Take a shot at a cat, and you’d better not miss. It all started in 2021, with a remark by JD Vance, long before he became the Republicans’ vice-presidential candidate. To be fair to the guy, Vance lives in a low-consequence universe, where you can hate Trump one minute and love him the next, with no ding to your credibility, so he must have been gobsmacked in July when he was called on this historic remark.
“It’s just a basic fact,” he had told Tucker Carlson back in 2021. “You look at Kamala Harris, [transportation secretary] Pete Buttigieg, AOC [congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] – the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children. And how does it make any sense that we’ve turned our country over to people who don’t really have a direct stake in it?” This elision of parenthood and long-termism is the acceptable face of the childlessness taboo in politics: you can call it dumb, but you can’t call it misogynistic, since it isn’t gendered.
However, he then blew it by saying the quiet part out loud, which, if we substitute “quiet” for “batshit crazy” is the new Republican playbook. They’re “a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too”.
When those remarks resurfaced this summer, Harris’s campaign team said that Vance was “not pro-family [but] anti-women”. One of the most sincere interventions came from Jennifer Aniston, who has had a well-documented struggle with infertility, and said on Instagram: “Mr Vance, I pray that your daughter is fortunate enough to bear children of her own one day.” Simultaneously, he had managed to offend all step-parents (Kamala is only childless if you don’t count her two stepchildren with Doug Emhoff), all gay parents and all adoptive parents (Buttigieg has adopted two children with his husband, Chasten).
But never mind the children – won’t someone think of the cats? Taylor Swift is merely the highest-profile member of a large constituency that isn’t just unashamed to be childless, but is actively proud of their cats. She signed off her endorsement of Harris’s presidential bid on Tuesday with “childless cat lady”, to which Elon Musk responded – and there’s no other word for this than creepily – “Fine Taylor … you win … I will give you a child and guard your cats with my life.”
Will this hit the Republicans, electorally, and if so, where? First of all, forget about dogs since they’re “purple” – dog owners are equally likely to be Democrat or Republican. If Vance was trying to speak to an imagined base – “We, dog people, despise the barren keepers of cats” – that won’t fly. Democrats are somewhat more likely to have a cat (40%) than Republicans (35%), but that’s still a significant number of red voters who, if they love their pet more than their politics, could be alienated. The numbers are very even, in terms of cat-devotion: 31.8% of Democrats and 33.3% of Republicans with a cat said it was the most important member of their family, from which I’ve decided to infer that Whiskers is definitely more important than the president.
Determining swing states is a dark art, but it is easy to say which states have the most cat owners: Vermont, Maine, West Virginia, Indiana, New Hampshire, Iowa, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas and Wisconsin. Per the New York Times, only one of those is a swing state (Wisconsin) but using the Nate Silver method (which I prefer not to, as he predicts a Trump landslide in electoral college votes) puts New Hampshire also in contention. If we imagine everyone with a cat, even those who also have children, falling in behind Kamala, that is at least some low-hanging fruit for the Democrats.
Looking at Trump’s debate with Harris this week, it is just about imaginable that his claims about Springfield, Ohio, were a last-minute attempt to reorientate his campaign as friend-to-the-cat. The peculiar thing about Trump is that you simply cannot imagine him communing with any animal, not even an iguana. A cat would be too aloof and challenge his narcissism; a dog would baffle him with affection – which, deep down, he would know he’d done nothing to deserve – and would itself be baffled, because his commands would make no sense.
But anyway, back to Springfield, where immigrants from Haiti are “eating the dogs, the people that came in, they’re eating the cats”, according to Trump. “They’re eating the pets of the people that live there.” This false rumour has its proximal roots in a video where a Springfield resident claims that recent immigrants were eating the ducks from a pond, but it’s an existing right wing trope. Repurposed to cover domestic pets, it sounds even more fanciful, but immediately sparked a load of AI-generated images, with Trump as a Francis of Assisi figure, protecting cats and dogs, and one bold billboard campaign by the Republican Party of Arizona, which read: “Eat less [sic] kittens – Vote Republican!” Can this win back the cat vote? I’m going with: not in a million years.
Source: US Politics - theguardian.com
