Viewers of a certain age noted the resemblance between the 2024 Democratic Convention and its 1980 Republican counterpart: freedom signs with stars and stripes waving en masse, chants of “USA, USA,” hawkish foreign policy speeches and tough talk on crime. For four days, it was morning in America again, in sharp contrast to the message from today’s Republican standard-bearer that “We are a nation in decline, a failing nation.”
Weeks after the convention, a former staff member for senators Ted Cruz and Jim DeMint, now a writer and editor for Project Democracy, Amanda Carpenter told MSNBC, “The mantle is ready to be stolen on freedom.”
After a lifetime of having their loyalty questioned, Democrats had every reason to celebrate being the party of patriotism. Yet while claiming many of the traditional Republican themes and defending against some of the usual criticisms on issues like immigration and the economy, they have been silent in response to a particular post-convention pejorative that might be an opening for a reality-based retort.
One word Trump has recently been workshopping to frame his opponents politically is “communist,” apparently an upgrade from the “socialist” label of the Obama era. Perhaps someone told him the socialist designation included “nice countries” like Norway and Denmark from which he hoped to attract immigrants. Should Tim Walz follow in Harris’ footsteps, the progression would undoubtedly continue: “anarchist,” “atheist,” “satanist,” “vegan.”
One problem with communist, though, is that it leaves Trump vulnerable to his past praise for, well, communists. Evidently, he was not briefed on the symbolism of those red stars on the North Korean and Chinese flags. There was the memorable 2019 West Viriginia rally where he said of North Korea’s Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un: “He wrote me beautiful letters, and they’re great letters. We fell in love.” In 2024, Trump told Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo, “I want China to do great, I do. And I like President Xi a lot, he was a very good friend of mine during my term.” Last year, Trump called the Chinese leader “smart, brilliant, everything perfect,” admiring his ability to rule with “an iron fist.”
Trump’s ties to China have been evident ever since his made-in-China neckties were removed from Macy’s in 2015 after he said people coming into the United States from Mexico “are bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” Trump’s menswear collection also included eyeglasses manufactured in China and shirts made in China and Vietnam.
Beyond business, the word itself is also problematic, an accusation from a bygone era that reinforces the septuagenarian’s new status as the oldest candidate in the race and the most likely to be experiencing cognitive decline. What do the younger voters he is hoping to attract make of references to Roy Cohn and Al Capone? Will their grandparents have to get out the VCR to school them on the meaning of “Commie Pinko” with “All in the Family”? If Gen Z is getting a history lesson, it is probably not the one he intended.
Harris likely does not address the label for the same reason she refuses to push back on Trump’s assessment of her racial identity. In response to a question from CNN’s Dana Bash about his assertion that “you happened to turn Black for political purposes,” she replied, “Same old, tired playbook. Next question, please.” Enough said.
But with the word “communist,” Trump introduced a slur that presents an opportunity for his opponent. Reagan cloaked the word in high-minded principles as the enemy of freedom. For new age authoritarians like Trump, Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban and Vladimir Putin, whom financier Bill Browder described as the “richest man in the world,” with an estimated net worth of $200 billion, communism is simply less rewarding than kleptocracy. It’s not exactly a message likely to resonate with the masses.
There is another word from the same era that Harris would be wise to invoke to define her opponent: radical. Democrats use it to describe Project 2025 and the Republican agenda, but she could effectively (and accurately) deploy it to describe her opponent. On nearly every major issue, Trump’s position would require not just an abandonment of traditional Republican norms, but democratic norms as a whole. Even Americans seeking disruption may not be completely comfortable with mass destruction.
Andy Levinsky is a writer and editor in higher education and a frequent contributor to the Boston Globe Magazine.
