Conventions Diary (2012)

 Originally published as a Facebook Note August 30, 2012.

Weirdest political moment of 2012?

...in which our intrepid author braves six hours of political propaganda because, well, it's sort of his job, and anyway would make a good note, he guesses.

About me: I'm old enough to remember conventions that actually chose candidates. I followed both the 1968 Republican and Democratic conventions, mostly on the radio. I've seen the parties and the media struggle with what the role of conventions should be in the era of primaries and caucuses. I think they remain publicly valuable, even though they're infomercials, because what a party or candidate is trying to sell you, and how they're trying to sell it, say a lot about that party or candidate.

I have my political preferences, of course, but this is not a forum to support either candidate or party. There are enough "fan boys" on the Internet, and I don't need to be another one. This is more of a detached musing. It's a way of sharing reactions with my friends of all stripes, and a vain hope that my tiny voice will somehow hold the candidates accountable to something bigger than victory.

Tuesday, August 28 (RNC).

Ann Romney, wife of the candidate. This is a tough speaking situation, the wife of the candidate telling personal stories without being either cheesy or giving too much information. Even allowing for that, Ann Romney was dull, or at least it became dull once she stopped her annoying giggle. Her early attempt at empathy with the economically struggling was transparent, and her discussion of her husband was alarmingly generic. As I tell my students, details, details, details. Saying Mitt makes you laugh four times is no substitute for telling one amusing story. Where was Laura Bush talking about George W. trying to read to the children while they jumped on him? Or the Kerry daughters talking about John attempting mouth-to-mouth resuscitation with a sick hampster? If we're trying to portray Mitt Romney as more human and less plastic, this didn't help.

"Give and it shall be given unto you?" What the heck is that from? Rev. Ike?

Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey. Christie showed why he is one of the most appealing young Republicans, at least to other Republicans. The first part of his speech talked about "they" who didn't believe he would accomplish anything as governor, and then he contrasted the beliefs of Republicans with "they" who believe a series of ridiculous and incoherent things. ("Who's 'they?'" Jane. "Them," I answered, trying to be helpful.) The watchwords of his speech--shared sacrifice, principled compromise--are things I could full-throatedly cheer. Would it be quibbling to point out that the sacrifice asked of the well-off is to choke down yet another reduction in their taxes, that for all his accomplishments New Jersey has the 4th highest unemployment rate in the country, and that a little principled compromise would have gone far to relieve the mess that has been the last two years in Washington? Christie's skillful, impassioned delivery allows Republicans to sit up straighter and say, "Hey, that's not our mess. We're for principled compromise."

Wednesday, August 29 (RNC). 

Condoleezza Rice, fmr national security advisor and secretary of state. Short, scattered speech notable for its appeal to internationalism. Of course, the insinuation was that the Obama administration is something else, but it seemed aimed inside the hall as well.

Susanna Martinez, governor of New Mexico. Short speech notable for her joyous reference to the size of the gun she carried while working for her parents' security firm. It's the only mention of guns I've seen so far, and really the only mention of hot-button social issues besides Ryan's brief reference to Romney as a "defender of marriage."

Paul Ryan, U.S. representative from Wisconsin and vice-presidential nominee. Ryan is the economic wunderkind of the party, and a rather prominent name because of that, so it's hard to remember this is really his first appearance on a national platform. He talks tough on the budget, but he's selectively tough; his animating passion is cutting taxes, being a supply-side disciple of Jack Kemp, whom he referenced in his speech. The task of the vice presidential nominee is to flay the opposition, which he did with brio, skillfully probing Obama's various vulnerabilities. In place of Dick Cheney's trademarked  sneer, he wore a look of feigned astonishment at the misdeeds of the current administration. Of course, there are two sides to his accusations, and most of what he attacked was a crude caricature, but that's politics. You don't go to conventions for measured tones and balanced analysis.

So, no quibbling here, but I am going to call him out on two points where he went beyond the pale of politics.

