News & Publishing, Politics & Public Policy

A Tale of Two Presidential Campaigns

Way, way back in grad school, I studied rhetoric—the art of using words to persuade. Ever since I’ve been fascinated by politics and oration, which brings me to our Presidential race: Trump/Vance v. Harris/Walz.

There are clear policy differences between the two parties. We can vote on those according to our values and priorities. But what’s notably distinctive is the tone of the campaigns. 

One paints a picture of a dystopian America, a nation alone on the world stage, alliances be damned. Not just America First, but America Only. It’s a campaign based on grievances—personal grievances of the man at the top of the ticket, who spends his rallies disparaging people who don’t bend the knee in fealty or espouse his loosely held principles. It is a campaign that not only doesn’t extend a handshake to all Americans, it disparages them in cruel, incredible terms. It is a campaign that portrays too many Americans as “others,” to be feared, hated, prosecuted, persecuted, or worse. A campaign that describes the nation’s cities—our multicultural centers of commerce, technology and art—as hellscapes, and a campaign that reimagines the future of America in the regressive Project 2025. It’s a campaign replete with speeches pining for a dialing back to 2016, a dialing back on policy, on “settled” law, on rights, on innovation, on societal progress and intellectualism. It looks at humanity and showcases the worst of it. It is a campaign about retribution (Trump’s words). It is relentlessly angry. 

From Donald J. Trump’s Truth Social account, August 6, 2024
Vice Presidential candidate JD Vance is starting to mimic the culture-wars rhetoric of his running mate. Despite the thorough debunking of this claim days ago, this post still appears on Vance’s X.com page as of August 6, 2024.

By comparison, the other campaign strikes a tone that’s hopeful, aspirational, empathetic. You’ll find no “losers and suckers” admonishments in the deep cuts. It’s a campaign with a Presidential hopeful who is attacked—like so many women—for being accomplished and yet unapologetically happy. They call her “giggles” and “crazy” and “cackling” when she expresses joy.

Now, she has a running mate, who seems happy, too—not pollyannish about what ails our nation, but excited for the prospect of their proposed solutions to heal them.

Vice Presidential candidate Tim Walz expresses empathy for Minnesota’s families who are struggling to make ends meet — offering solutions not bluster.

And unlike the falsely masculine rhetoric coming from the other campaign, this VP doesn’t hide his softness, his compassion. He laughs, and not at others’ expense. Hours old, this campaign already feels lighter, forward-focused.

So many Americans are politically exhausted and parched. They’re looking for the water source in that dystopian desert. And if you think a message of hope, aspiration and joy doesn’t sell in the nasty news cycle-obsessed world of modern-day politics, I give you eight years of President Barack Obama as evidence people find it refreshing, resounding and winning. 

In the wake of Vice President Kamala Harris’s pick for a running mate, Governor Tim Walz, the Obamas weighed in on what Walz brings to the ticket, including “his ability to talk like a human being and treat everyone with decency and respect.”
Former President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama take their final flight on Marine One, as they fly over Washington, D.C. following the inauguration of President Donald J. Trump. Photo: G.A. Peck
News & Publishing, Politics & Public Policy

Consider the source

The Hunter Biden laptop story was so full of holes it’s hard to imagine why the NY Post — a tabloid — made an editorial decision to pick it up. This NY Times column explores why other outlets didn’t buy into it, including another Murdoch-owned paper, the non-tabloid WSJ.

It’s interesting to look at this from a 40,000-foot level and to study how news perpetuates in an economically disparate way. If you get your news largely from free sources or social media — or if you only watch Fox News and listen to freely accessible radio pundits — you likely don’t know the problems with the story and the diligence media outlets must use to determine its veracity. But if you’re a bit more well off — enough to afford a relatively expensive subscription to The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal, for example — you get the bigger picture, the more complete story, the truer version of events, and access to information that has been put through a meat grinder of editorial challenges and adjudication.