‘They’re eating the cats’: Why Trump dominated the post-debate news cycle

Fading quickly from the headlines, last week’s presidential debate was noteworthy only for its three-on-one format, in which former president Donald Trump found himself debating not just rival Kamala Harris but also two ABC News moderators.

Indeed, the only line from the entire 90-minute stoush that maintained prolonged national interest was the Donald’s, “they’re eating the dogs; they’re eating the cats” — in reference to the Haitian migrant crisis unfolding in Springfield, Ohio.

A boorish and thoroughly Trumpian spin on the issue, at the time, it seemed a uniquely forgettable remark. However, if Trump has polished one skill as a political figure, it’s the ability to voice the concerns of vast swathes of unpretentious Americans in unpretentious ways.

Within hours, memelords had flooded social media with AI art depicting the 45th President rescuing pets from impending doom. Trending on TikTok and X were mixes, remixes, cartoons and even dance moves to the tune of “They’re eating the dogs / They’re eating the cats / Eat the cat / Eat, eat the cat”.

In an effort to “pre-bunk” any Trump commentary on events in Springfield, moderator David Muir opined that ABC News had reached out to the city manager who “told us there have been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community.”

The global media blob promptly issued thousands of articles apparently refuting Trump on this and other points he raised during Tuesday’s debate. America’s prestige press made a particular effort to redirect the nation’s concerns to alleged bomb threats made against Ohio’s immigrant communities.

However, once the “news” had run its course, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine clarified that the bomb threats had turned out to be hoaxes originating from overseas.

Meanwhile, footage emerged of Springfield’s city manager Bryan Heck acknowledging as early as March of this year that he’s “heard about it too,” in reference to the abduction of local domesticated animals.

Judicial Watch was one of several organisations to obtain official records of 911 calls about missing pets from Springfield.

And it took just days for independent journalist Christopher Rufo to have “conducted an exclusive investigation that reveals that, yes, in fact, some migrants in Ohio appear to have been ‘eating the cats’” — though he acknowledged it was “not exactly in the manner that Trump described.” He explained:

Our investigation begins in a run-down neighborhood of Dayton, Ohio, the closest major city to Springfield, about a half-hour’s drive away. We identified a social media post, dated August 25, 2023, with a short video depicting what appear to be two skinned cats on top of a blue barbeque.

We spoke with the author of the video, who asked to remain anonymous but confirmed its time, location, and authenticity.

Days later, Rufo responded to a CBS News attempt to “fact check” his investigation, calling it “a supremely dishonest and completely partisan report,” elaborating:

What did CBS not do? Journalism. The network, which has massive resources, did not send a reporter to the scene, interview the eyewitness, interview the neighbors, investigate the visual evidence, conduct background research, or provide a detailed analysis. They simply adopted “don’t believe your lying eyes” as their standard and repeated an empty, evidence-free statement from a partisan political figure.

Contending for a universal negative (especially regarding a culture known to practice animal sacrifice as part of the Vodou religion) was always going to be a gamble — but it was evidently one mainstream journalists couldn’t resist in the never-ending quest to prove that orange man bad.

And while the “fact check” approach to political journalism remains popular among the ruling class, its weakness has once again been laid bare in this latest incident — namely, an editorial focus on technicalities that fails to address the substantive concerns of the masses.

It is doubtful that the residents of Springfield — and countless flyover towns just like it — obsess over the precise fate of abducted pets and park birds.

What they care about is what these widespread reports of animal abductions represent: a clash of cultures foisted on them against their will; an influx of tens of thousands of migrants making rents unaffordable; an uptick in road accidents due to unlicensed drivers; schools overwhelmed by students who can’t speak English; strained city services ever more inaccessible to the residents that pay for them.

Zoom out, and the migrant crisis in places like Springfield are just the latest chapter in a long line of abuse from the powers that be in Washington — whether the shutting of factories and the shipping of jobs overseas, an open border that has welcomed a fentanyl crisis killing tens of thousands annually, or the sacrifice of America’s sons and daughters in endless wars.

As a final insult, any local who notices the pitfalls of resettling 20,000 Haitian migrants in a city of just 60,000 is labelled a racist. It’s no wonder Trump’s “eating the cats” remark dominated the post-debate news cycle, and no wonder he remains competitive in the polls, despite every effort of the media.

For all his faults — and there’s no shortage of them — he’s the only one who doesn’t talk down to them, and the only lifeline they can seem to find in DC. Just ask the pets of Springfield.

Did Trump’s reference to cat-eating migrants in the debate with Kamala Harris just make him look weird?

AUTHOR

Kurt Mahlburg

Kurt Mahlburg is a writer and author, and an emerging Australian voice on culture and the Christian faith. He has a passion for both the philosophical and the personal, drawing on his background as a graduate architect, a primary school teacher, a missionary, and a young adult pastor.

EDITORS NOTE: This Mercator column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.