1. He characterized the 2009 stimulus as "crony capitalism," funneling $800+ billion to the infamous Solyndra and others while ordinary people were "left out." This is just false. Much of the stimulus was in the form of income tax cuts in 2009, followed by payroll tax cuts in 2011. Moreover, much of the spending was in the form of direct grants to state and local governments, which tided them through the worst of the recession. (By the way, a small part of direct stimulus spending found its way to Coe College, where I work, contributing to the rehabbing of Peterson Hall. Crony non-profitism?)
2. He charged Obama with "raiding Medicare" to the tune of $716 billion to help fund the health care act. This is a dubious characterization to begin with, but the same savings appears in Ryan's own Medicare plan (which he did not detail in his speech, but that's off the point). Criticism of the opposition is part and parcel of politics, but criticizing them for a proposal that you yourself made is shamelessly cynical.

Thursday, August 30 (RNC). 

Clint Eastwood, actor/director. Embarrassing and sad. Whose idea was this?

Marco Rubio, U.S. senator from Florida. Everything had been pretty much said already, except he paid considerable attention to God, moreso than the speakers above. 

Mitt Romney, presidential nominee.  Romney said Americans were losing hope in the dream of better lives for their children after four years of Obama. I think they have some reason to lose hope, no matter who's President. More on that maybe next week.

One of the questions I had going into this convention was what the Republican strategy is for 2012; specifically, would they focus on the base, or try to win independent voters? The '92 convention which renominated George H.W. Bush was notable for its harsh tone, which pundits took as an indication Bush was still trying to win back the Republican base and was not ready for a general election campaign. But in 2004 George W. Bush was all base, all the time, lost independent voters by 2-1, and still won a decisive reelection victory. A similar strategy failed John McCain in 2008, but 2008 was a weird year in which Republicans faced an unusually uphill battle.

After three days of the Republican convention in 2012, I'm still not sure. The case for going for independent voters was that there was very little to no mention by prominent speakers of the issues that keep the hearts of the true right-wingers pounding, like abortion, gay marriage, gay anything, sharia law, the troops, and guns. The focus stayed pretty well on the state of the economy after 4 years of Obama, and there was a lot of empathy for under-appreciated small business owners and struggling families, though I kept wondering how many convention delegates were working two $9.00 an hour jobs to replace the $22.50 one they'd lost.

On the other hand there was a lot of coded language. A LOT of coded language. The base knows what they mean by "entitlement," "resentment and fear," "apology," "exceptionalism," "success," "marriage," Israel and Poland, but the rest of us are likely baffled by such references. It's possible a lot of independents finished this convention with quizzical looks on their faces. In the new (September 2012) issue of Perspectives on Politics, Kathleen Bawn of UCLA and five co-authors argue that political parties respond primarily to interest groups and activists, and then try to pretty up their policies for the masses. Perhaps that's what's going on?

Tuesday, September 4 (DNC).

Martin O'Malley, governor of Maryland. I tuned in to see Gov. O'Malley leading the delegates in chants of "Forward! Not Back!" I had forgotten this little feature of conventions, and am grateful to the Republicans for omitting it, at least while I was watching. The rest of this forgettable speech was a series of increasingly absurd charges against Romney. (It occurred to me that, if you switched the names "Obama" and "Romney," this speech could easily have been given at the Republican convention, and probably was. If this is how this fellow normally speaks, I'm glad I don't live in Maryland. At least Terry Branstad is low-key.

Julian Castro, mayor of San Antonio. Given an easy act to follow, Mayor Castro gave one of the better convention speeches I've seen. His "invest in opportunity" theme made the case for public goods in a way I haven't heard for awhile. (See an earlier note for an extended version of this lament.) Of course, one person's investment is another person's wasteful spending, but the Republicans have become so rigid in their anti-spending rhetoric that it shouldn't be that difficult a case to make. Castro was a bit scattered at times, but his main theme was a belief in individualism supported by a government that worked for opportunity for all, and it was effectively presented.

