Former President Donald Trump’s recent attempts to label Vice President Kamala Harris as a "communist" appear to be backfiring, as even some of his staunchest supporters aren't taking the accusation seriously. In a pointed analysis, Washington Post columnist Philip Bump suggests that Trump's scaremongering may be alienating the very voters he needs to secure victory in the upcoming election.
Trump’s narrative, which casts Harris as a looming communist threat to the United States, is a familiar tactic from the former president. However, this time, the strategy seems to be losing its potency. According to GOP strategist Frank Luntz, Trump’s rhetoric is actually costing him support from voters who are critical to his re-election bid.
Bump, who has closely followed Trump’s branding strategies, notes the irony in Trump’s use of the term “communist.” The former president, who is known for his iconic red “Make America Great Again” hats, seems to have forgotten that, for someone of his generation, red was once synonymous with the Soviet Union and the global spread of communism. This association, which was deeply ingrained in the American psyche during the Cold War, no longer carries the same weight in contemporary politics.
Polling data reinforces the idea that Trump’s warnings about a communist takeover are largely falling on deaf ears. Only about 30 percent of Republicans, and fewer than 25 percent of the general electorate, believe that a communist dictatorship is even "somewhat" likely to take hold in the United States within the next decade. These figures suggest that the majority of Americans, including many within Trump’s own party, are not swayed by his alarmist claims.
Bump goes further to argue that Trump likely does not intend for his accusations to be taken literally. Rather, the former president is using “communism” as a catch-all term to describe what he views as left-wing authoritarianism. Yet, this strategy is complicated by Trump’s own track record of embracing right-wing authoritarian leaders and endorsing actions that have undermined liberal democracy. This inconsistency makes his attacks on Harris appear disingenuous, reducing their effectiveness.
The analysis concludes that Trump’s rhetoric is increasingly out of touch with the current political landscape. While branding someone as a communist might have been a powerful insult in the 1980s, the term lacks the same impact in 2024. Trump, who is very much a product of the Reagan era, seems to be relying on an outdated playbook, one that resonates less and less with the modern electorate.
As the election draws closer, Trump’s continued reliance on these Cold War-era tactics could prove detrimental to his campaign. With even his supporters questioning the validity of his claims, it remains to be seen whether Trump will adjust his strategy or continue down a path that risks alienating voters.