that Ms Harris seems indeed (from some clips watching done, and clips are the Sales pitch) to be giving a nice bouyant very American peppiness, not hectoring hair-shirtism or uni-dorm-room activist feel that the US Lefties rather tend to give impression of to non-base audiences.
I do rather hope this continues
@Hal_10000:
… and the Republicans insisted we needed to push 5 million people out of work to tame it.
@Jen:
Folks, if you have to explain what is weird about JD Vance to someone who is already familiar with him, forget it. Either he’s incapable of seeing it, or he’s just trolling.
(I’ve stopped trying to decide which is worse — actually adhering to Republican ‘values’, or only pretending to but voting for them anyway…)
@DeD: “I was listening to the Mike Smerconish”
One unexpected side benefit of this whole “weird” thing is that it’s really allowing some of our most clueless “moderate” pundits to out themselves as hopelessly unaware of the world post-1980. First the Great Bore of the NYT, Thomas Friedman, now yet another self-appointed spokesman for the working class, Smerconish. Always wrong but never in doubt, these two.
@Michael Reynolds:
1. Trump is not smart. At all.
2. Even if he wanted to, he couldn’t. He has no sense of humor and is physically incapable of self-deprecation. He’s not a good enough actor to pretend, and not a good enough person to actually own it.
@Matt Bernius:
I’ve long had a theory that conservatives see everything as a moral issue and their preferred solution for all moral issues is to punish whoever they see as guilty. Low birth rate? Punish the childless. Poverty? Punish the poor. Gaza? Kill Palestinians. Abortion? Make the Jezebel birth and raise the kid. Deficits? Cut bennies to the poor. It’s of a piece with punishing the victims. They’re suffering? They must be guilty.
@DrDaveT: Hey, man, he has a very big brain!
And have you heard about his uncle? He was a prof at MIT!
@Pylon: All things considered, Park Geun-hye might not be the best inclusion for this list. Just sayin’.
@gVOR10:
Indeed. They do tend to act as a collective Grand Inquisitor, don’t they?
@Steven L. Taylor:
I have mixed feelings about this. There is nothing wrong with having out-of-the-mainstream ideas, per se.
It becomes a problem when prominent people, particularly those elected to high office claim, or worse, act as if those ideas are held by the majority.
If the goal is good faith persuasion, then it is fine to hold some peculiar ideas.
I am not sure that Vance, like Trump, has any firm beliefs. I have said this about others. Hawley. A significant portion of media figures, in particular social media influencers. Kanye West. Hell, I sometimes wonder if this has always been true of Clarence Thomas. But those examples are not models of intellectual good faith.
Out-of-the-box ideas are good; by definition they are out-of-the-mainstream. They are necessary for a modern society. They are necessary for a democracy. They are necessary to improve the human condition.
But I hesitate to describe Moldbug or Thiel or Vance as people exploring out-of-the-box ideas considering much of the foundation of their beliefs are paradigms long ago put out to pasture for good reasons.
@gVOR10:
There is likely some of this. Just world hypothesis. Not new. It is only compatible with right wing politics. It is not necessarily compatible with all forms of conservatism, however.
@mattbernius:
Me too, bro. I’m a damn weirdo.
@Matt Bernius:
JV Vance is both weird and not ready for prime time, IMHO.
@just nutha:
Barn owls?
@Franklin:
Yes.
Particularly the Howard Dean scream, which was repeated literally hundreds of times on Fox, with claims that it was unhinged, until the rest of the press started covering the controversy with “some people are saying Howard Dean is unhinged.” His support collapsed.
Also, I would add one more to your list: Biden having a bad debate. Totally changed his image.
@Michael Reynolds: Creepy is too pejorative. On the other hand, you don’t seem to be one to shrink from pejoration.
@JKB:
Honest question here and I mean this, I’m trying to understand you. A little background, I did everything I was “supposed” to do. I graduated High School, I went to University and got a degree, I started to learn a trade (truck mechanic) and got into a different trade school (law) and graduated that with a JD. I am moderately successful at a career I love. I met a woman and we’ve been together for 17 years, married 15. I have two healthy wonderful children.
