Tone down the personal rhetoric and amp up policy

After the assassination attempt on former President Trump, many of our leaders were calling for politicians to tone down the personal rhetoric to reduce the potential for more political violence.

Totally eliminating the combative language and imagery that has proven successful for many politicians is unrealistic. However, prioritizing policy discussions over personal attacks could reduce tensions and inform the public as to what they are voting for, and not just against.

Even the often fiery and rhetorical Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, alluded to the importance of emphasizing policy when he condemned the assassination attempt by saying “politics should be kind of boring.”

Boring maybe, but what if policy discussions could be infused with a similar emotional appeal as the personal attacks [Disclaimer: as a career health policy researcher, I have pined for a time when policy discussions might be seen as an exciting part of our political dialogue].

For this election, unlike any since Grover Cleveland vs. Benjamin Harrison in 1892, we have an evidence base for both candidates of the priorities and accomplishments of the first terms informing our perspective on the potential policies and actions during a second term.

We must remind ourselves that this is not a personality contest as if we were voting for high school class president. We are voting for an entire administration, from the secretary of defense to the secretary of agriculture. We are voting for people who must instantaneously respond to the events of the moment while developing aspirational policies for the future.

We should learn from Teddy Roosevelt’s improvised remarks as he stood with a bullet in his chest on a stage in Milwaukee in 1912 as he ran for a second non-consecutive term:

What if one or both of our current candidates followed this example and said they were going to lean into the success of their past policies and inspire us with new policies for the future instead of political name calling. They could say, “for the rest of this campaign, here are the policies we will emphasize in a second term to deal with our most challenging issues, in contrast to those of our opponent.”

For example:

• NATO engagement and the war in Ukraine – lean toward withdrawal and isolation vs. continued collaboration with allies;
• K-12 education – encourage privatization vs. supporting a public model;
• Health care access and affordability – continue expanding insurance coverage vs. decreasing support for the Affordable Care Act;
• Tax policy – across-the-board tax cuts vs. targeted cuts for those with low and middle incomes;
• Immigration reform — build a wall vs. comprehensive bipartisan reform;
• Affordable housing for people at virtually all income levels – does either party want to talk about this?
• Solvency for the Medicare and Social Security trust funds – OK, no one wants to touch these “third rails” during a campaign.

Both political parties can still speak to the identity politics of their base and emotionally inspire them by sharing how their policies will positively impact their constituent groups in a real way.

They could emphasize:

• How their education policies will impact families of color for decades to come;
• How their health care policies will impact the cost of health care for suburban white voters;
• How their foreign policies will affect trade and boost rural economies;
• How their immigration policy will positively affect the needs of the high tech sector, while at the same time, providing an industrial labor force for low tech jobs.

The challenge of moving in a policy direction was clearly demonstrated on the first evening of the Republican National Convention when Sen Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, welcomed the crowd on the day focused on “unity” by declaring that Democratic Party policies are a “clear and present danger to America” and they “weaponized government.”

We also saw that challenge when Vice-President Kamala Harris, in her first major address as the likely Democratic nominee, played prosecutor and alluded to former President Donald Trump by saying she had taken on “predators who abused women, fraudsters who ripped off consumers, cheaters who broke the rules for their own gain.” These kinds of statements rile up the base but do not educate or excite us about their policies if elected.

Even though the amount and vehemence of the personal rhetoric has been asymmetrical, the gain is there for both parties. Trump had the chance in his closing remarks at the convention to inspire those in the middle during his “unifying” message but couldn’t hold on past the first 20 minutes before returning to the personal rants of his rallies. Can the Democrats do any better at their convention?

Once the spectacles of the political conventions are finished, and the sprint to Nov. 5 is underway, let’s encourage the candidates to differentiate themselves by toning down the personal attacks and conspiracy theories and reduce the chance for more political violence by prioritizing intelligent, inspiring conversation. It’s what voters say they want–and it just might be a winning strategy to attract the few remaining undecided voters.