“People have the wildest relations to politicians,” my colleague Jude Russo writes, “Tim Walz is the dad I wanted! Donald Trump is like my uncle who drinks two Yuenglings at Thanksgiving and starts having opinions about Mexicans! Momala! I don’t think that’s particularly normal or healthy, especially in a notional republic.”
He is, of course, correct. Ergo the repeated attempt for generations through every possible means to change the very character of this republic, towards a much simpler, persuadable mass-democracy. True and functioning republics need a republican-minded citizenry, rationalism and skepticism from the guardians of society, and a senatorial class that keeps public passions in check and refuses to give in to the volatility of the times. It is difficult to achieve that perfect blend in an era of a media servile to one side of the electoral spectrum, a powerful and ideological bureaucracy often opposed to the other side, and a section of hyper-emotional, often gullible masses who prefer celebrity to cerebral personalities.
Watching the DNC has been eye-opening in that regard, and if this cycle does not doom-pill (to use the linguistic habits of the zoomers) one about democracy, I am not sure what might. The forced and contrived “Joy” is in a sense a pastiche of the 2008 “Hope” campaign—except the original had a gifted advocate in Barack Obama. This one doesn’t. No matter. Armed as they are with informational near-hegemony, I am not sure the Democrats need originality, or, for that matter, policy. The pieces will fall into place.
A few quick observations are in order. Social media (Twitter, now X) is abuzz with the question on why the Democrats do not talk about or debate policy. It’s a moot point. They don’t need to when they can sell a vibe campaign—Joy and Hope against the Trumpian “Fear.” Vibe is all that matters in a democracy, and book eight of Plato’s Republic is vindicated with regard to public opinion and desire.
The simple point of this election cycle is this. Most governmental systems can be divided into a battle of competing elites. Most true leaders of both sides understand that the majority of the people unfortunately do not care much about debate and policy. The American Founders understood that the masses are susceptible to rhetorical flourish (and therefore the nation needed conditions for a good republican citizenry). That remains true. Most people, on both sides, but especially on the side of those who believe progress is the determining principle of history, frankly don’t care about policy.
It is futile to ask why Tim Walz lies about everything, from IVF to crime to war records. It is also futile to ask why Kamala Harris doesn’t talk to the media, and when she does, she proposes decades-old failed policies to little scrutiny. It is futile to point out the hypocrisies of your rival. It is futile to elaborate on why liberals seek familial figures as their leaders, and how they arrived at such an emotionally sorry state. The sad reality is that none of that matters much.
In the recent few major campaigns, a theme is visible. A campaign succeeds when the literary practice of “show, don’t tell” is changed to “make them feel, don’t tell” for our hypervisual age. Nigel Farage managed to do that during the Brexit campaign, with billboards of hundreds and thousands of military-aged African and Arab men crossing over to Europe with the catchy slogan “Take Back Control” (i.e. of the borders). That resonated with the masses. Boris Johnson’s Christmas “Enough” ad was another such successful campaign. Trump’s own 2016 campaign was similar.
This time won’t be any different. There’s no point in talking about Kamala Harris’s failed policies. Talking about the policies per se doesn’t matter to the people, who only appear to perceive the results of those policies. Instead of explaining that Kamala was the border czar, it is easier to just show the effects of the border invasion, from crimes, to rapes, to disorder on the streets. A picture of Tim Walz and the Minnesota riots will be far more powerful than a thousand nuanced explanations of his policies.
This election is a giant social science experiment. Unlike natural scientists, social scientists do not get to conduct controlled experiments, but only distill the result from uncontrolled ones. This is one such opportunity, where a lot of questions will be answered. If, despite every falsehood, incompetence, totalitarianism, complete corruption of a controlled media environment and total illiberalism in the primaries, the Democrats manage to elevate Kamala Harris as the leader of the U.S., then it is, as they say, well and truly over.
It will be the greatest blackpill about the chances of electoral democracy in this country, and intelligent thinkers will have to accept that the Democrats have managed to wrest the control of a great power by using public passions as a rhetorical tool, that frankly public opinion or federalism do not matter. The character of the republic will be defined in this election.
If, however, the Trump campaign succeeds to balance vibe with vibe, doubling down on the vibe of “Fear” and “Despondency” over a contrived and media-amplified “Joy,” and proceeds to win the election—then it will be proven that Machiavelli was timeless in his understanding of human nature.
Either way, unless the Republicans can manage to instill message discipline and balance vibe with vibe, talking about policies will only get them so far.
The post The Politics of a ‘Vibe’ Campaign appeared first on The American Conservative.
