We all know Donald Trump loves nicknames. Who could forget “Crooked Hillary,” “Sleepy Joe,” “Pocahontas,” “Lyin’ Ted,” and “Little Marco?” He even gave himself the humble nickname “Honest Don.” He prefers nicknames with fewer syllables because they are easier (for him?) to remember. Like “Zuckerschmuck for his nemesis at Meta/Facebook. “Former Trump aide Steve Bannon [currently in jail] claims that one of Trump’s favorite books is Carl Jung’s autobiography, Memory, Dreams, Reflections, and that Trump’s derisive nicknames derive from an understanding of Jungian archetypes. (Trump probably did not read the book but Bannon likely did.}” [From ‘Huckleberry Capone’ to ‘Turd Blossom’: A History of White House Nicknames]. 

Derisive nicknames may be juvenile, sophomoric and silly but do they work?

“That is, does it help the candidate who engages in name calling by reducing the public’s perception of their opponent? …  In sum, name-calling does not work as intended. We found no evidence that evaluations of victims were influenced by the use of pejorative (crooked or heartless) by their opponent. However, we did find that name-calling can backfire on the perpetrator. In particular, when Democrats engaged in name-calling, both Republican and Democratic identifying respondents rated the name-caller lower than when no pejorative was used. But the same is not true when a Republican candidate engaged in name calling While it did not appear to help the candidate (i.e. reduce the rating of the victim), neither Republican nor Democratic identifying respondents rated the Republican name-caller lower than when no pejorative was present. Thus, a word of advice for Democratic candidates: Do not engage in name-calling. It will not help but it may hurt.” [Political Incivility: Does Name-Calling Work?]

It seems odd that name-calling when Republicans do it doesn’t reflect poorly on them but it does reflect poorly on Democrats who do it. Weird, right? According to psychologist Jeremy Firmer “insulting people remains a losing strategy in 2019. Even a politician’s most diehard and adoring followers do not react positively to uncivil political attacks. My advice to those aspiring to public office is to remain civil and win votes the old-fashioned way: on their merits.” [Political Incivility Is A Losing Strategy]

Superficially the evidence might seem to reflect the opposite. As Firmer points out: “Michelle Obama responded to Trump’s incivility with the slogan “When they go low, we go high” — but her preferred candidate lost.” However, he goes on to say: “Americans across the political spectrum approved of Trump more after reading a civil tweet than after reading an uncivil tweet, meaning that incivility uniformly backfired. Even people who self-identified as “diehard Trump supporters” either reacted negatively to Trump’s incivility or were unmoved by it. It didn’t matter if Trump’s opponent insulted him first and his incivility was a means of restoring his honour; Americans still preferred civility.” He concludes, persuasively in my opinion, that Trump won in spite of not because of his derisive name-calling. In other words, there are many who voted for Trump in spite of his silly name-calling and often inaccurate and outrageous comments for other reasons (policy, economics, cultural beliefs, etc). The lesson for Democrats is that it’s okay to call out Trump’s “weird” side, many of his supporters are uncomfortable with  it. But, don’t engage with it by doing the same. Focus on the areas that (should) matter most: policy, economics, and being open to the cultural beliefs of the opposition. Furthermore, those who want to defeat Trump should be aware that opinions are not changed with reason but with emotion. I’m reminded of the popular adage “wine is fine but liquor is quicker.” Kamala Harris in these early days of her campaign has managed to frustrate Trump because she seems to understand this counterintuitive logic.

Trump struggles to find an effective nickname. “Laffin’ Kamala” backfired in the social media sphere when Charli XCX tweeted “Kamala IS brat.” “Lyin’ Kamala” backfired when Harris supporters connected Kamala to the popular Katy Perry song ROAR (“you’re gonna hear me roar, louder louder than a Lion”). “DEI hire” blew up because it alienated women and minorities, the very constituencies Trump needs to expand his base. He has resorted to rather lame words like “bum” or “phony.” Lately he has settled on “San Francisco Liberal” or “Crazy Liberal” a take on his “Crazy Nancy” nickname for Nancy Pelosi. This, however, runs the risk of further alienating him from women voters. On it goes but as the research cited above indicates: it’s policy, economics and cultural ideas that are likely to determine the outcome of the upcoming election. Expressed with passion and emotion of course.

Donald Trump has called himself “Honest Don.”  He might like the same nickname as the famous populist William Jennings Bryan “The Great Commoner.” There are undeniable similarities but also great differences between Trump and Bryan. [see Ghost of William Jennings Bryan haunts Trump’s Next Run For The White House] Regardless of whether insult politics is effective, it will undoubtedly continue. Insult politics has a long history. “Grover Cleveland faced chants of “Ma, Ma Where’s my Pa?” in the 1880s over rumors he’d fathered an illegitimate child. Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson were the subject of poems that leaned into racist tropes and allegations of bigamy.” The biggest difference between the sentiments hurled at the Grover Clevelands of yore and modern politicians is the amplification they get on social media. And, one advantage of insult politics that makes it appealing is that it can be monetized using t-shirts, coffee cups, hats, etc.

Yet, one can’t help but feel that the nicknames are a bit old school. No doubt the “short-fingered vulgarian” (journalist Graydon Carter’s nickname for Trump) will come up with a few more before the election but will they work? Research shows that the American people may be smarter than the politicians give them credit for. Yes, we all like a good laugh but when push comes to shove we are not oblivious to what’s in our best interest and in the best interest of our country. We may not agree on the answer. Can we find a way forward in spite of that? We’ll find out in three months.