DEMOCRATS SHOULD LIGHTEN UP -- TACTICALLY

Last month, The Atlantic's Sarah Fitzpatrick reported on the excessive drinking and general incompetence of FBI Director Kash Patel. Patel filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit, but Fitzpatrick and The Atlantic were undeterred. She now tells us this:

After my story appeared, I heard from people in Patel’s orbit and people he has met at public functions, who told me that it is not unusual for him to travel with a supply of personalized branded bourbon. The bottles bear the imprint of the Kentucky distillery Woodford Reserve, and are engraved with the words “KASH PATEL FBI DIRECTOR,” as well as a rendering of an FBI shield. Surrounding the shield is a band of text featuring Patel’s director title and his favored spelling of his first name: KA$H. An eagle holds the shield in its talons, along with the number 9, presumably a reference to Patel’s place in the history of FBI directors. In some cases, the 750-milliliter bottles bear Patel’s signature, with “#9” there as well. One such bottle popped up on an online auction site shortly after my story appeared, and The Atlantic later purchased it. (The person who sold it to us did not want to be named, but said that the bottle was a gift from Patel at an event in Las Vegas.)

This is not the most important story in America. Patel's conduct in office won't make any voter's list of top concerns.

I don't care. Democrats in D.C. and on the campaign trail shouldn't ignore this story in order to remain laser-focused on the economy, Iran, and/or Jeffrey Epstein. Democrats should talk about Patel's bizarre behavior as much as possible.

I wrote this last September, and I stand by it:

Many people on our side believe that Democrats need to have a narrow message focused on "kitchen-table issues," and think everything else is a "distraction." Or maybe they believe that everything is a distraction from the Epstein files. Whichever version they prefer, they agree on one thing: Democrats shouldn't talk about anything apart from a highly select group of issues.

That's ridiculous. Trump's messaging successes are proof that Americans can focus on multiple issues in the course of day. (Given what the internet has done to our attention spans, this was inevitable.) I think Democrats should focus on the important stuff -- but they should also focus on anything Trump does or says that makes him look ridiculous or that's wildly unpopular. Invading Greenland. The Gulf of America. That kind of thing. When Trump makes himself look like an idiot, Democrats should draw as much attention as possible to it.

This story makes the entire administration look ridiculous, along with the congressional Republicans who enable it. That's why Democrats should talk about Patel a lot.

Saul Alinsky would understand. His Rules for Radicals included Rule #5:

Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.

And Rule #6:

A good tactic is one your people enjoy.

In 2024, at least momentarily, the campaign of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz seemed to understand this. Walz was connecting with voters by calling Trump and other Republicans "weird." Then, as CNN reported, this happened:

Three weeks into her presidential run was the first time the Biden campaign's pollsters — now hers — held a deep-dive call with Kamala Harris' inner circle to discuss what she's been saying on the stump.

Over the line came a lot of praise, but also some suggested tweaks. First, said veteran Democratic numbers man Geoff Garin, summarizing their analysis, stop saying, "We're not going back." It wasn't focused enough on the future, he argued. Second, lay off all the "weird" talk — too negative.

As Jason Sattler noted:

The Harris campaign ultimately stuck with the “We're not going back” chant because they had no choice—her crowds wouldn't stop chanting it. But “weird” was gone.

"Weird" was gone, the campaign tried to get "serious" and issue-oriented -- and Harris and Walz lost.

When was the last time a Democratic officeholder or candidate made you laugh? Among the centrists, Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are dour. So are Jon Ossoff and Pete Buttigieg. On the left, AOC is often intense and serious. So is Graham Platner. Democrats do a lot of scowling.

The exception is Gavin Newsom, or at least his social media feed. Newsom's online presence has been the source of a lot of laughter -- and it propelled him to a lead in many polls of the 2028 Democratic presidential contest, despite the qualms many voters have about him.

Republican humor is infantile, bigoted, and mean -- but it connects with a portion of the electorate. No one in the GOP ever says, "Don't post that meme! It will make our party look unserious!" They just post away. Trump has been doing it for years and years, and he won two elections and came close to an Electoral College win in his other election. Voters can handle a few jokes.

Democrats should ridicule Patel mercilessly. They should ridicule Trump's building and redecorating obsession. They should ridicule Pete Hegseth's Kid Rock obsession. They shouldn't leave all this to the late-night comics. They should revive "weird" and make voters see them as the normal ones. (And the funny ones -- people like someone who can make them laugh, and Democrats often struggle with likability.) Democrats can do this and talk about the affordability crisis.