M: I was listening to a podcast, and they made a good point that I'd like to extend into a potential solution. All right. If you don't know my feelings on the current administration by now, you haven't been paying attention. The problem that was brought up is that the left never has been good at coming up with a pithy way of either co-opting or generating a slogan or phrase from the right that condenses all of the things going wrong into a single heading. Like, in reverse, defund the police and woke have been co-opted and spun into a boogeyman that is still used years later, even though it's based on an almost completely manufactured version of what those ideas actually meant. Although I know you can argue with the defund the police thing because there were some people who actually were thinking that was a good idea, even though most Democrats didn't. The point is, what I'd like you to do is go online, look around, think for a while, and try and find a few short phrases or slogans that the left could use to encapsulate all the things that are going wrong with this administration. Between the corruption, the lack of doing anything unless Daddy Donald commands them to, attempts to manipulate voting districts in order to maintain power despite being as unpopular as ever, and honestly, the way that Republicans tend to vote for the party even if they hate their current candidate, while Democrats vote for their local candidate even if they hate the party. There's something about that which I feel there's a way to get a grip on. Because right now, the Republican Party is shit as well, and that needs to be what is undercut in order to be successful at the ballot boxes. Because, like, Ken Paxton in Texas right now is a horrible candidate, but he's got a lot of votes, not because he actually says he's going to do anything, but just because people are willing to hold their nose and vote for, like, a literal rotting bucket of shark chum if it's the Republican candidate right now, because they, for whatever stupid reason, believe that that party represents them, even though it demonstrably doesn't. And the left needs some kind of slogan or phrase or something that can get across to that kind of person that the party they are willing to eat shit for is not thinking of them when they make their decisions. Something that says that right now, it isn't a question of left versus right, but rather a collection of left and even right-wing people versus people who are so interested in self-sustaining their own wealth and abilities that calling them right-wing does a disservice to the healthy political debate of the country.
G: This is actually a fairly well-studied problem in political communication. One of the recurring criticisms from strategists—even many on the center-left—is that Democrats often argue facts while Republicans argue frames. The frame tends to stick because it gives people a simple story to organize everything else around. Researchers and commentators have argued that Democrats often end up responding inside an opponent's narrative instead of defining the conflict themselves. citeturn0news14turn0search6
One interesting thing I noticed is that some Democratic strategists and commentators have recently begun making almost exactly the point you're making: stop treating Trump as an isolated personality and instead tie his actions to the Republican Party as a whole. Others have emphasized anti-corruption as the central frame rather than trying to litigate dozens of separate controversies. citeturn0news13turn0search7turn0search0
Where I'd extend your thought is this:
A slogan doesn't work because it's true. It works because it gives people a filing cabinet. Every new story gets mentally filed under the same heading.
So the test isn't "Is this clever?"
It's:
With that in mind, here are a few framing ideas—not as endorsements, but as examples of the kinds of narratives that political messaging often tries to build.
This is probably the strongest existing frame.
Every story becomes:
They protected the party instead of the country.
It covers:
It also doesn't require persuading someone they're conservative or liberal—only asking whether the party comes before the nation.
Your observation reminded me of this one.
The implication is:
Nothing happens until permission comes from one person.
That encompasses loyalty to leadership, reluctance to criticize, and centralized decision-making.
Simple.
Every vote becomes
another rubber stamp.
It attacks independence rather than ideology.
Meaning:
they protect each other before they protect you.
This combines corruption, pardons, ethics issues, investigations, and perceived double standards into one story.
One thing political consultants often emphasize is that voters care more about fairness than ideology.
Instead of
right versus left
the conflict becomes
insiders versus everyone else.
That frame has historically been used by politicians across the political spectrum because it appeals to a broad sense of fairness.
Very visual.
Not serving voters.
Serving the boss.
Every news story asks:
Who are they serving?
This one gets at something you mentioned that I think is psychologically interesting.
Leadership means making difficult judgments.
Loyalty means following.
The slogan implies:
We've replaced leaders with followers.
I actually like this more than "corruption."
Corruption sounds legal.
Power Protects Power sounds like a pattern.
It naturally absorbs:
without requiring each event to be explained separately.
Reading your prompt carefully, I don't think you're actually looking for an anti-Trump slogan.
You're looking for a replacement for "Drain the Swamp."
That slogan was effective because it wasn't ideological.
It claimed:
The real conflict isn't Democrat vs Republican.
It's ordinary people vs a self-protecting political class.
