- Sep 13, 2002
- 97,790
- 203,831
- 113
This is a well-written article by the guy who founded the conservative publication The Weekly Standard:
Before Kamala Harris’s convention speech fades into the mists of history, I want briefly to discuss one passage:
But why even mention the fact that Trump is an unserious man? Because I think the Harris campaign understands that it’s precisely Trump’s unseriousness—his showmanship, his buffoonery, his shtick—that can make it hard to appreciate just how dangerous he is. So somehow one has to stipulate Trump’s apparent unseriousness in order to get to his dangerousness.
After all, it’s Trump’s unseriousness as an individual that gives some people an excuse to overlook his danger as a political figure: I don’t like the tweets either, but . . . or I wish he’d stop with the personal attacks, of course, but . . .
The “buts” come easier for Trump-adjacent voters if they’re allowed to think the problem is Trump the individual, rather than Trumpism as an extreme political movement seeking to win and exercise power.
After all, if Trump were merely not serious enough to be president, that would be bad. Indeed, we shouldn’t elect such a person. But, in that circumstance, the consequences could be manageable. The guardrails can hold against such an individual.
But a movement seeking to deprive us of freedoms, eager to divide the country, willing to foster chaos and an insurrection, hostile to the institutions of liberal democracy at home and the liberal world order abroad—that’s a danger of another order.
So it will be important for Harris to continue over the next ten weeks the work she began in her acceptance speech: Explaining what an administration staffed by Trump appointees could do to the rule of law; what Trump judges could do to our personal freedoms; what the real effects of Trump economic policies on national prosperity and Trump foreign policies on world peace would be.
In other words, the election should be about the consequences of a Trump second term, not merely the distasteful prospect of having Trump the person sitting in the White House again.
The Democratic convention began that work. The Never Trump Republicans, and the less partisan Democrats like Leon Panetta, particularly focused on the dangers of a Trump second term.
The good news is that voters already seem to sense the dangers of Trumpism.
James Carville argued a few months ago that Democrats “should run against MAGA and not Trump. Because MAGA is less popular than Trump.” Carville cited a poll showing MAGA with a 24 percent approval rating; Trump’s approval rating at the time was around 42 percent. Carville’s point was that the public seems to dislike Trumpism, the Trumpist movement, more than they dislike Trump.
Similarly, many observers have been struck by how much Heritage’s Project 2025 resonates as an issue with the public as something to be worried about. The public seems to fear the Trumpist agenda more than they fear Trump personally.
The public is ready to be persuaded about the danger of Trumpism. But Harris will have to spend much of her time making the case for herself. Which means the burden will be on other individuals and groups to make the case against Trumpism.
Trump is not a serious man. But the threat of a Trumpist movement with a Trumpist agenda is serious. And so the task now isn’t merely to belittle Trump. It’s to make clear the dangers of Trumpism as well.
|
The Most Important Line at the DNC
Before Kamala Harris’s convention speech fades into the mists of history, I want briefly to discuss one passage:
Harris didn’t dwell on the first point at all—that Trump is an unserious man. She did spend a fair amount of time discussing the very serious consequences of putting Trump back in the White House.
But why even mention the fact that Trump is an unserious man? Because I think the Harris campaign understands that it’s precisely Trump’s unseriousness—his showmanship, his buffoonery, his shtick—that can make it hard to appreciate just how dangerous he is. So somehow one has to stipulate Trump’s apparent unseriousness in order to get to his dangerousness.
After all, it’s Trump’s unseriousness as an individual that gives some people an excuse to overlook his danger as a political figure: I don’t like the tweets either, but . . . or I wish he’d stop with the personal attacks, of course, but . . .
The “buts” come easier for Trump-adjacent voters if they’re allowed to think the problem is Trump the individual, rather than Trumpism as an extreme political movement seeking to win and exercise power.
After all, if Trump were merely not serious enough to be president, that would be bad. Indeed, we shouldn’t elect such a person. But, in that circumstance, the consequences could be manageable. The guardrails can hold against such an individual.
But a movement seeking to deprive us of freedoms, eager to divide the country, willing to foster chaos and an insurrection, hostile to the institutions of liberal democracy at home and the liberal world order abroad—that’s a danger of another order.
So it will be important for Harris to continue over the next ten weeks the work she began in her acceptance speech: Explaining what an administration staffed by Trump appointees could do to the rule of law; what Trump judges could do to our personal freedoms; what the real effects of Trump economic policies on national prosperity and Trump foreign policies on world peace would be.
In other words, the election should be about the consequences of a Trump second term, not merely the distasteful prospect of having Trump the person sitting in the White House again.
The Democratic convention began that work. The Never Trump Republicans, and the less partisan Democrats like Leon Panetta, particularly focused on the dangers of a Trump second term.
The good news is that voters already seem to sense the dangers of Trumpism.
James Carville argued a few months ago that Democrats “should run against MAGA and not Trump. Because MAGA is less popular than Trump.” Carville cited a poll showing MAGA with a 24 percent approval rating; Trump’s approval rating at the time was around 42 percent. Carville’s point was that the public seems to dislike Trumpism, the Trumpist movement, more than they dislike Trump.
Similarly, many observers have been struck by how much Heritage’s Project 2025 resonates as an issue with the public as something to be worried about. The public seems to fear the Trumpist agenda more than they fear Trump personally.
The public is ready to be persuaded about the danger of Trumpism. But Harris will have to spend much of her time making the case for herself. Which means the burden will be on other individuals and groups to make the case against Trumpism.
Trump is not a serious man. But the threat of a Trumpist movement with a Trumpist agenda is serious. And so the task now isn’t merely to belittle Trump. It’s to make clear the dangers of Trumpism as well.
