From “Existential Threat” to Merely “Weird” – BCB #114

Plus: click here to have a video call across political difference, and how to dissent effectively

Over the last two weeks we’ve been flooded with commentary calling Republicans “weird,” spawning both a multitude of memes and thousands of think pieces in traditional media.

Why has this new line of Blue rhetoric taken off? We’ve heard two plausible theories. First, Americans are very tired of being told that voting the wrong way is an existential threat to the country. Second, being “normal” is a deep part of the conservative identity.

We couldn’t find any polling data showing how voters are responding to this language, but there’s no question the media took it up, and it forced Trump, Vance, and other Republicans to respond.

Data from Mediacloud shows that “weird” started appearing with “Republican” or “GOP” in late July, with a peak on August 6, when Walz used the “weird” rhetoric in his first speech as Kamala Harris’ running mate. On that day, 1,455 news articles from national U.S. media outlets used the terms.

Over the same time period, far fewer articles called Republicans “fascist” or “authoritarian” or an “existential threat.”

Number of times “Republican” or “GOP” were mentioned in national media each day along with a) black line: “existential threat” or “fascist” or “dictator” or “authoritarian” vs. b) red line: “weird.” (Source)

In the midst of relentless warnings about the end of democracy as we know it, this simple insult is an almost shocking change of pace. Even if you genuinely believe that Trump is a threat to democracy, that doesn’t mean that shouting ever louder is going to change anyone’s mind. As a recent Associated Press article suggests, the novelty of calling Republicans merely “weird” may be precisely why it’s catching on:

The simple terminology of labeling the other side as “weird” or “odd” is not revolutionary or sophisticated in American politics but represents a new framing for Democrats who have spent the last eight years trying to defeat Trump and Trumpism by personifying him as the greatest threat to democracy.

Americans are certainly more tired of politics than ever, to the point where they are tuning out — once you call the other side an existential threat to the country there’s nowhere else to go. (Both sides have described the other this way, which is unfortunately a normal and unhealthy part of conflict escalation.) Perhaps “weird” works because it’s somehow refreshing. It may be dumb name-calling, but it’s a little bit closer to normal politics. In its own way, it’s de-escalatory.

Meanwhile, “weird” gets under Republicans’ skin (like this and this and this). Being “normal” seems to be a deep part of conservative identity—liberals are the weird ones, with their nontraditional choices. That may be why “weird” has successfully provoked Trump and Vance.

In a recent CNN interview, Vance said he thinks the insult drives home how Democrats “are trying to distract from their own policy failures”:

They’re name-calling instead of actually telling the American people how they’re going to make their lives better. I think that’s weird … but look, they can call me whatever they want to.

Trump responded as well, in a recent speech at a rally in Montana:

We’re not weird, we’re very solid people. We want to have strong borders, we want to have good elections, we want to have low interest rates, we want to be able to buy a house, we want great education ... I think we’re the opposite of weird – they're weird.

Ok, but what’s wrong with being weird? We live in a culture where inspirational posters promise that difference is greatness, and a thousand self-help books encourage us to be our unique authentic selves. Author Julia Serano compares it to being called “queer”:

I think it has to do with the MAGA worldview being centered on them being the supposed norm. They are heavily invested in the notion that their perspective and lifestyle is the one true and righteous way that all others must follow. Calling them “weird” upends this worldview.

In this sense, the word “weird” is like the word “queer.” These words are not pejoratives if you are comfortable with the fact that you fall outside the norm. But if you call or insinuate that a straight person is “queer,” they will sometimes flip the fuck out. Those who freak out tend to be the ones who believe that straightness is the one true and righteous way that all people must follow. I think “weird” is evoking a similar visceral reaction here.

Tips for being heard during disagreement

Knowing how to dissent effectively and productively is crucial. But how do you speak out without facing the repercussions of negative judgment, rejection and social persecution? Psychologist Todd Kashdan has a few useful tips for how to dissent effectively as a minority within a group:

Demonstrate how your work has benefitted the team. No humility. Detail evidence on why you are a loyal group member.

Pass the group threat test. Clarify how your message is not something to view as a personal threat.

Be creative with your consistency. Be brave and disciplined in sticking to the same message. Just be sure to zoom in and out with the message to avoid lulling audiences to sleep.

Lean on objective information. Behavioral evidence is more valuable than subjective impressions. Label which category you are detailing.

Address obstacles and risks. Be your own critic and elaborate on where doubt and uncertainty exists.

Encourage collaboration. Understand the background and motives of audience members and invite them in as co-creators with plenty of opportunity for credit.

Get support. Understand the central ingredients of friendships and alliances. Ask for whatever will be of benefit whether it is advice, emotional care, or access to social, physical, and financial resources. Relinquish the myth of the lone creator. Appreciate how much your close friends want to help you, just as you would want to be there for them.

Click here to have a call with someone different

The Unify America Challenge connects people with someone different from them, to help people “bust out of their bubbles, build civic muscles, and work together to tackle our country’s biggest challenges” one video call at a time.

Participants start off by taking a survey that asks about their ideology, rural/urban location, identity, and their hopes for the future of our democracy. Based on these answers, each person is paired with a partner for a video conversation, where they are guided through questions and are encouraged to “get into productive but respectful disagreement” and “find common ground.” Participants are encouraged to talk about goals for the country around issues like healthcare, immigration, the economy, education, criminal justice, and more.

The system tries to match folks who are political opposites, but sometimes pairs people who are more politically aligned but differ across lines of identity or geography. The goal, of course, is to build bridges:

Something very special happens when you hop on a video call with another American who you’d simply never meet in your daily life. When we’re with our “tribe,” we bond. We hit “like.” We re-tweet. But when we’re outside our bubble... we bridge. It’s a cool experience.

Viv W., a participant from Texas, said the challenge was a unique and valuable experience:

Never before have I had such an in-depth conversation about my beliefs, let alone with a complete stranger. It's an experience that I think everyone deserves to have and should have.

Quote of the Week

For scholars of authoritarianism, the success of “weird” is no surprise. That’s because humor has long been one of the most effective weapons of anti-authoritarian politics. Behind the facade of their omnipotence, most strongmen are brittle and insecure personalities. They don’t mind being called evil, but being ridiculed is a different matter.

— Ruth Ben-Ghiat