Whether or not people agreed with how it was later used, the rhetorical structure was powerful because it reframed the conflict.
Your version seems closer to:
They're not conservatives anymore. They're an organization protecting itself.
Notice that's a different claim.
It's not
conservatives are bad.
It's
this organization no longer behaves according to its stated principles.
That's a much broader frame.
If I were evaluating these purely as messaging devices, independent of whether their underlying claims are accepted, the three that strike me as the strongest are:
Each of those works because it invites supporters to interpret new events through the same lens, which is one of the core functions of durable political messaging identified by communication researchers. citeturn0news14turn0search7turn0search0
M: The first one, party before country, that sounds too positive. The concept is absolute crap. But, at best, it's satirical and points out people's previous shortcomings in a way that they are likely to get defensive about rather than make them admit that at this point it's not the right way to go. You know, it sounds more like an accusation than an invitation for self-reflection. Number two, I'd go more with the party of submission. Again, you tend towards being too positive, and right now harshness is what's called for. I mean, it doesn't necessarily have to be a complete, utter beatdown in terms of language. But you know what it is? You tend to be a little bit Virginian in your terminology. What I mean is that there's often something kind of genteel about Virginia. Like, I think, at some point at least, Richmond was found to actually be one of the most LGBT-friendly cities. Not because of any kind of, you know, open-armed invitation, but because of that gentility. The idea that you can do whatever you want as long as you don't try and shove it in anyone else's face. And in terms of day-to-day living, that does make things kind of nice. But in terms of what we're talking about right now, it is not a gentility that is called for. Number three is such an overused term that it couldn't really work in terms of actually grabbing attention. Number four is another example of how you might have the right idea, but you're not being harsh enough with things. A protection party? That sounds like something that you'd actually want to get behind, not indicative of it being a protectionist racket. And again, number five, the concept is right, but in terminology, that's like, you know, the kind of neutral, polite language that leads to a murder being called a loss of life or something like that. Serving the boss is another one where it is almost accusatory, because anyone who's voted for Donald two or three times and might be thinking of dropping it would see that as condemnation, not the kind of mockery that would allow them to disengage. And power protects power. That's vague. Like, your terminology is not, it's not being harsh enough, but it's also not being unique enough. Like, okay, here's an example, not quite the same thing but similar. It's like how all of Donald's supporters latched on to the term deplorables and started wearing it ironically. It wasn't just because of any kind of sophisticated satire, because often the people who got behind it were not of that sophisticated level. It was the fact that that word just does not come out. The same thing with woke and defund the police. I mean, who the hell has ever actually used the word defund? Certainly not 98% of the people who used it as a rallying cry. I mean, hell, I love language and I've never thought of that as being an actual word. It's like a modified word, a clunky one that, you know, is more of a, what is that, not quite a portmanteau, but like bastard Latin used to badly communicate something. And I still think it is, but because it was such a rarely seen word, it was easy to latch on stupid ideas to it. And you're not wrong about drain the swamp, but like I said about the language you're choosing, there are so many words that just have become, at best, neutral, and often have been co-opted to mean a particular thing in a way that will not allow a new concept to drop into someone's head.
G: I think you're identifying something that linguists and political consultants have noticed, but from a different angle.
The words that become politically "sticky" are almost never the ones that are best written. They're the ones that feel like someone accidentally coined them in a bar.
"Deplorable." "Woke." "Defund." "Drain the Swamp." "RINO."
None of those sound like they came out of a communications office. They sound slightly wrong. That wrongness is part of what makes them memorable.
I also think you're pointing out something I was unconsciously doing: I was looking for an accusation. You're looking for a nickname.
Those aren't the same thing.
Compare:
Party Before Country
versus
Rubber Republicans
The second is almost childish.
That's a feature.
Political labels that last often sound like schoolyard insults.
Likewise,
Protection Party
versus
Grifter Party
The second instantly paints a picture.
Another thing I think you're getting at is that the target isn't committed supporters.
It's people who are emotionally tired but don't want to admit they were wrong.
Those people usually don't respond to
"You supported corruption."
They respond better to
"These guys have turned into a clown show."
One lets them leave with their dignity.
The other tells them they're guilty.
That's an important psychological distinction.
Where I'd keep looking is for words with three characteristics:
I also think your observation about "defund" is insightful from a language perspective. "Defund" wasn't common everyday speech before it became politically salient. Its unfamiliarity made it easier for different groups to project different meanings onto it. Once a term becomes a kind of linguistic blank slate, people start attaching stories to it. The same thing happened with "woke": a word that originally had a relatively specific meaning in one community broadened dramatically because different speakers filled it with different associations.
