Why Trump and Vance’s strategy is ‘say anything, make up anything’

JD Vance was holding court on CNN's State of the Union programme. "The American media totally ignored this stuff," he complained last Sunday, "until Donald Trump and I started talking about cat memes."

But it wasn't just a meme, objected interviewer Dana Bash. The Republican vice-presidential nominee gave a telling response: "If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that's what I'm going to do, Dana, because you guys are completely letting Kamala Harris coast."

If ever there was a case of saying the quiet part out loud, Vance had perfected the art. The cat memes he referred to were prompted by baseless rumours about legal Haitian immigrants in his home state of Ohio eating house pets - rumours that led to bomb threats and evacuations of schools and government buildings in Springfield.

But Vance's willingness to "create stories" to grab attention before the November's election hinted at a new frontier in post-truth America, where a lie is no longer slyly distributed but rather brazenly flaunted as a tactic to win political support and stir up social chaos.

Some commentators draw a parallel with Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway's coining of "alternative facts" when, on another Sunday politics show back in 2017, she sought to defend then White House press secretary Sean Spicer's false statements about the crowd size at Trump's inauguration.

Kurt Bardella, a Democratic strategist, said: "It's a logical continuation of what once was called 'alternative facts' by the same camp. It's obvious that is a long-term mission statement, more than just an offhand comment.

"Their entire strategy is to say anything, make up anything, invent false narratives to try and distract away from the very real consequences of their radical and extreme agenda that is so far out of the mainstream of the American people's interests. They think they have a better chance of winning by making up insane stories about people eating pets versus having a subsequent conversation about the consequences of their policy agenda."