Democrats shouldn’t succumb to the temptation to ‘go low’ against Trump

Eight years after Michelle Obama famously declared that “when they go low, we go high,” Democratic leaders and activists have increasingly adopted a “go low” approach against former President Donald Trump

Trump opponents have shown an increased willingness to use personal insults and to share misleading, out-of-context interpretations of things he has said and done. In pieces like the Atlantic’s “Laughing at Trump,” anti-Trump strategists argue that a more mocking, aggressive approach is needed. Rick Wilson, George Conway and others believe that such tactics are how you defeat Trump.

But is “going low” actually effective?

Some who oppose Trump worry that mocking his supposed “weirdness” minimizes the seriousness of the threats the former president poses. But there’s a bigger risk: “Going low” may just backfire and create more support for Trump.

Harsh attacks can create pushback. As social psychological Jonathan Haidt put it on the “Braver Angels” podcast, “Culture wars are different than real wars; the more you attack the other side, the more you strengthen it.”

We can thus strengthen our opponents’ resolve. We can also make their stances more committed and extreme. For example, Trump’s inflammatory, divisive approach to talking about immigration likely sparked large increase in pro-immigration stances among Democrats.

Some may think, “But we’re insulting Trump, who deserves it; we’re not insulting Trump supporters.” But it isn’t that simple. Trump has become a symbol for many Republicans, especially those who feel mistreated by the liberal-dominated establishment. For many Trump voters, the unfair treatment they see Trump receiving mirrors their own experiences.

Trump’s opponents should recognize that these grievances have rational roots. There have been many insulting framings of the motivations of Trump supporters; for example, biased and simplistic framings where racism and authoritarianism are portrayed as dominant factors.

An insult directed at someone on “our team” can often feel like a personal attack. This dynamic isn’t unique to Trump fans — some supporters of Obama and Hillary Clinton would have similar reactions when those leaders were criticized, no matter how reasonable the criticism. Understanding that it’s easy for leaders to become avatars for their “tribe” is key to understanding the dynamics of polarization.

Some “go-low” advocates argue that triggering Trump and getting him angry is the way to defeat him. As George Conway put it, “He cannot take mockery. It is the thing that makes him craziest, and the mockery diminishes him. It makes him look weak.”

But what if mockery is, at least in part, what motivates Trump?

In the book “Beyond Contempt,” Erica Etelson argues that liberals’ jibes helped fuel Trump’s aspirations: “John Oliver sarcastically begged Trump to run and offered to donate to his campaign. Like nearly all liberals, Oliver radically — and contemptuously — underestimated ‘the Donald,’ goading him on from Trump Tower to the White House.”

Also, we should see that some “go low” advocates don’t restrict their insults to Trump. Rick Wilson, for example, has often insulted Trump voters, and regularly issues childish insults at a wide variety of Republicans on social media. He and his compatriots regularly speak as if bad behavior by some Trump supporters represent that entire group — a divisive and non-persuasive tactic.

“Go low” advocates think that more aggressive approaches will help persuade some undecided voters. But that’s far from clear. For one thing, those who have more positive views of Trump or his beliefs may feel offended by these tactics. Some who dislike Trump’s belligerence will see Democrats’ “go low” approaches in a similar light. Here’s one conservative’s reaction to the recent Harris-Trump debate: “It appears that she is trying to bring herself down to his level, which is an odd strategy when most people prefer the Trump policies, generally, and simply dislike Trump as a person.”

The argument that Democrats should “go low” comes with an assumption that they’ve consistently “gone high” before this. But I’d argue that “going low” has been the norm in America for decades. Over the last nine years, many influential people on the left have insulted both Trump and his voters. Some of the group-aimed insults have been unintentional, a function of our distorted views of the “other side.”

My acquaintance Rich Logis, a former pro-Trump activist and founder of the group Leaving MAGA, said something perceptive: “If insulting Trump and Trump supporters worked, Trumpism would already be defeated.”

What if Conway and Wilson are simply wrong? What if their instinct to mock and insult isn’t part of some considered strategy but merely justification for how they want to act? What if their approach is driven by instincts similar to those of Trump and other “go low” Republicans?

Political scientist Yascha Mounk has said that “attempts to disqualify demagogues [who have] broad popular support often backfire.” We often don’t see how our instincts to fight fire with fire ramp up us-vs.-them resentment.

What might political leaders do instead? For starters, Democrats should focus on persuading rather than insulting. Instead of denigrating the “other side,” they should seek to meet those citizens’ needs.

Democrats should avoid conflating Trump’s divisive, aggressive personality with more standard conservative stances. They should keep in mind that most Americans want a lessening of toxicity. They should pay heed to research that shows depolarizing approaches can result in more political support.

I’m not arguing for a cessation of all harsh political rhetoric. I’m not naive. American political fights will likely always involve harsh words and personal slights. Directly calling out an opponent’s flaws can indeed help make one’s case effectively.

But I do hope more politicians consider how their instincts to be aggressive may be bad for the country — and even self-defeating.

Zachary Elwood is the author of “How Contempt Destroys Democracy” and the host of the psychology podcast People Who Read People.