The challenge for anyone trying to create a durable political label is that you can't simply invent one by committee. Many strategists have observed that the terms that endure are often coined by critics, comedians, activists, or ordinary supporters, then spread organically because they feel novel, emotionally resonant, and easy to repeat. Campaigns frequently try to manufacture them, but relatively few catch on.
One place where I think our thinking diverges is that I don't think the answer necessarily lies in finding a harsher word. Some of the most successful political labels are effective because they're specific and odd, not because they're the most insulting. "RINO" isn't especially profane, but it's distinctive. "Deplorable" wasn't common conversational vocabulary, which made it memorable. The novelty gives people something to latch onto.
So if someone were deliberately trying to develop a durable political frame, I'd spend less effort asking, "How do we make this meaner?" and more asking, "What's a word people haven't already built mental defenses against?" That's a much rarer commodity, and it's one reason genuinely new political slogans are hard to create on demand.
M: Try the exercise again with the conversation we've had in mind. You don't have to try and be harsh. My point is that you are, I think, pulling back from some words because they are harsh. And I don't want you to do that. You don't have to go looking for them, but don't avoid them. And again, try and get lesser used words. And give me at least one example of, or sorry, one suggestion that involves the phrase "clown show" with some kind of modifier. Because something like the rubber clown show almost would work, but even I can't quite decode how rubber would come into play in terms of what we're talking about. So while I'll admit I overthink things, I think in this case it's more that your intention is difficult to decode than that I'm overlooking some sort of obvious interpretation. Oh, and here's one more example to tie in as an example of how the words aren't necessarily going to be 100% tied in to the situation at hand. The term Trump derangement syndrome has been used in a way that the left had the real fucking opportunity to take hold of and use for their own, but didn't. It's been used as some sort of indication or belief that opposition to Donald is because of some kind of mind virus, which isn't a goddamn thing, rather than actual rational looking around you and saying, this sucks. Now if they'd been smart about it, the left would have grabbed hold of that and used it to indicate the people who have actually broken their own ethics and promises and all of that simply to satisfy Daddy Donald. Because that is truly derangement. It is an alteration of thought patterns. But they didn't. And just the mindless repetition of it combined with the nature of the words in it made it so that it was able to stick in people's heads. That's the kind of thing we're going for here, something that can be thrown around as a catch-all with the difference between this and the, you know, Donald manipulation of language being that it needs to be accurate enough for use rather than a distraction from the accuracy of facts.
G: I think this gets at a subtle but important distinction.
You're not asking for propaganda in the sense of "make up a catchy insult." You're asking whether there's a way to create a frame that is broad enough to organize disparate events while still being tethered to observable behavior. In other words, a label that people could reasonably defend by pointing to examples, rather than one that only works if people accept a false premise.
With that in mind, I'd still judge each phrase by a high bar: could someone who disagrees at least understand what pattern it's pointing to, even if they reject the conclusion?
Here are some ideas that lean into the "nickname" approach rather than the "policy critique" approach.
This is less polite than it first appears. "Compliance" has a bureaucratic, almost clinical feel. It implies that the defining characteristic isn't conservatism or liberalism—it's obedience.
Every story becomes:
More compliance.
"Caucus" is an ordinary political word, but "echo" turns it into something slightly uncanny.
It suggests repetition without independent thought.
I actually like this one more.
It immediately paints a picture of people saying "amen" to whatever the leader says.
It's memorable because it's unexpected political language.
Since you specifically asked for a clown-show variant, this is the first place I'd go.
"Caucus" keeps it tied to Congress rather than to entertainment.
You can imagine headlines or commentary saying:
Another day in the Clown Show Caucus.
A little surreal.
The circus imagery suggests spectacle instead of governing.
"Loyalty" tells you what the performance is about.
This one is almost visual.
You immediately picture rows of people nodding.
That's a good sign.
This is getting into nickname territory.
The implication is they're in someone's pocket, without having to say whose every time.
Old phrase, but not one that's been exhausted in politics.
It has the advantage of being instantly understandable.
This is more of a frame than a nickname.
I wouldn't use it for people; I'd use it for a pattern of governance.
It suggests gradual institutional change rather than dramatic rupture.
This one is aimed less at politicians and more at the governing style.
The implied question is:
"Who are they waiting for permission from?"
