I've shared my observations of the Democratic National Convention, so now it's time to examine the Republican National Convention. Just as in my previous blog, these are reactions that I recorded in real time as I watched the Convention live on CNN.com.
Observation #1:
Sarah Palin’s convention speech a few days ago was surprisingly excellent, especially considering it was her first ever national address. She reminds me of Barack Obama, because she is able to get people riled up. But, she’s as conservative as Obama is liberal.
I called Obama a demagogue; in all fairness I’ll have to apply the term to Palin as well.
Observation #2:
In my previous Conventional Observations blog, I accused Obama supporters of being “cultish.” Well, the RNC was somewhat similar with its rampant nationalism. Five minutes hardly passed without chants of “USA, USA” ringing out amongst the delegates. Overall, it was a very “rah rah America” convention.
Observation #3:
There were repeated references to 9/11, which is certainly nothing new among Republicans and Democrats alike. The question, though, is whether these continual reminders are a form of “scare tactics” or a legitimate security concern. Perhaps it’s a combination of both.
McCain lucked out that Bush decided to stay in Washington during the Convention due to Hurricane Gustav. He needs to stay away from him. There is no doubt that Bush was not a very good president, and so McCain needs to do everything he can to severe any connections between him and his former rival. Of course, Democrats will equate the two anyhow.
In a speech via satellite, Bush said that McCain is not afraid to pursue our enemies and strike them before they strike us. Well, I am afraid of that. The preemptive doctrine of the neoconservatives is exactly what is driving so many people away from the Republican Party. This military strategy has already gotten us into the quagmire of Iraq, and perhaps threatens to get us involved with Iran. McCain is very much a military man, and it is this quality of him that I have the most misgivings about.
Observation #4:
Just proving how militaristic he is, McCain outlined his Vietnam War experiences, and once again repeated his refrain that he “hates war.” I find that a little bit contradictory- if he hated war so much, why does he enthusiastically support the War in Iraq?
His war stories are highly personal, though, and do demonstrate a strength of character that Obama lacks. For instance, when his plane was shot down, he was given the option of release by his Viet Cong captors. He, incredibly, turned it down. But this raises a question: is the “hero attribute” necessary for a president? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the vast majority of US presidents have been war veterans. So, perhaps the American people like something about that “hero attribute,” regardless of whether or not it’s actually important.
On yet another war-related note, the Convention was briefly disrupted by the appearance of a Code Pink protestor. While I support their right to free speech, I think their obnoxious tactics really make them look bad. A security guard grabbed her by her collar and led her out, accompanied by thunderous boos.
Observation #5:
I had no idea that McCain has seven children- one of which is adopted. Combined with Palin’s five kids, one of whom has Down’s syndrome, I’d say that this pair are legitimate “family values” Republicans.
On another family note, McCain’s 96 year old mother attended the Convention, looking quite spry at that. If genetics influence a person’s longevity, we have no reason to believe that McCain could become incapacitated (that would be my euphemism for “dead”) if he gets elected.
Observation #6:
Now we’re getting into some of the actual substance of McCain’s acceptance speech. Just like in Obama’s speech, nothing new or particularly interesting came up. Just some typical Republican issues: constructionist judges, personal responsibility, “letting people keep the fruits of their labors,” life, low taxes, value of families, “government that doesn’t make choices for you…” All of this is fairly standard Republican fare.
I’m quite dissatisfied with McCain’s failure to actually outline his plan for accomplishing the above goals- again, very similar to Obama’s speech. So, both of them failed in that area. But remember, the convention isn’t really an important political event; it’s just free media coverage and a pep rally for the candidate. So maybe I shouldn’t be expecting anything of substance in these speeches.
McCain is certainly no public speaker like Obama, and his venue was much smaller, but the delegates and other convention goers seemed to respond well to his speech. They are, of course, all Republicans. Let’s see how he does with the entire electorate.
Observation #7:
This observation doesn’t take place at the Convention. At least, not at the official Republican Convention. Representative Ron Paul- I bet you never expected him to come up again this election season- held his own, well-attended “counter-Convention” across the river from the RNC, where he advocated a return to the original Republican platform of limited government, “non-interventionalist” foreign policy (he is one of few Republicans who has opposed the War in Iraq since its beginning), abolishing the Federal Reserve, and a return to a strict reading of Constitutional law.
Interestingly, Paul was the only significant former Republican presidential candidate denied a speaking spot at the (real) Convention- even non-Republican Joe Lieberman got prominent air time (with which he greatly irked his former party, the Democrats. Now they’re threatening to kick him off his committee seat on the Democratic National Committee). I’m sure McCain isn’t too thrilled with Paul- he refuses to endorse his candidacy. Now that’s independent thinking.
McCain claims to be his party’s maverick, but Paul is the one who is really ostracized. He is the real maverick, the true outcast. The campaign movement he started really is remarkable, though. While he flunked during the primary elections, he raised millions of dollars from a largely grassroots campaign. I certainly wouldn’t have minded if he got the nomination.
