Continuing this from the thread in !chapotraphouse@hexbear.net Have the Democrats finally hit on a good messaging strategy in calling Trump "weird?"
Original Post by @Philosoraptor@hexbear.net
Inspired by this post and the fact that I'm seeing a lot of regular libs start to coverage on "these guys are weird little freaks" as a messaging policy, which really seems to be bringing out the
in the far right. It's working much better for them than all of Biden's attempts to portray Trump as some kind of existential threat to
.
This is interesting, and only surprising in the sense that it is surprising to see the Democrats do something kind of effective for once. Fascists thrive on being seen as cool, powerful, and dangerous; those aesthetics are central to the brand. Every time Biden gave a big speech about how the future of democracy was on the line in the election, it played into that aesthetic. Every time CNN calls January 6 a "coup attempt," it plays into that aesthetic.
Calling these people weird little freaks with weird dumb ideas and weird creepy fixations does not play into that aesthetic. It breaks the illusion that all the freaks at the RNC wearing bandages on their ears are actually normal and represent normal people. They aren't, and they don't. This is yet another thing that the left has known for some time now, but that libs seem to maybe be catching on to: taking these idiots seriously empowers them. Actually realizing that and using it is one of the smarter things that the Dems have done in a while.
Guys, nobody has won jack shit as of right now
I merely find it interesting from a rhetorical and optics perspective. It's clear that, over the last few election cycles, the constant drum beat of "everything is on the line!! Fascists are at the doors!!", has had dramatically diminishing effects on the electorates enthusiasm and engagement. Coupled with a walking corps for a candidate, it makes for a very detached and doomerist state of mind.
This shift in tone and approach has, I think, awoken the democrats base, and re-engaged them. The Obama comparison that some are making is apt, in that this shift in tone is not one of dire straights and defeating fascism, but one that is closer to Obama's "Hope" message, while not directly invoking the word. It converts the kind of, historical, powerful, and frightening rhetoric about "Defeating Fascism and Saving Democracy", wrapped in all the western heroism central to the story of WW2 and the first resounding "Defeat of Fascism", and replaces it with party vibes and mocking the antisocial elements at the "party". This tone shift is clearly resonating with people, like it or not.
It makes me wonder about rhetoric, optics, tone, and messaging for leftist issues. I think naturally, topics of genocide and exploitation and the conditions there of should be tackled with a serious tone. However, on the topic of wage labor, wealth accumulation, contradictions within capitalism, the failure of western representative democracy, and so on, have the collective left effectively done a similar thing with the way it propagandizes these topics. Has the propaganda become so doomerist or so aggravated that it disengages people? Is there a way to propagandize these topics in a way that feels hopeful?
I can imagine someone might read this and wonder "What, we should call people who think the homeless should literally be mass murdered 'weirdos', like that's going to fucking work?" No, I'm not advocating for co-opting this "playbook", but instead, to look at the way in which this change in tone and rhetoric has made an impact on the democrat's base, and see if there is a true relationship here between the past rhetoric, the current rhetoric, and the shift in engagement, or if it is actually just superficial. If this relation is real, how can we recognize if the left has "exhausted" people who might otherwise be engaged with the kind of agitated propaganda we produce, and how might shift that agitation to recapture those people who are disengaged.
Tone and rhetoric are fair to analyze but I’m just saying we’re basing our conclusions on zero results whatsoever. It’s premature, and I can only imagine the response to this when Republicans swedp the elections.
I wouldn't say there are "zero results". You can measure engagement in a lot of ways. The amount of money raised through donations was over $126 million in 72 hours. According to their campaign, 64% of that money came from new donors. In the first 48 hours after Biden dropped out, more than 38,500 people registered to vote, according to Vote.org. Which is pretty close to the previous single day record last September on National Voter Registration Day, when Taylor Swift (of all people) encouraged people to register. By the Friday after he dropped out, the number of registered voters was over 100,000. Voters under 35 make up nearly 85% of the new voters registering on vote.org, and 18-year-olds make up 18%. Since 2020 this demographic was shrinking in the voter pool.
So yes, while there has not been a vote yet, these indicators are ones that show an energized base. One that was shrinking with younger voters, who had become disengaged with the current political landscape.
This aligns with some comments I had made around the time Biden had dropped out. People had become so disengaged due to the state of the election, and the state of world affairs, that they were searching for any amount of change. They turned out for the uncommitted vote, as a kind of last chance to force the issue, and when Biden dropped out it signaled their efforts were successful. I believe that there will be no referendum on the policies of Biden, especially our involvement with Israel, because, for most libs, they were doing the only thing they could to change the slate.
Even with their best intentions, I think Libs are going to hitch a ride on this change and not look back. The change in tone from Democrats only solidifies this idea in the minds of the Libs. They not only see the dramatic change with Biden dropping out, but they HEAR that change through the change in tone and rhetoric. They are locked in now, and will not be convinced to pressure for more change, because that threatens this new stability.
Democrats need to convince voters that who is in office has no effect on inflation or cost of living. There's no magic "raise prices" button.... but are Dems smart enough to message this way?
I definitely think there is a time and place for serious tone. But there is, to borrow the term, something incredibly weird going on within Zionist brains. And it’s okay to say so.