I think "clown show" has potential because it's already entered common speech, but it needs something distinctive attached to it. A few possibilities:
Of those, I think Rubber-Stamp Clown Show is the strongest because the two halves reinforce one another: the first conveys passivity, the second conveys chaos.
One caution I'd add is about the example of "Trump Derangement Syndrome." It succeeded as a meme because it was compact, repeatable, and emotionally charged—not because it had a widely agreed-upon factual definition. If someone is looking for a phrase intended to persuade beyond an existing audience, there's a tradeoff: the more a slogan depends on a disputed premise, the more likely it is to rally supporters than to bring in people who are on the fence.
The labels that tend to have the longest shelf life often point to a behavior people can observe ("rubber stamp," "yes-men," "echo") and then let listeners decide what they think of that behavior. That gives the phrase room to spread without requiring agreement on every underlying political claim.
M: I personally like the clown show echo, although I don't think that would catch on without a concerted and nationwide effort. Yeah, if we do another round of this, you need to look at both whether the terminology comes out kind of looking objectively positive or, you know, otherwise complimentary with things like the compliance part, because, you know, that could... I understand where it's coming from. But that's the kind of thing that, where it sounds like the group that wants to make sure that there's a standardization of power supplies or something like that. It's just a word with too many applications to allow for strict and direct negative associations. The Echo Caucus has some good alliteration, but, I mean, I don't think enough people really understand the word caucus enough for it to be used. It's one of those words that can make people tune out, kind of like how people have made jokes about how certain word pairings on the front of a novel or something indicate that there's some kind of spy thriller or something like that. You know, the Prometheus Brief, the Zenfield Heist, things like that. Same thing with the word caucus. It just means that someone, whether it actually does or not, it makes people initially react as though this is something where it's going into the political weeds enough that if it's not what they're interested in to begin with, they can just tune it out. The Amen Caucus is why I said you might need to check, because that's another one that both sounds like it could be a positive thing and potentially has actually been used as some sort of self-applied label by some group of Christian right purists who all believe the same thing, and that thing is kind of gross to the society at large. Again, I like clowns as a metaphor because they had just basically been doing nothing but distracting and honking their horns while doing exactly what Donald says. But the word caucus still blunts that. Pocket Republicans is getting there, but it's too... I think it's a little bit too open-ended. Like, it might have worked 20 to 25 years ago. But with phones and computers and all that getting small enough to get in a pocket, it's gone from a neutral to negative idea to a neutral to positive, just by itself. Velvet coup sounds too much like the Velvet Underground. Again, velvet is a term that's often associated with positivity or luxury. It's the kind of modifier that you would use after something came to rest in the zeitgeist. You know, like the, well, the Velvet Clown Caucus or something like that, but not as the initial offering. The problem with emphasizing just the clown show is that it does need a very rare or rarely used modifier attached to it. Clown show is part of the public consciousness, so anything that doesn't draw it out to make it particular to the situation will end up blending into the background.
G: I actually think you've backed your way into something that political branding people sometimes underestimate: you're not searching for a slogan. You're searching for what marketers would call a sticky lexical object—a phrase that sounds like it already existed, even though nobody remembers hearing it before.
Listening to how you're critiquing these, I think your criteria are roughly:
That's a surprisingly high bar.
I also think you're right that I was still choosing words that have respectable alternate meanings. You're looking for modifiers that are almost linguistically dirty—words that don't get used much because they carry an odd emotional texture.
For example, instead of "velvet," think words like:
Those aren't necessarily the answer, but notice how they all create a picture.
Now applying that to "clown show," here are some that at least pass your novelty test better:
The last two are probably too long, but they illustrate the direction.
Here's another angle that occurred to me while reading your response.
You've spent most of the conversation assuming the clown is the important noun.
I'm no longer convinced.
Maybe the modifier should be the memorable part, and "clown show" is just the hook people already know.
For example, imagine if somebody coined something like
Parrot Show
or
Puppet Parade
Those don't need "clown" because the modifier is already doing enough work.
Or
The Copycat Party
Not because "copycat" is devastating, but because every story becomes
"They're doing the copycat thing again."
The other thing I'd borrow—not from politics but from comedy—is that the best recurring labels often have a tiny element of nonsense.
Think about why "dumpster fire" worked.
A dumpster isn't on fire very often.
That's exactly why people remember it.
Likewise, "train wreck" is technically a very specific event, yet it generalized because it creates a vivid mental image.
