Why Harris' new politics of joy is the best way to fight fascism

Brat. Weird. The Stallion. The Democrats have not only reshuffled the leadership at the top of their electoral list; they are putting on a whole new show. Right-wing activists desperately trying to make silly selfies appear as proof of – oh horror! – socialismtry to claim that this new politics of glee (and ridicule) is evidence of nefarious intentions. This is either typical of the MAGA Republicans' “every accusation is an admission” playbook, or just plain ironic. Generating good vibes is not only generally effective, it is especially crucial in the most seemingly counterintuitive of cases: when confronting existing or potential authoritarian regimes, i.e. MAGA Republicans.

Sami Gharbia once said, “Humor is the first step in breaking taboos and fears. Making people laugh at dangerous things like dictatorship, oppression, and censorship is a first weapon against those fears… without conquering fear, you can't change anything.” The appeal of the authoritarian is that he is the strong man, as Ruth Ben Ghiat so wisely wrote. Like his peers, Donald Trump promises to fight the forces of chaos and restore the “rightful” place of “true citizens” usurped by unworthy “others.” Indeed, he promises to elevate the nation as a whole on the world stage and make it “great again.” The would-be dictator's audition shows an alpha male vying for the role of making things happen.

Bringing dictators down to earth and making them seem defeatable has been an essential part of defeating them in all times and places. Bugs Bunny and Charlie Chaplin made fun of Adolf Hitler. Otpor!, a movement started by 15 university students, overthrew the tyrannical Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia by making fun of him – and by doing so at extraordinary risk.

The end of Augusto Pinochet's regime was in part thanks to rainbows, the symbol of the campaign to persuade Chileans to risk reprisals from his regime, which was known for making critics disappear, and thus prevent him from serving another term. With the charm of the late 80s, their anthem proclaimed: “Chile, happiness is coming.”

Political scientist M. Steven Fish sums up the challenges liberal politicians face in responding to similar figures today: “Instead of projecting iron confidence and unbridled optimism about the future of their country, liberals worry about the complexities of governance and social problems… They value norms of civility and are wary of provocative, aggressive language. In general, then, they have adopted what I call a low-dominance political style.”

Fish goes on to praise Democrats who are breaking that convention: Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), who has made an art form of trashing her MAGA colleagues in the House; Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer; and Speaker Emeritus of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California). Kamala Harris joins this all-female pantheon.

A recent press release from the Harris-Walz team, now going viral, deserves an A+ for whittled the opposition down to a manageable size. It announces an upcoming Trump campaign appearance and states, “Donald Trump will be talking incoherently and spreading dangerous lies in public, but in a different home.” It goes on to remind readers who Trump is: “Loser of the 2020 election by 7 million votes.” Harris seems to enjoy poking fun at her opponent and line dancing among her supporters in equal measure.

Harris-Walz are no longer Les Misérables, but Mamma Mia. And Democratic activists and previously disillusioned core voters now love the Dancing Queen. This is just in time, because as their vice presidential candidate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, rightly declared: “I know I'm banging on an open door. A damn big and beautiful choir. But rehearsals are over, folks, the choir has to sing.”

That nonsense aside, Biden's campaign was largely a serious affair. The pre-debate campaign speech was peppered with policy accomplishments, second-term plans, and reminders that “we are in a battle for the soul of America.” After the debate, the flames against Trump burned even higher, but Biden's appearances, social media content, and vicarious sentiments were still full of seriousness.

Sure, Dark Brandon popped up occasionally. But that's, as my high school Spanish teacher would say, proof that exceptions prove the rule. Had Biden's personality been less sober during the primary campaign, the partisans wouldn't have needed an alter ego to keep things fun.

Harris and her running mate Tim Walz, on the other hand, are full of memes—from coconut trees to Midwestern dadisms—and tongue-in-cheek commentary. People are lining up in the summer heat to see this new production.

Like clockwork, commentators have started to criticize Team Dem for having too much fun trying to harmonize with voters. Of course, it's not said that way. They want her to give media interviews and make concrete policy statements. The Washington Post stated: “Twenty-four days ago, Vice President Kamala Harris promised her campaign staff that they would work together to 'take our case to the American people.' Less than a month later, that case is still pretty unclear, at least on policy – and that has become the main criticism of Harris' campaign.”

While it is perfectly reasonable to expect anyone who wants to govern our country to tell us a little more about what they intend to do, the idea that a sober formulation of policy is an integral part of Election successas recently in The New York Timesdeserves Harris's trademark laugh. American voters are notoriously moved by policy proposals; that's why we had such a successful President Elizabeth Warren.

But the long-standing “median voter theorem” in elections assumes that voters are rational actors who move along a single ideological continuum with fixed preferences and cannot be influenced by persuasion, in a static constituency where the same people turn out to vote each time. According to this logic, it is best for candidates to position themselves in the “median,” and thus be closer to the largest number of voters. This idea has resurfaced under many names: “triangulation,” centrism, and more recently, populism.

In effect, this latest permutation argues that a winning candidate must tout policy proposals favored by the majority and avoid, or at least not mention, others. And of course, that sounds like eminently logical advice—support things people like, and they'll like you! But the idea that voters study policy positions to arrive at their preferences runs counter to what we know about how people form judgments and what it takes for a message to actually reach their ears. If the choir doesn't want to sing your song, the congregation won't hear the joyful noise or get up off the couch to vote, let alone spread the message to potential new believers.

I've been telling campaigners for over a decade: If you want people to come to your party, throw a better party. People may say their most important campaign issue is “the economy” or whatever variant you use in your question. (Spoiler alert: the majority always choose that option.) But in reality, people can only tell us what they think. Of course, economic issues are most important to most people; but the facts show that what voters say is their most important issue doesn't really influence their voting behavior.

Moreover, what really impresses the average voter in elections is not detailed political programs. Elections are based on grand narratives – storylines that spell out exactly what dangers the antagonists want to cause, and that give the protagonists – and by that I mean the voters – the opportunity to choose the future they want. And although this is not reflected in the polls on certain issues, most people want that future to be a good one.

Known for her unbridled laughter, Harris has campaigned on the politics of joy, not out of ignorance of the enemy she faces, hell-bent on taking away our freedoms, harming our families, and endangering our future, but in full awareness of what it will take to defeat it.

Anat Shenker-Osorio is a political strategist and communications researcher for progressive campaigns.