An Idiom Explanation of American Politics

There are two idioms which create one metaphor that I think best explain the current state of American politics:

1. "It's like Herding Cats"

2. "Give the crowd some Red Meat"

Metaphor: Lions Lions Lions (even better because this is a homonym as well)

Imagine our two party democratic system as the African safari, a vast landscape of openness full of wonderful life.

Continuing this theme, imagine that every single person is represented by a lion, essentially there are roughly 160 million lions roaming wild.

Democracy and campaigns are essentially two competing companies attempting to figure out how to herd these wild beasts together once very couple years, and the company that gets the most lions together wins something.

This essentially is a game that can be seen in any American election at any time, a somewhat impossible task that sort of works every couple years.

Trump's approach to trying to get lions over to his side has been a unique one, a somewhat obvious one as well. He basically decided to open a slaughterhouse in the middle of nowhere with the idea that the lions come to him. All trump had to do is figure out how to herd the "herd animals" which in this case is the media and the internet, but in Africa is zebras, wildebeests, and other animals lions eat.

It worked during the 2016 primaries and in the campaign of 2016. He just gave red meat to enough lions to take control of the Republican Party. In the process he has an army of angry wild beasts he sometimes unleashes on to other competing prides, (his oppoisiton both Democrats and Republican)

By now in 2025 it's basically just an army of lions around a gigantic slaughterhouse that seems immovable and impossible to try to pry away some of the lions away from their home base. Why? because that's where the food is.

Democrats on the other side, continue talk about pride, or communities or groups of lions and try to entice them to herd themselves over to their side using traditional methods.

The problem is that Trump has sort killed all the zebras and wildebeests in the wilderness over at his slaughterhouse. The lions who still enjoy hunting, and doing things on their own and don't want to be part of the pride of lions who just hang out by Trump's slaughterhouse.

Another current issue is the lack of organization and skill of the Democrats who are supposed to be at least somewhat good at herding lions. From this one individual lion's point of view, it appears to me that the Democrat's version of attempting to get lions over to their side has absolutely nothing to do with what lions need.

Democrats seem to be discussing amongst themselves the best way on how to farm kale and opening some kind of school to try to teach lions about the benefits of switching to a vegan diet. Basically they are living in a Hakuna Matata kind of world, instead of training on how to go fuck up Scar and take the throne back.

At some point, it's just easier to go over and live in the Trump matrix and eat some steak from Trump's slaughterhouse. (a little mixed metaphor but there's enough Gen X'ers on my email list to figure this red pill, blue pill thing out

Click for more history about where "Red Meat" comes from within the context of our political lexicon of phrases. 

Summary of "Red Meat" in Politics

Definition & Purpose
"Red meat" in politics refers to statements, policies, or rhetoric designed to energize a party’s base by appealing to strong emotions, often through controversial or divisive topics. This strategy is used to rally support, maintain enthusiasm among loyal voters, and create a stark contrast with political opponents.

Historical Context

• The term originated in 1911 in the movie industry, referring to sensationalized films.
• By the 1940s, it became a political term, with one early example from The Baltimore Sun, describing how audiences craved more aggressive rhetoric in political speeches.
• Richard Nixon’s vice president, Spiro Agnew, frequently sought "red meat" in speeches to fire up supporters in the 1970s.

Use in Political Campaigns

• Red meat rhetoric is common in populist movements, especially on the right. A notable example is Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, which used chants like "Lock Her Up" to stoke anger against Hillary Clinton.
• It is also a wedge issue strategy, used to attack opponents or highlight polarizing topics like immigration, gun control, abortion, and social justice.
• While presidential elections are often won in the middle with independent voters, red meat rhetoric is crucial to maintaining a solid base, without which a campaign cannot succeed.

Potential Risks & Downsides

• Overuse can lead to political polarization, resentment, and a decline in civil discourse.
• If a candidate softens their rhetoric too much, they risk losing their base, as seen in John McCain’s 2008 campaign when he attempted to humanize Barack Obama, leading to boos from his own supporters.

How It Wins Elections

• Base Mobilization: Ensures core supporters are engaged and likely to vote.
• Emotional Appeal: Creates a sense of urgency, fear, or outrage to boost turnout.
• Media Amplification: Sensational or aggressive rhetoric often garners media attention, keeping candidates in the spotlight.
• Opponent Weakening: By forcing opponents into defensive positions on controversial topics, red meat tactics can define the narrative of a campaign.

While red meat rhetoric is a powerful campaign tool, balancing it with broader appeal is necessary for ultimate electoral success.