JD Vance's problem isn't weirdness. It's nastiness.

• Democrats keep calling JD Vance and other Republicans "weird."
• But while the "weird" critique may end up sticking, it's not exactly right.
• Vance and other Republicans are incentivized to be nasty, leaving them open to the "weird" critique.

Democrats have landed on a descriptor for JD Vance: Weird.

"By the way," Vice President Kamala Harris said at an Atlanta rally on Tuesday, "don't you find some of their stuff to just be plain weird?"

With Democrats eagerly resurfacing the Ohio senator's years-old comments about "childless cat ladies," Republicans are suddenly on the defensive over their party's nominee for vice president. A handful have openly denounced those comments, while others have carefully put some distance between themselves and Donald Trump's new running mate. I wouldn't have put it that way, they say.

As a political strategy, calling one's opponents "weird" is relatively novel, and it's at least been effective in triggering a reaction from the other side. In an attempted counterpunch, Vance himself posted a video of Vice President Kamala Harris stating her pronouns during a CNN town hall in 2019.

But while the "weird" critique may end up sticking, it's not exactly right.

What has made Vance vulnerable to these critiques is the nastiness that he and other Republicans are incentivized to display, even when discussing something — family policy — that has the potential to bridge traditional party divides.

Vance wasn't just bashing 'cat ladies' — he was trying to make a point

By now, just about everyone has heard Vance's infamous "childless cat ladies" remark, a label that he ascribed to Democratic politicians including Vice President Kamala Harris, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York during a 2021 appearance on Tucker Carlson's Fox News Show.

"We are effectively run in this country via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives," Vance said at the time.

The remarks come across as callous, displaying a contemptuousness of those who don't have families. There's also seemingly little acknowledgement of those who would like to have kids, but haven't been able to for whatever reasons.

Yet when he made a similar point at a conservative conference in the Washington, DC area that same year, he sounded far more nuanced:

"Now, let me do the necessary throat-clearing, because I do think it's important. Look, a lot of people are unable to have kids for very complicated and important reasons. They're, you know, good friends of mine who have struggled to find the right girl, find the right guy. There are people of course, for biological reasons, medical reasons, that can't have children. The target of these remarks is not them. It's important to point that out. There have always been people like that who — even though they would like to have kids — [are] unable to have them. Let's set them to the side."

And when he was asked to defend his comments on The Megyn Kelly Show last week, he sounded similarly conciliatory at times:

"First of all, Kamala Harris, you know, I don't know her family situation. I've read in the media that she's got two step-kids. I wish her stepchildren and Kamala Harris and her whole family the very best. The point is not that she's lesser.

The potentially-unifying argument that underlies Vance's vitriol is that American society should encourage people to have children and build families — that it makes people happier and gives them a sense of purpose. Furthermore, he has argued at times for policies that make it easier for families to do so.

It's an argument that Democrats largely agree with, which is why they've pursued policies such as the child tax credit (despite Vance's recent claims to the contrary) and sought to implement universal childcare.

But what turns off Democrats — and plenty of Republicans — is that he isn't celebrating those who are able to have families. He's bashing those that don't.

Nastiness is often encouraged in Republican politics

In today's GOP, combativeness and aggression can get you far. At the very least, it can get you attention, which can translate into fundraising and ultimately votes.

Politicians will frequently try to mimic Trump's aggressive style, often falling flat while doing so. Even if they're not trying to be a mini-Trump, plenty of Republicans have learned that it's better to come off as tough and mean than as agreeable and nice.

Vance understands these dynamics, and during the 2021-2022 period when he was making these sorts of comments, he was just one of several candidates in a crowded GOP primary field for an Ohio Senate seat.

Competing for eyeballs and ultimately votes, Vance was incentivized to be as pugilistic and outrageous as possible, often displaying a casualty cruelty on the campaign trail.

In the context of a Republican primary campaign, or an all-Republican political event, this sort of thing is easily shrugged off, even rewarded.

But in the context of a nationwide general election, where the deciding votes are often held by ideologically mixed voters who may not take well to partisan nastiness, it's susceptible to falling flat — and to some, coming across as just plain weird.