---
All in all, I found the Republicans’ Convention very similar to the Democrats’. Conventions, when you look at them very closely, are like the vice presidential nominee: they seem important on the surface, but carry little true significance. They are, appropriately, just conventional.
Good observations over all. And for the most part fair,
I'll respond to a couple:
Observation 1: I called Obama a demagogue; in all fairness I’ll have to apply the term to Palin as well.
Demagogue is a word with a negative meaning. It means a lot more than just having the ability to get people "riled up". Merriam Webster gives it this definition: "a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power ".
It is not "fair" to hang a label like that on a politician unless it is deserved. If you are going to make that charge you ought to explain which popular prejudices, false claims and promises you are talking about. I listened to Palin's speech and she spent the vast majority of her time talking about her biography and her record of accomplishments while throwing in some solid groin kicks to the opposition. People got "riled up" because they approved. I didn't hear a lot of promises that were inconsistent with her past record and the only popular prejudice she might have played to was contrasting small town American values to condescending elites which was pretty fair given the rough treatment those elites had given her in the media for the previous several days.
I think the label fits for Obama because his entire campaign is based around the nebulous word "change" without ever giving it a definition. Whenever somebody tries to pin him down on particular policies he goes into contortions of flip flops. And his claims of bringing us together look pretty false in the light of his extremely thin (almost non-existent) record of non-bipartisanship. He has the most liberal and least bi-partisan record in the Senate. But he talks a good game about it and that is the stock in trade of a demagogue.
Observation 4: Just proving how militaristic he is, McCain outlined his Vietnam War experiences, and once again repeated his refrain that he “hates war.” I find that a little bit contradictory- if he hated war so much, why does he enthusiastically support the War in Iraq?
I hated disciplining my daughter but over the years I sometimes found it necessary. My mother hated chemo-therapy when she had breast cancer but she preferred it to the alternative.
Your argument that McCain's support of the war in Iraq disproves that he hates war is a logical non-sequitur. It is perfectly possible to hate war and also to understand that it is sometimes necessary to keep our nation safe.
I happen to agree with you that in retrospect, the War in Iraq appears to have been unnecessary and had we seen better pre-war intelligence, the vast majority of people including the majority of our Congress and past Presidents would not have supported it. But we made the decision to go to war based on the intelligence we had at the time and which was supported by almost every allied intelligence agency around the world. Once in the war, the necessity of winning it (which we now apparently almost have and for which I give McCain a great deal of credit) is obvious to anybody (except defeatist Democrats) who lived through the post-Vietnam era which I did and so did John McCain. He explained the consequences of losing in his speech last night. It would damage our credibility around the world which would make it harder to support our allies and would invite future attacks. And it would damage our military by devastating moral and making recruiting and retention impossible. That certainly would not make us safer. And it would damage the very social fabric of our nation just as the loss in Vietnam damaged the country for almost two decades. Victory is good and while I regret that we ever started the war I am damn glad that we are about to end it as victorious. McCain showed a lot of courage at a time when supporting the war was VERY UNPOPULAR and against his self-interest.
The "hero attribute" speaks to character. Being a war hero does not qualify a person to be President but it does very strongly suggests that the person has a quality that Americans (and almost all peoples) have strongly valued in the selection of their leaders: strength of character. We also value intelligence, integrity, executive and leadership skills, humanity, charisma and some other qualities so being a hero is not enough but it helps. I don't think McCain excels in all of those areas
I hate John McShamnesty and won't be voting for him but he has a very long and consistent record and to his credit he is running on it rather than away from it like so many politicians have in recent years. My problem with John McCain is that he often puts bi-partisanship in front of principles and ends up getting nothing worthwhile in return. He is a horrible negotiator.
cosmic ought to have spelled out the reasons for calling Obama a demagogue.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
See my response to jackbenimble's comment- I was not using the word to mean a decetiful politician, but rather one who plays on the emotions of his audience in order to advance his own agenda. Obama's calls for "change" seem to fall under that category- people very much want change right now, so Obama shrewdly took up the slogan.
Observation #3 in the previous Conventional Observations blog explains my characterization of Obama as a demagogue.
You got me- especially with that last paragraph. In the spirit of fairness (and bi-partisanship) I purposefully tried to criticize McCain, as I had Obama. However, I do have a different approach to bi-partisanship than you: in order to effect meaningful change in our country, we need to reach across party lines and compromise- and that means conceding some of your own desires. Of course, that's not possible on all matters.
I agree that the War was a terrible idea, but there's nothing we can do about it now (and we especially can't cut and run).
I know that the word "demagogue" has negative connotations, but I was using it in the sense of a person who increases their own popularity with suave talk- not necessarily lies and deceit. To me, a demagogue tells people what they want to hear in order to elicit positive feedback. Perhaps I misused the term.