Michelle Obama, wife of the President. As stated above, this is a difficult speaking situation, and Michelle Obama handled it admirably. A lot of good stories, so that Barack Obama the person became vividly real in the telling. How much this matters, particularly after 3 1/2 years of him being President, I'm not really sure, but it was well done, particularly in contrast with Ann Romney's speech. The real problem, I think, is that it's hard in a speech like this to "humanize" someone who is by nature reserved, like Romney, or Kerry, or Dukakis. or George H.W. Bush. (All from Massachusetts, so what is that saying? Scott Brown's wife should start working on her speech now.)

Wednesday, September 5 (DNC). 

Sandra Fluke (pron. "fluk"), Georgetown University law student. Brief speech by the law student who was thrust into the limelight, not so much by her comments in support of contraception coverage under the ACA, as by radio thug Rush Limbaugh's characterization of her as a "slut." This is an issue where Obama initially stumbled, only to be rescued by Republican ham-handedness, which explains its being highlighted at the convention. She was poised and articulate, and may have a future in politics if she wants one.

Jim Sinegal, fmr CEO, Costco Corporation. Another brief speech, arguing for government's role in economic development. This is a response to last week's "We did build it" meme, and the general conservative stance of the last two decades that you must be either for business or government. Sinegal described a world where both have their roles to play. He is far from electrifying as a speaker, but it is an important message for Democrats to get across, so from their perspective most unfortunate that it was immediately undercut by...

Elizabeth Warren, U.S. Senate candidate in Massachusetts. Warren is a law professor and consumer advocate, who was one of the main driving forces behind the consumer protection agency established in 2010. She is a prophetic voice, unabashedly liberal, and probably a bit disgusted by the political maneuvering intended to block the agency's creation. She made some valid points about the importance of regulation today, but stepped on her own message. Her sweeping denunciations of "big banks" and "big corporations" also undercut other speakers' messages that Democrats were a big tent of reasonable people who excluded no one. If I were a business person, not an ideological fanatic but sitting on the fence, this speech would not have helped me support Obama.

Bill Clinton, fmr President. Clinton is older and leaner, but his political instincts remain keen. And there were the hand gestures, counting things off beginning with his thumb, as well as the... pointer finger? I would definitely get rid of the pointer finger, by amputation if necessary, as for anyone who remembers 1998 it is instantly redolent of his sex scandal. That being said, it was an excellent speech, striking a moderate tone, advocating common sense solutions, and articulating a reasonable defense of the Obama administration. I was struck by his admonition not to hate the other side, or at least what I took as an admonition. Other speakers at both conventions went that way (Romney said, "We wished Obama well," which someone should fact-check), but always in generalities, whereas Clinton went into detail about Republicans he's worked with and respected. A reminder to all not to take political rhetoric too seriously. We're going to have to live together after the election's over.

Thursday, September 6 (DNC).

Joe Biden, Vice President. I don't know if ratings were up due to curiosity-seekers wondering if Biden was going to implode, but he wasn't and he didn't. Biden is at his best in high-stakes situations; his infamous gaffes come in situations where he gets too comfortable. In his speech he poked at the Republicans' use of the phrase "culture of dependency" (actually, at the RNC they used "entitlement") to describe virtually any government program. Romney and the Republicans are certainly vulnerable on this point to any critical thinking or real-world examples; Obama put a lot of stress on it, too. Biden's citing, toward the end of his speech, the troops lost and injured during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, was eery and awkward.

Barack Obama, President. A compact acceptance speech, effective in several ways. It drew a contrast between the parties' philosophies, for anyone who's still deciding. He articulated a hopeful tone for the future, drawing comparisons with the Republicans' individualism. It referenced some policy plans on energy, education and international affairs, which are mildly interesting, and talked about deficit reduction although not much in the way of specifics. He briefly referenced the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan, but didn't endorse it. On the economy, which remains job #1, as well as the deficit, which is justifiably a concern, Obama was less clear. He was humorously accurate in poking at the Republicans' use of tax cuts as the answer for everything, but if people were anxious to hear plans I don't know that they had their questions answered.