Naughty. Weird. Megan Democrats haven’t just redistributed the lead at the top of the ticket; they’re making a whole new pitch. Right-wing operatives, desperate to make silly selfies look like proof of—oh!— SocialismThose who try to claim that this new policy of joy (and sarcasm) is evidence of malicious intent are either part of the Republicans’ “every accusation is a confession” playbook or just plain sarcasm. Creating positive emotions is not only generally effective, but it is especially important in situations that may seem the most counterintuitive: confronting existing or potential authoritarian regimes, or, in other words, Republicans who are calling for “making America great again.”
Sami Gharbiyeh once said, “Humor is the first step to breaking taboos and fears. Making people laugh at serious things like dictatorship, repression, and censorship is the first weapon against those fears… Without overcoming fear, you can’t make any change.” The lure of the authoritarian is that he is the strongman, as Ruth Ben-Ghiat wisely writes. Like his peers, Donald Trump promises to fight the forces of chaos, to restore the “rightful” status of “real citizens” who have been usurped by “others” who don’t deserve it. In fact, he promises to elevate the nation as a whole onto the world stage, to make it “great again.” The audition tape for a potential dictator is that of an alpha male vying for the role of making things happen.
Making dictators look smaller and more invincible has been an integral part of defeating them in all sorts of places and times. Bugs Bunny and Charlie Chaplin made fun of Adolf Hitler. The Otpor movement, started by fifteen college students, brought down the Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic by making fun of him, at great risk.
Augusto Pinochet’s regime ended in part thanks to the rainbow. That was the slogan of the campaign to get Chileans to risk retribution from his regime, known for disappearing its critics, in order to vote to prevent him from running for another term. With the magic of the late 1980s, their anthem proclaimed, “Chile, happiness is coming.”
Political scientist Stephen Fish sums up the challenges liberal leaders face in dealing with such figures today: “Instead of projecting self-confidence and unconditional optimism about their countries’ future, liberals are troubled by the complexities of governance and social problems… They cherish standards of politeness and distrust aggressive, provocative language. As such, they generally adopt what I call a low-dominance political style.”
Fish goes on to praise the high-powered Democrats who are breaking the mold: Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), who has made an art of undermining her “Make America Great Again” House colleagues; Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer; and Speaker of the House Emeritus Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Kamala Harris enters this all-female pantheon.
The latest widely circulated press release from the Harris-Walz team deserves a thumbs up for successfully reducing the opposition to a manageable level. Announcing an upcoming Trump campaign stop, the statement reads: “Donald Trump will ramble and spread dangerous lies in public, but in a different home.” The statement goes on to remind readers who Trump is: “the loser of the 2020 election by 7 million votes.” Harris seems to be enjoying both the mockery of her opponent and the choreography of her supporters.
Harris-Waltz is no longer just Les Misérables; she’s taken us to Mamma Mia. Now Democratic activists, as well as voters who once disliked her, are loving the dancing queen. And it’s timely, because Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, who nominated her as his running mate, rightly declared: “I know I’m addressing a big, beautiful choir. But the practice is over, folks. The choir needs to sing.”
Beyond the ramblings, Biden’s campaign was largely serious. The pre-debate campaign rhetoric was peppered with policy achievements, plans for a second term, and reminders that “we are in a battle for the soul of America.” After the debate, the anti-Trump fires flared, but still, in public appearances, social media content, and alternative sentiments, Biden was running on appeal.
Sure, Brandon Darke popped up every now and then. But that, as my high school Spanish teacher might say, is proof that the exceptions confirm the rules. Had Biden’s primary persona been less sober, partisans wouldn’t have needed a stand-in to keep things amusing.
By contrast, Harris and her running mate Tim Walz are filled with memes—from coconut trees to Midwestern verses—and sarcastic comments. People are lining up in the summer heat to see the new production.
Political pundits have begun to criticize the Democrats for having fun with voters. Of course, that’s not how it’s expressed. They want her to prioritize media interviews and policy details. Washington Post “Twenty-four days ago, Vice President Kamala Harris pledged to campaign staff to work together to ‘take our case to the American people.’ Less than a month later, that case remains somewhat murky, at least in terms of policy—and that has become the main blow to Harris’s campaign.”
While it is perfectly reasonable to want anyone vying to run our country to tell us more about what lies ahead, the idea of consistent expression of policy is integral to electoral successAs recently claimed in The New York TimesThis deserves Harris’s famous laugh. American voters are known to be influenced by policy proposals; that’s largely why President Elizabeth Warren has been so successful.
But the long-held theory of the “median voter” in elections assumes that voters are rational actors who sit along a single ideological continuum with fixed preferences, unaffected by persuasion, in a fixed constituency where the same people participate every time. By this logic, candidates are better off positioning themselves in the “middle,” and thus closer to the largest number of voters. This idea has resurfaced under various names, such as “triangulation,” centrism, and, more recently, populism.
This latest amendment claims that the winning candidate should promote policy prescriptions that most people prefer and avoid, or at least not mention others. This certainly sounds like logical advice – support things people like and they will like you! But the idea that voters study policy positions to arrive at their preferences contradicts what we know about how humans make judgments and what it takes to actually get the message across. Unless the choir wants to sing its tune, people won’t hear the joyful noise and get off the couch to vote, much less spread the word to potential new converts.
As I’ve been advising campaigns for more than a decade, if you want people to join your party, throw a better party. People may say that their top election issue is “the economy” or whatever you phrase your question with. (Hint: Most people always choose this option.) But in reality, people can only tell us what they think. Economic concerns, of course, come first for most people; but evidence suggests that what voters say is at the top of their list of issues doesn’t actually affect their voting behavior.
Moreover, what really cuts through ordinary voters in elections is not detailed policy platforms. Elections consist of grand narratives – story lines that spell out precisely what harms the opponents are doing and give the protagonists – the voters – the power to choose the future they want. Although it doesn’t show up in the polls, most people want that future to be a good time.
Known for her unbridled laughter, Harris has campaigned on a politics of joy. Not because she doesn’t know the enemy she faces, one determined to take away our freedoms, hurt our families, and jeopardize our futures. But because she fully understands what it will take to defeat him.
Anat Shenker-Osorio is a political strategist and communications researcher for progressive campaigns.
