Many Things, Not “Weird”

There’s a great deal to like about the Kamala Harris/Tim Walz phenomenon. I, like many millions, feel guarded optimism, not the chronic despair that preceded Biden’s abdication.

But there is a dimension to the enthusiasm that is slightly troubling, particularly on this first day of school for my 4th grade grandson.

Sparked by Walz’s seemingly off-the-cuff comment about the other guy and his acolytes, “weird” has become the cutesy campaign theme. This has grown old already, and is the antithesis of Michelle Obama’s suggestion that “when they go low, we go high.” Harris, Walz and their campaign surrogates would do well to heed this advice.

My allusion to the first day of 4th grade is to remind that children absorb political rhetoric, even if lacking sophisticated context. Hearing leaders name-call is unhelpful at a time when bullying is sadly common and often deeply hurtful.

The good folks at MSNBC and elsewhere  relish the use of “weird,” partially because it seems to have gotten under the Trump/Vance skin. This is no triumph, as getting under Donald’s skin is a trivial task. His skin is so thin as to be translucent. Many folks also justify its constant use by citing the vile torrent of bullying that characterizes Trump’s rhetoric. Tit for tat. Gooses and ganders.

But in politics as in schools, the flimsiest rationale for childish taunts is to offer, “He started it!”

He did indeed, but “when they go . . .”

There is added reason to object based on semantics. “Weird” is simply the wrong word as it is a descriptor that doesn’t really apply.  A dictionary definition of “weird” offers: “suggesting something supernatural; uncanny.” Trump and minions are neither supernatural nor uncanny. In the context of school, “weird” is often used to characterize children who are different, non-conforming, shy or unusual in affect or appearance. Suffice it to say that such name-calling can be deeply hurtful. The school version is often “weirdo,” and it’s not a compliment.

Somewhat ironically, Trump et al are the antithesis of “weird.” They are conformists and braggarts who ridicule “difference.” To the extent that “weird” can be seen as positive – and it can be – the eccentricity and originality associated with “weird” are utterly absent in the MAGAverse. So for that reason too, we should refrain.

People who are called “weird” are usually the marginalized. Trump and his supporters are the marginalizers, not the marginalized.

It is not as though accurate descriptors are in short supply. Trump is inarguably dishonest, crude, sociopathic, narcissistic, vain, lazy, mean, amoral and ignorant – just to offer a few. He can accurately be called a felon, a sexual assaulter, a fraud, a fraudster, a serial liar, a racist, a misogynist and more. Characterizing him in any of these ways is not only fair game, but necessary. These are not playground taunts. They are supported by the public record.

Vance is also not “weird.” He can properly be called opportunistic, mean-spirited, inconsistent, smug and dishonest too, although his dishonesty pales in comparison to the liar-in-chief. (Returning to semantics, I concede that some of his ideas are mighty strange – cat ladies, votes for kids, etc. But even here, the word “weird” is misapplied.)

The flip side of Harris/Walz has no downside. They are emphasizing “joy” at a time when we all need some. Turning laughter and smiles into political assets is brilliant. Although I hope Walz might turn his enthusiasm down from 11 to 9.5, it sure beats the scowls and apocalyptic tone of the MAGA campaign.

It was clever for a minute, but enough with the “weird.” Use accurate characterizations and don’t succumb to the temptation. It should be beneath candidates and a campaign that have so much to work with.

I’m not terribly worried about 4th graders calling classmates “misogynists, felons, fraudulent, treasonous, racist (unless they are!), narcissistic, or sociopathic.”

Remember, “When they go low, we go to the truth.”