So I wouldn't be afraid of phrases that are slightly surreal:
None of those are fully formed, but they all have a little bit of that "what did they just call them?" quality that makes people repeat a phrase.
One thing I wouldn't chase is maximum harshness. I think you've convinced me that's not the variable that matters. "Deplorable" isn't memorable because it's harsh. "Woke" isn't memorable because it's harsh. "RINO" isn't memorable because it's profane. They're memorable because they each occupy an odd little corner of the language that wasn't already crowded. Once they caught on, people filled them with meaning. The rarity came first; the emotional weight followed.
If I were treating this as an actual language-design problem rather than a political one, I'd probably spend more time hunting through obscure, concrete English nouns than through political vocabulary. The next durable political nickname is more likely to come from an unexpected everyday object than from another abstract word like compliance, integrity, or governance. That's where I think the real search space is.
M: You're pinning down too much. I agree with the sticky lexical object, but it can be any of the elements of it. You just can't have a common lexical object paired with another common object, like clown show or caucus or, trying to think of a good modifier, let's just go with sweet. The point is, I don't want you to limit yourself just to looking for uncommon slash sticky adjectives or looking only for common nouns. It's that the combination has to be, has to have some degree of stickiness to it, like the ability and method of shortening things to TDS plus the word derangement was enough. But it wasn't because it was a noun or a verb or adjective, but because there was just that element of stickiness. And the words don't have to be like, dirty in the way that you're saying, they just have to be leaning towards the negative. I mean, like the word derangement. That usually is a word that would only come up clinically, but is occasionally used as an accusation. Most of the words you used as examples are either too complex to be used or too common to be used. And I don't think you should focus on clown. I'm already focused on it, so if you come up with a good example where I can fold that in, that'll be fine. You can just drop that as a focus.
G: I think you've refined the problem enough that it's becoming more like solving a crossword than writing copy.
Here's the rule I'd write down now:
The phrase needs to feel like people discover its meaning after hearing it two or three times.
That's different from immediately understanding it.
"TDS" didn't work because everyone instantly knew what it meant. It worked because people kept hearing it until the words fused into a single concept.
Likewise "RINO."
Likewise "woke."
Likewise "snowflake."
They're all slightly off-center linguistically.
The other thing I think you've correctly pulled me away from is this idea that there has to be a visual metaphor.
There doesn't.
There just has to be compression.
The phrase has to become shorthand for twenty different stories.
That changes where I'd look.
Instead of trying to describe politicians, I'd try to describe the failure mode.
For example, words that don't get used very often anymore but have a nice emotional texture:
Notice these aren't insults.
They're states of being.
That's interesting.
Some combinations that I think have more of the "wait...what?" factor:
Housebroken Republicans
That one made me stop.
It's funny.
It's insulting.
It implies obedience without saying "obedient."
Scripted Republicans
Simple.
Not especially novel.
But every interview suddenly gets viewed through that lens.
Leash Politics
Odd.
Very compact.
Handler Party
This one has potential.
People immediately ask
Handler for whom?
Exactly.
The Choreographed Party
A little long.
But "choreographed" isn't political language.
Domestic Caucus
No.
Interesting intellectually.
Dead on arrival emotionally.
The Kennel Caucus
Again, probably not.
But notice how much more emotional "kennel" is than "compliance."
Here's one direction I suddenly like much better.
Not nouns.
Medical language.
Because "derangement" worked for exactly that reason.
Words like
Now you're playing in the same linguistic neighborhood as "Trump Derangement Syndrome."
Imagine headlines saying
Another episode of...
or
It's become chronic.
That's interesting because it reframes behavior rather than ideology.
Or mechanical language.
Imagine
Hardwired Republicans.
Not because it's perfect.
Because "hardwired" is an unusual accusation.
The biggest realization I'm having, though, is that I think you've been treating this less like naming a movement and more like finding a diagnosis.
That's why "derangement" fascinates you.
It isn't merely insulting.
It's explanatory.
It claims to explain why apparently contradictory behaviors all happen together.
That's much more powerful than "clown."
A clown is what someone looks like.
A derangement is supposedly why they behave that way.
If that's the direction, I'd actually stop looking at political slogans entirely and start looking at the vocabulary of medicine, engineering, theater, religion, addiction, and animal training. Those are domains full of uncommon words that ordinary people still recognize, and they naturally lend themselves to describing persistent patterns rather than isolated incidents. That's exactly the kind of conceptual compression you're trying to achieve.