I did all of that while, 1. not understanding why I was being told that this was what I was “supposed to do”, 2. being unmedicated for severe ADHD, PTSD, and depression, and 3. deeply closeted. I am an American success story. So, I ask you, with honesty, good faith, and sincerity (and look, you probably have seen my normal writing style), why does my family not count? Why is my family afraid to live in this country if Trump/the GOP wins. I’ve done everything I was supposed to do, why do I have to live in terror? Because I’m different? is that it?
Second Question,
I am truly baffled as to why people on the Right/conservatives think that there is zero debate on the left about things or that there are some topics that the Left has reached a decision on and that further discussion is banned.
Cause that hasn’t been my experience at all. Seriously, is that a line that you’ve all had programmed into you from Fox?
@Jen:
I’ll proudly wear the label “weird”, but not creepy. JV Vance is creepy.
FWIW, college grad, business owner, married 43 years (in September) with three adult children. That’s not the weird part, but I’ve always tried to let my freak flag fly.
And yes, I am calling the Republican nominee apparent for VP JV, as he is not ready for prime time and should have stayed on the JV team.
@wr: I’m thinking that we should remember that JKB is a troll. Everything he says is nonsense.
Speaking of weird, is it just me or is Trump saying “Black” in a really weird way.
https://x.com/mkraju/status/1818714936979108309?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1818714936979108309%7Ctwgr%5E66272ef8ba2891296898ea11bb917c25daf3642c%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2F
Sorry for the crazy link, I hope it works.
Anyway, is this some weird dog whistle thing? “Blaaak” “BLaaaack” What the hell is he doing. It’s like he’s slowing down to remember a word he’s never heard before.
@Beth:
It’s not just you.
Pretending to not understand that people can be mixed-race in 2024 is weird. (To be clear, this is the bad, creepy, racist weird and not the good weird.)
@JKB:
@Beth: That…is something else.
Kamala Harris went to an historically Black university (Howard) and Trump is suggesting she’s…never before identified as Black?
WTAF??
@Michael Reynolds: This summarizes my feelings about this whole thread.
@Beth:
I’m gonna keep scrolling through, Beth, but I’m not gonna hold my breath waiting for JKB to answer your question…
“I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black and now she wants to be known as Black.”
— Donald Trump, in an interview at the National Association of Black Journalists convention, about Vice President Kamala Harris.
Kinda weird, isn’t this?
The world is weird. Not news at eleven.
Signed
The author of a dung beetle fiction book with 711 Amazon sales before January 1 2024
@Jay L Gischer:
I’m between you and Steven. Been married 35 years and have two children. They are both angels in heaven.
But do either of you have a cat named cat*?
*- Misay, the waray word for cat
@DeD:
Not gonna happen.
@JKB:
You may point that out, but I’ve not noticed many mainstream Dems calling out Vance for being “weird” on that basis.
Or even his advocacy of protectionist and anti-corporate policies; some actually agree, other seem think its likely economically wrong-headed and counter-productive. But not “weird”.
What shifts the weird-o-meter into the red zone are his summed views on women, his self obsession, and, above all, his playing political footsie with tech-bro neo-reactionaries whose creed might be summed as “
a republican autocracy, not a democracy”.@Bill Jempty:
You reference this book often. Your other books too. Unless I’ve missed it (very high probability), you don’t mention the titles. I’m keen to look into your books if you are willing to point me in the right direction. I can also appreciate that you may have reasons for not doing so.
Well, I think the former president has managed to move the conversation past “weird,” now that #WhenITurnedBlack is trending on X.
All this conversation about length of marriages reminds me of a friend of mine who was sitting with his second wife in some public place when another patron, commenting on how comfortable they looked together, asked them how long they had been married. He responded, “42 years all told, just not to each other.”
@DeD:
@CSK:
A girl can hope right? Seriously though, one thing I have HATED my entire life was this idea that there are certain things you are SUPPOSED TO DO! This country is organized in such a way that this is basically true; for Straight, White, neurotypical, non-disabled, cisgender people. Like there is enormous pressure to do those things. Graduate high school, go to college, get a job, get married, have kids, maybe do a stint in the military.
