We have all heard, by now, the concept of “sane washing”, as it pertains to the former president. This is a unique phenomenon, whereby the mainstream media condenses and cleans up statements by Trump to make them appear more coherent and less rambling than they are, presenting a more palatable version of the former president than one might see at, say, his rallies. Given that Trump is impossible to deplatform entirely and reporting every unhinged thing he says risks diminishing returns, this seems a sensible middle ground for coverage. The danger in covering Trump this way, however, is that sane washing and fact checking him often lacks the proper context. For example, yes, it’s demonstrably untrue that Haitian immigrants are eating pets in Springfield, Ohio. But, simply fact checking that as untrue doesn’t add the required context that statements like that are incredibly irresponsible and dangerous. It was dangerous for the City of Springfield, for its residents, and for the larger immigrant population in the United States. Be it immigration, the economy, health care, or abortion, Trump’s bluster is backed by dangerous policy, and voters need to know that.
It is important to remember that a second Trump presidency would come with far fewer guardrails, and that his statements are a window into the dark impulses that drive his policy decisions. Take immigration, clearly an issue that he believes will help carry him to victory in November. Yet, he was single-handedly responsible for making the border less safe by torpedoing the bipartisan border bill, so that immigration would remain an issue until after the election. So, he’s concerned about securing the border, only as long as it doesn’t hurt his electoral chances, in which case it can wait. Typically, a stunt like this would generate some outrage, but other than the Democrats, it’s been largely forgotten now, because it’s just another example of “Trump being Trump”. Why has he not been pressed on why his electoral ambitions are, yet again, more important than national security?
The danger of allowing “Trump to be Trump” is that he reacts based on his whims and not any nuanced understanding of a topic and, unsurprisingly, it’s often led to bad policy. In the case of immigration, it’s not just bad policy, it’s terrifying, dystopian, and inhumane. Maybe it’s just me, but I think a presidential candidate calling for mass deportations and detention centers, is worthy of slightly more attention than it’s been getting. The idea isn’t just insane and offensive on the surface, the practical implications are astounding. Using the US military to create a police state to identify and detain immigrants and deporting up to 11 million people, doesn’t just sound insane, it is practically insane. Not to bore you with the machinations, but even if this were possible, the cost would be astronomical, with estimates of over $40 billion per year. For perspective, that is greater than the budget of FEMA and ICE combined, or enough to provide the child tax credit to 20 million families.
Moving on to another Trump favorite, the economy, and his favorite pet, tariffs. Sweet, loyal, tariffs. If you haven’t seen, Trump believes tariffs are the solution to all our alleged economic woes. They will, he says, pay not only for his insane immigrations policies, but they will also allow him to balance the national debt. Except that they won’t, not even close. What they will do, is make consumer goods more costly, and harder to get, for us every day Americans. To this point, I think one of the best interactions of the campaign so far, was a Bloomberg reporter asking Trump to explain Tariffs and then, following his answer, informing him that he clearly didn’t understand how tariffs worked. This was a great example of using context to foil Trump, rather than letting him rant/lie about the benefits of his tariffs, he was forced into the untenable situation of trying to explain something he had, at best, a tangential understanding of.
Economists have also stated that Trump’s tariffs and proposed tax cuts would reignite inflation and increase the national debt by 5 trillion dollars, that his immigrations policies would decrease employment below the current baseline, and also decrease GDP. All these things taken together sound like the recipe for an economic disaster in the making, and yet voters continue to trust Trump more on the issue. Perhaps if the facts were able to break through the noise with Trump, it would be easier for voters to understand that they will not benefit under his economy.
Even as visceral a topic as abortion can fall victim to sane washing. We all remember how much credit J.D. Vance was getting after the debate for admitting Republicans need to do a better job gaining the trust of women. I’d rather have J.D. explain why he doesn’t think women should be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies. To anyone sensible, that is the point that should have been pressed. More importantly, while the Republican Party is trying to figure out how to regain the trust of women, those women are dying because of the draconian laws passed by those same politicians. Given that life-or-death reality, maybe J.D. Vance should not be afforded extra credit simply for sounding less monstrous than his boss.
In sports there’s a lot of talk about late and close situations, and champions tend to excel in those circumstances, by raising their game. This election is late, it is very close, and it’s time to raise our collective game. Believe it or not, there are still persuadable voters out there, and I’ve been thinking a lot about how to reach them. Perhaps then, this more practical, contextual, approach can work. Portraying Trump as the avatar of a looming American Fascism, while true, has limited efficacy, and at the other end of the spectrum, so does simply dismissing the things he says as nonsense. In the middle is an approach where we acknowledge what he says, and then point out not just the lies, and logical fallacies, but the practical consequences of his policies.
Perhaps this is a way for the Harris-Walz campaign to reach the voters who have, for example, heard about the strength of the economy, but are still worried about grocery prices. We can explain that, while Donald Trump likes to portray himself as the savior, his economic policies would, in fact, increase prices via tariffs and inflation. The Harris-Walz campaign, meanwhile, has put forth a plan to actually address price gouging. Similarly, the Harris-Walz campaign promises a real, practical, solution to immigration by reviving the bipartisan border bill, while Trump’s proposals are largely impossible to accomplish, and horrific to contemplate. On abortion, the Harris-Walz campaign proposes to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade. Trump has promised women, creepily, that he is their protector, that they will feel safe, and that they will never have to think about abortion again. Yet, he has made women in this country demonstrably less safe by stacking the Supreme Court, assuring Roe was overturned.
I believe there’s still room to have a discussion with our family, friends, and neighbors about this race. About how only one of these candidates has put forth a plan to make our lives better, and that is Kamala Harris. She has announced an opportunity economy for the middle and lower class, she has proposed to improve our immigration system, she will restore the protections of Roe. She has an actual set of policies designed to make our country happier, healthier, and safer. Donald Trump has no plans or bad plans, and nothing in-between. The contrast could not be more obvious, and it is incumbent upon us to show voters how those differences will affect them. This race is late and close, and now is the time to make every effort to get our message out, to show people how our policies can benefit them, and win this race.
