TRANSCRIPT
“But we're bringing them in at levels we've never seen. And we're doing it by stupid people. Like she's a stupid person. Stupid person. [APPLAUSE] I don't care. I don't care.”
It's the kind of language we've come to expect from US Republican candidate Donald Trump.
A personal attack as he condemns President Biden and Kamala Harris' immigration policies.
Since he entered politics in 2016, Mr Trump has certainly not shied away from vilifying his political opponents, including his 2016 political rival Hillary Clinton who he called 'crooked Hillary' and 'heartless Hillary', just to name a few.
And just days ago, Mr Trump hurled vitriolic attacks against President Joe Biden and Democratic candidate Kamala Harris at a rally in Wisconsin.
“Joe Biden became mentally impaired. Kamala was born that way. She was born that way.”
So how does Donald Trump get away with this behaviour, and is it unique to him?
Associate Professor David Smith from the University of Sydney's United States' Studies Centre explains.
“There is a media backlash, but it's been going on for so long now that people are desensitised and he says this so much, there's only so much time and energy that people can spend on being outraged at these comments. So this is why he gets away with it. He's also done so many things over the years that are so much worse than just name calling, that name calling seems pretty mild compared to inciting a riot or trying to overturn an election.”
Professor Smith says while the level of Mr Trump's vitriol is largely unmatched in politics, there is certainly a greater propensity for this kind of behaviour in US politics.
He says this is due to how intrinsic party identity is to an individual's overall identity, fostering a deep polarisation in the United States.
“It means that taboo about attacking people over their race or gender or religion or region don't apply anymore. People feel free to attack each other on the grounds of their party. There's no taboo against that. People see that as a chosen identity. That is fair game. So the strength of party identity unfortunately, really is a license to hate. There is a real sense in which both sides of American politics feel that the other side is out to destroy the country. And if you feel that the other side is out to destroy the country, you're not going to have many scruples about what you call people on the other side.”
In fact, racial identity has once again entered the political sphere in this election race.
Mr Trump questioned Ms Harris' race during an interview at the country's largest annual gathering of Black American journalists at the end of July.
He was quick to downplay his comments during their presidential debate in September.
TRUMP: "Whatever she wants to be is okay with me."
INTERVIEWER: "But those were your words?"
TRUMP: "So I don't know. I don't know. I mean, all I can say is I read where she was not black that she put out, and I'll say that. And then I read that she was black. And that's okay. Either one was okay with me. That's up to her. That's up to her.”
Professor Smith says personal attacks aren't unique to Mr Trump or Republican candidates, referencing how Kamala Harris and her Vice President nominee Tim Walz have referred to Donald Trump and his Republican allies as 'weird'.
Here's Tim Walz at a rally in Pennsylvania in August:
“Just an observation of mine that I made, I just have to say it. You know it. You feel it. These guys are creepy, and yeah, just weird as hell. That's what you see.”
But Professor Smith says for Mr Trump, hostile behaviour is adopted as a direct political strategy and brand that works in his favour.
“It's one of the things that his supporters really like because they believe that politics has failed them so badly that all of the norms of politeness really just part of this failed establishment. And that when people tell him off for insulting his opponents, that what they're trying to do is draw him in to this form of politics that they really don't like. So they see his bad manners as part of the reason why he's the solution to their problem.”
This kind of verbal abuse is less evident in Australian politics.
Dr Sarah Cameron is a political scientist at Griffith University and says one of the key differences between Australia and the US is the parliamentary versus presidential system, whereby the leader is selected by the party rather than the voters as is the case in the United States.
“This results in very different types of leaders that we see in the Australian context as compared to the American context. In Australia, we tend to see leaders that have been in the political party system for a long time, and as people are very disaffected with political parties, they tend not to be particularly inspired by these leaders. We've seen political leaders in Australia become increasingly unpopular over time.”
Bill Browne, director of the Australia Institute's Democracy and Accountability Program, agrees.
He says Australia does seem to have a better tenor of debate compared to what we see in the states - citing compulsory voting as one significant factor.
“The Australian political system probably encourages better behaviour from MPs through a few different ways because we have compulsory voting which requires every citizen to turn out. The effect is that elections are won and lost by the ability to appeal to all voters that distinguishes Australia from other countries, including the states where it can be enough to turn off someone who was going to vote for your opponent and convince them to not vote at all.”
This very voting system influences the behaviour of Australian politicians in another important way.
“It's also the case that Australia's preferential voting means that there are benefits to not being too alienating even to those who aren't voting for you. And that's because while you may not get their first preference, you may well be in line for their second or third or fourth preference, which could make the difference in a close election.”
The nature of mass rallies in the United States enables an unstructured realm for personal attacks - creating a very different pre-election atmosphere than what is evident in Australia.
Professor Smith says the First Amendment - which protects free speech in America - means politicians essentially have free reign to say what they please at political rallies.
“Trump's rallies - He just says whatever he feels like and he really feeds off the energy of the audience. The audience loves these personal insults. He even said at a rally a few weeks ago that his advisors were telling him to talk more about policy rather than personal attacks. And he said to the crowd, well, what would you prefer to hear? And they made it very clear that they wanted to hear personal attacks. And he said, oh, well, I better fire my advisors then.”
Social media has of course been a tool for these kinds of attacks - particularly by Mr Trump - who has called Kamala Harris 'dumb as a rock' on platform Truth Social, among many other insults on various social media platforms.
Professor Smith says it's unlikely Australian politics would ever turn in the direction of the United States, despite the globalisation of social media and exposure to this kind of political play, as the Australian social media market is a lot smaller.
He adds that there are stronger norms around political conduct in Australia, particularly in the regulation of parliamentary discourse which is where most of the political conversation is played out between politicians.
“There's also a sense in which politics is much lower states. People who vote for one party in Australia don't see the other party as being out to destroy the country, nor do members of parliament see each other in that way either. And party loyalty is just not as strong among ordinary voters in Australia. So I think that's why we don't see this kind of vitriol.”