I have spent the vast majority of my life trying to figure that out and figure out why it’s so hard for me. I have a very clear memory of going to a college fair with 3 friends. Two of them (who are now married to each other) were fighting with me and the other friend about what we were going to do and where to go to college. Finally one of them said that we “Have to play the Game” and I was like what are you talking about, what game, what are the rules. I had no idea, I couldn’t. The ADHD and PTSD and blew those parts of my brain out.
I have done all the things that JD Vance and JKB have said are expected of me, and it’s not good enough and will never be good enough. I would love an answer as to why that is.
@Bill Jempty: Nope, no cats. I have grandkitties, and I love when I get to see pictures of them, but not cats myself. The wife is allergic to cat dander, big time.
@Beth: Honestly, Beth, with that story (What game? What rules?) I start wondering if you are maybe a little bit spectrum. There are subtexts that some people pick up on that spectrum people usually don’t. I mean, maybe not, I’m not an expert. It just might be valuable to you to explore further.
@Jay L Gischer: The game of american society. I know exactly the game she’s talking about. That game is why I had to pretend to be someone I’m not for so long in my life. Otherwise beatings and potential death for not abiding by the rules of the game awaited me.
So which way do the Trumpies go with this? Are they going to go all in on trying to prove Kamala isn’t “Black” in the way they want her to be? Or are they going to claim he didn’t say that, or was joking?
Christ, he’s stolen the news cycle again. I swear I’m not going to follow this nonsense.
@JKB:..It’s a social media accusation orchestrated to keep the young college-credentialed women from migrating to Trump/Vance.
I would suggest that any woman who does not migrate to Trump knows that he wants to commit sexual assault on them.
@Kurtz:
Agreed, agreed, and agreed.
Perhaps I should have said being called weird for his ideas (and presentation). Not that being out of the mainstream is, per se, a bad thing.
I am hardly in the mainstream when it comes to political reform, for example.
@JKB:
I missed this earlier.
I have changed my mind on a number, some in public on this blog.
But these critiques are not about him changing his mind.
@Franklin:
The MAGAs are saying that Trump fearlessly speaks the truth about Harris.
@Bill Jempty: Two cats: Oscar and Felix. And two dogs: Jack and Bella.
@Jay L Gischer:
Thank you. I take it as a compliment, but I’m not. I’ve thought long and hard about that issue over the last couple of months. There’s a an overlap on markers* of Autism and ADHD. Add in a heaping helping of child abuse (mostly of the ignoring/inattentive type) and gender dysphoria and you get something that can look similar, but is not. If that makes sense.
Basically, I get all the social cues and instructions, but no one gave me the “how” on top of all the noise in my head from Dysphoria and ADHD. I was just kinda thrown to the wolves, but also the wolves were on fire and screaming at me.
@Franklin:
Maybe he stole it, but in doing so I’m guessing he pissed off a lot of Black people, especially Black Women and he did it in the weirdest, most off putting way as possible. “she’s not bLaaaak”. I wish I could capture how weird he says the word “Black” there. Like he’s saying something gross and foreign. Like, “Oh, tacos de leeeennguaaaaaaa”.
*I’m intentionally avoiding the word “symptoms” because I don’t think that’s correct or accurate.
Welp, Trump has done a beautiful job of reaching out to Black voters. It’s good all the way through.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I have been agnostic about using “weird.”
Your recent comment about Vance as one of the most cynical politicians you have seen is a better description, as I see it.
“Weird” is stickier. Requires less explanation. Vague enough that voters can imprint their own observations onto it.l rather than the other way around–it makes an individual feel participatory.
Plus, as apt as cynical may be, it can be implied in ad spots. It is easier to land it that way.
@Beth:
Oh, god, I just realized he is JD Vance, JD.
If I have to live with this, you all have to live with it.
@Steven L. Taylor: @Steven L. Taylor:
The Odd Couple. My wife as do I love the original television version. When growing up, I had a cat we clalled Felix but he was named for the cartoon cat.
We have a neighbor here with a dog named Bella.
