As the 2024 presidential campaign enters its final stretch, Donald Trump’s strategy has become as predictable as it is hollow. His latest target is Vice President Kamala Harris, whom he has labeled “mentally impaired” and called for to be “impeached and prosecuted.” These attacks, like many others in his arsenal, are inflammatory, personal, and devoid of substance—a reminder of the sad reality of Trump’s political playbook, which revolves less around policy solutions and more around stoking grievances.
Trump’s rally in Erie, Pennsylvania, served as a stark reminder of how he prefers to campaign: by trading in insults rather than ideas. In this instance, the former president accused Harris of causing an “invasion” at the southern border and suggested that her actions warrant impeachment and criminal prosecution. But as with many of Trump’s attacks, there was no accompanying explanation of what, precisely, Harris had done to deserve such extreme accusations, nor was there any serious policy proposal offered as an alternative. Instead, the rally featured Trump doing what he does best—riling up his base by focusing on perceived slights, both personal and political.
This approach might energize his supporters, but it also exposes a fundamental truth about Trump’s candidacy: He is a man who offers grievances in place of governance. Where his political rivals present platforms and plans, Trump has little to say about how he would actually run the country should he return to office. His speeches, rather than addressing the issues facing the nation—like the economy, immigration, or healthcare—veer into personal attacks and vague promises of revenge against those he perceives as enemies.
Consider the contrast between Trump’s rhetoric and the approach taken by other Republicans. Senator Lindsey Graham, a loyal Trump ally, recently remarked that Trump would be better off focusing on how Harris’ policies are “destroying the country.” This, after all, is where serious presidential candidates build their case: through a critique of the opposition’s governance and a vision for how they would do better. Yet, Trump seems unable—or unwilling—to engage on this level. Instead, his campaign is dominated by personal grievances, whether about Harris’ competence or the supposed betrayal of establishment figures in his own party.
The reality is that Trump’s messaging, centered on retribution and victimhood, leaves little room for substantive debate. His proposal to deport “thousands of migrants” and end the so-called “invasion” at the southern border plays on fears, but offers no coherent plan for immigration reform. His critiques of Harris and President Joe Biden’s policies rarely rise above name-calling, let alone offer constructive alternatives. Trump has long claimed that his administration “fixed” the economy and secured the border—yet when pressed, there are few specifics about how he would achieve these results a second time around, particularly in a post-pandemic, increasingly complex global landscape.
Even Trump’s own advisors have urged him to focus on the issues. Republicans such as Rep. Tom Emmer of Minnesota have openly suggested that the path to victory lies not in attacking Harris personally, but in holding her accountable for the administration’s policies. Yet Trump remains fixated on the politics of grievance. He paints himself as the eternal victim of a system rigged against him, promising to jail those involved in “unscrupulous behavior” if he wins, all while neglecting to explain how he would lead the country on issues that matter most to voters—like inflation, healthcare costs, or America’s standing in the world.
Trump’s approach of bypassing policy in favor of personal attacks is not only exhausting but strategically misguided. While it might appeal to a segment of the electorate that thrives on anger, it does little to attract undecided voters or those who want to hear serious solutions to the nation’s challenges. His constant barrage of insults also distracts from the real questions Americans need answered: How will the next administration handle the economy? What is the plan for immigration reform? How will the country navigate foreign policy in an increasingly unstable world?
Vice President Harris, by contrast, has largely avoided getting dragged into Trump’s rhetorical mudslinging. She has responded with a measured dismissal, describing Trump’s antics as part of the “same tired playbook” of personal attacks and grievances. Her campaign, despite its flaws, has made an effort to address key issues like healthcare and immigration, even if those positions are ripe for debate. But in a campaign season defined by Trump’s insults, there has been little opportunity for such debates to take center stage.
The larger problem here is not just Trump’s personal attacks, but the absence of meaningful dialogue in his campaign. A presidential election should be an opportunity to weigh ideas and solutions. Yet in Trump’s rallies, what stands out is the lack of a coherent vision for the future. What does a second Trump administration look like beyond revenge tours and deportation plans? What will be done about the real challenges facing America? These questions remain unanswered, buried under an avalanche of grievances and attacks.
As the election approaches, Trump may continue to dominate headlines with his outlandish comments, but he does so at a cost. While his base may cheer his insults, the broader electorate is left to wonder whether Trump has anything more to offer beyond the politics of grievance.
Senate Ballot Box Scores
Comments