Too much money spent on too many insults

Former President Donald Trump has a narrow lead in most polls in a tight race for the White House, but he is far and away the leader in handing out personal insults. This guy tosses out crude nicknames, offensive language and outlandish statements like shark hunters toss out stinky chunks of fish meat to attract their catch.

It’s called “chumming,” but there is nothing chummy about U.S. presidential politics. And the “catch” is voters.

Trump has a massive mental thesaurus of insulting names for his political opponents, a strategy he has relied on for his three presidential campaigns. He is good at it, if good is measured by making headlines and raising money. Sadly, his campaign style is pulling others into the mud.

Democrats have latched onto calling Trump, his running mate Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance and members of his team “weird” and “creepy” — which sounds more like a Halloween movie promo than thoughtful political discourse. Weird tells voters nothing that can help them decide on the issues; it tells them nothing other than stapling a catchy, negative word to an opponent.

But let’s give credit where it’s due: Trump is the gold medalist at tossing around insulting nicknames and crude insults of his opponents.

He has said of his Democrat opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris: “She happens to be a really low IQ individual.” No evidence, no basis in fact, just his insulting opinion. And that is mild compared to his assertion that she is a “lunatic,” and a “crazy” one at that. “The stakes are too great to let a dummy play pretend president,” he adds, as if he’s a soda jerk heaping more whipped cream with a cherry atop a banana split of personal attacks.

Sticking with the theme that evidence does not matter, Trump has alleged that “40 or 50 million illegal aliens” will enter the United States if Harris wins. Again reaching for the sundae toppings, he whips up the crowd with his rant that U.S. suburbs will be overrun with “savage foreign gangs.” He likes to call migrants “bad people” and “animals,” evoking racism.

He tones it down a bit when he insults allies of President Joe Biden. They are only “thugs,”

not animals or savages.

It appears that factual, thoughtful discussion of the issues is missing from U.S. elections. Too many candidates pledge lower taxes or even no taxes, cheaper gasoline and heating fuel, punishing tariffs on imported goods that Americans buy but magically no increase in costs to consumers, less expensive health care and education, all without driving up the federal deficit. Impossible, sure, but what does that matter in a campaign.

But what’s grossly offensive is that the presidential campaigns and their supporting cast of political committees are on track to spend close to $20 billion in advertising this election cycle. That doesn’t count consulting, junk mail, polling, staff and lots of silly hats and buttons and T-shirts.

That’s about as much as the U.S. government spends in a year on Head Start and child care for low-income families.

It’s more than enough to buy a new nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, with billions left over for new fighter jets.

It’s close to what the government spends on opioid addiction treatment and prevention.

Just think what $20 billion could do, yet Americans are donating to campaigns to hear insults. To resort to name calling, I guess that makes voters the chumps.

 

Reader Comments(0)

 
 
Rendered 12/20/2024 22:36