Since moving to our current home, the wife or I have fed feral cats every morning. We have given them names. They include Nasty, Evie, Hobo, Tiger, Oreo, Yasim, Charcoal, and Tweety Bird.
@Kurtz: “weird” is soft, and invites the person who hears it to really look at something to decide if it’s weird, and whether it’s good weird or bad weird.
I think that ambiguity helps make it sticky in a way that something like “creepy” doesn’t.
@Beth:
You’re doing great given the hand you were dealt.
Also, the wolves may not have been screaming at you, they might have just been screaming because they were on fire. I feel bad for your metaphorical wolves. Look, the wolves are doing the best they can — they don’t mean to scream at you, they’re just screaming.
@Beth: I was diagnosed with ADD as a kid (back when they divided it into ADD and ADHD), but it wasn’t until adulthood that I got a spectrum diagnosis. The clinician suggested that my high verbal proficiency was why the schools never thought I had it. And the diagnostic criteria for ASD has changed since the ’80s and ’90s; a lot of adults on the spectrum I’ve run across were only diagnosed as adults. In any case, it gave me a pretty comprehensive picture of the problems I experienced as a kid, both in terms of my performance at school (where I struggled despite having above-average intelligence) and my being a “weird,” bullied kid who had a lot of trouble fitting in. It also makes sense of my specialized interests, and my passion for collecting facts and figures and numbers and spitting them out rapid-fire in a conversation (which y’all have definitely seen me do here, though it’s a little more “weird” in person than on an Internet forum).
I definitely agree there’s good weird and bad weird. Given my soft spot for weird people and my feeling that they’re often misunderstood, it’s gotten me in trouble before; my rule of thumb is that if I think someone is not merely weird but “off,” that’s usually a sign I should keep my distance.
@JKB: usually I just ignore your pseudo-intellectual gibberish, but stumbled over this:
It may come as a shock to you but many people marry because they love someone and would like to be united legally.
I could say more, but I realize that responding to the troll is a waste of my time, I just don’t care to have you in my head.
@Beth: Q 1: Ayup, fraid so.
Q 2: No idea whatsoever.
@Bobert: I meant to comment on that as well.
Should my wife and I divorce now that we have had our kids?
@Steven L. Taylor: Who names their dogs “Jack” and “Bella?” That’s just weird. 😉
@Bobert:
@Steven L. Taylor:
I have always found the suggestion that having children is the sole reason to marry annoying. Not just because I’m married without kids, but also I happen to adore those stories of widowers falling in love in nursing homes and getting married…I find it so uplifting that people continue to live and fall in love and commit–even (or maybe especially) when there isn’t much time left on the clock.
Reducing marriage to the production of offspring does marriage a disservice, IMHO.
@Steven L. Taylor:
@Jen:
Does anyone else recall going though this exact same idiocy, procreation being the sole basis for marriage, back when the fight for marriage equality was raging?
@JKB:
Well, certainly none that you would understand.
@Beth:
This. It’s like the way he says “ChYna”
@Erik:
I thought (or “heard”) he was saying Gyna ….. as in genecology
@just nutha: Jack came pre-named. And we felt like he didn’t need to deal with re-naming. Bella was my son’s dog (and I am not sure why the named her that—she was originally Lisa).
And that is more than you needed to know ! 😉
@Kathy: Yup. I do. I almost mentioned it, in fact and should have done so.
Instead of even attempting to stick the dismount from his comments about blackness, of course Trump doubled (tripled? Quadrupled?) down. He said on a radio interview that he should be the one to define who is Jewish – and who is not. In an entirely unexpected twist, Kamala’s husband is Jewish, yet Trump has decided for some reason that Kamala doesn’t like The Jews.
Epistemic closure is a familyblog, Republicans. Reap the whirlwind. Normal people think this is profoundly weird and offputting. Evil weird, not good weird. Creepy weird, not fun weird.
It’s weird to hold these beliefs inside your head. It’s batcrap crazy to articulate them in public.
Pass the popcorn.
@Beth: You know better than I do. Peace and love to you.
In other news, Kamala Harris is in no need of a bidet after a week of press reaction….