OK, I’m beginning to understand why Kamala Harris’ first presidential campaign was a complete and utter failure. I still don’t understand why President Biden felt it qualified her to be vice president, but that’s another topic for another day.

If there’s any recurring theme from American politics for the past decade, it’s that Biden’s judgment is always in doubt. Never bet anything on Biden’s judgment. It’s not about his age; it doesn’t matter if he’s 25 or 85. He’s just really, really good at being wrong about a lot of things, and the sad fact is that selecting Harris is just the latest example of this.

Somehow, in less than a month from Biden dropping out to Harris becoming the replacement – without a single voter in the country having a say in it, by the way – we’ve gone from “Republicans are a threat to American democracy” to “these guys are weird.”

Really? Weird? That’s the best you can come up with?

Look, I’ve established over the years that I’m no big fan of Donald Trump, and I’m not a fan of JD Vance, either. I completely disagree with both of them on any number of issues, from Ukraine to free trade to fiscal policy. But where did the Democrats’ sudden pivot to “weird” come from?

Well, from Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota.

It seems as if Walz is a good guy. I’m sure, if I were less conservative, I could vote for him. Without getting into the specifics of his tenure, because that’s not the point here, it doesn’t seem as if he’s done anything particularly notable – good or bad – as governor that should have gotten him onto a national ticket.

The real issue here isn’t him, or his record, but his message framing, which was apparently the biggest factor in his selection as Harris’ running mate. He manages to put a pretty decent spin on many of their policies, and when he speaks, he makes it clear that when he says “weird,” he’s referring to the Republican ticket of Donald Trump and JD Vance – not ordinary everyday Republicans. It’s a nice finesse and one that seems to deftly avoid the trap into which Hillary Clinton fell in in 2016 (when she labeled Trump and all of his supporters “deplorables”). It’s a good theory, but will it really ultimately make any difference?

Well, probably not. For one, other Democrats will inevitably screw it up and fail to understand the context. They’ll just keep using the “weird” line without making the distinction. If they do, it will just reduce them to the role of Clinton and her basket of deplorables, making the campaign not just about the candidate, but about his supporters. That will only serve to reinforce Trump’s supporters into his corner without making any noticeable progress. Moreover, so many of Trump’s supporters so strongly identify with him personally that they’re not likely to see the nuance; they’ll view it as an attack on themselves, no matter how it’s phrased.

For another, it’s not particularly clear that the “weird” argument carries any weight at all. Sure, Trump and Vance may be weird, but so are a lot of Americans. We all have different hobbies, interests and viewpoints; I agree with much of what Trump and Vance say, but not all of it.

If Democrats really want to counter Trump and Vance, they have to do it on the issues, not on personalities or “threats to democracy.” The “weird” label may seem new, but it’s really a reiteration of old messaging, and it’s another in the long line of personal attacks that unfortunately define this era of American politics. If Democrats want to win this election, they have to defend their record, and they have no way to do that – no matter who their candidates are.

Weird isn’t a pejorative, and it’s unlikely to have much currency as a criticism. If that’s Walz’s big contribution to the ticket, he doesn’t really bring anything at all.

Jim Fossel, a conservative activist from Gardiner, worked for Sen. Susan Collins. He can be contacted at:
jwfossel@gmail.com
Twitter: @jimfossel