Storytelling at the RNC
There are plenty of interesting things to note about the speeches at the Republican National Convention so far. I could write several essays full of reactions and responses to Thompson, Lieberman, Romney, Huckabee, and of course Palin. But I don’t really want to go speech-by-speech with this post. I’d rather take the time to discuss the framing techniques being employed by the Republican party via the convention. They’re carefully telling a story that adjusts and refines reality to fit their agenda.
Let me first say that I don’t think Republicans are the only people doing this. I bristled every time during the Democratic convention that I heard populist rhetoric about keeping jobs from going overseas or needing to buy American-made goods. Even though most of the speakers, or at least the speech writers and strategists, probably understand that free trade is essential for long-term economic success, the general public can’t tolerate hearing that, and rather than explain to them the difficult truth they chose to tell the easier story. Rhetorical flourish steps in for intellectual honesty. At the RNC, though, this sort of occurrence is much more frequent. (Mitt Romney called China “Adam Smith on steroids” — so, what, it’s now a problem that they’re adopting capitalism? What was he talking about? It sure made China seem scary, though, huh.)
One notable frame depicts John McCain as the women’s candidate. It looked like this was about disaffected Clinton supporters at first, but it appears to be a broader message. Tonight’s program, ultimately leading up to Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech, opened with Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina. Setting aside the unresolved issues about exactly how chummy McCain wants to appear to be with CEOs of huge businesses, I found it very interesting to note how Whitman and Fiorina kept talking about how McCain recognizes the contributions women have made to the economy. Was… was that really something controversial? Is that supposed to imply that Obama does not think women have any effect on the economy? Over and over they used phrases like, “As a woman, I support John McCain because….” This, juxtaposed with the choice of a female VP, does a good job of making an inattentive viewer feel like a vote for McCain is a vote for women’s lib. Maybe this is an attempt to mitigate the history-making factor working for Obama, or it could just be a really over-the-top attempt at the Hillary voters, but either way, it’s a misrepresentation.
First of all, I’m insulted by the idea that there are “women’s issues” as distinct from issues that are generally important to society. I acknowledge abortion as a women’s issue only insofar as women are the ones with the wombs, but I think that whether abortions are legal should be and is a concern to men as well. Ditto for the availability of contraception, or maternity/parental leave, or sex education in school. Nevertheless, this is what people mean when they talk about “women’s issues” and this is what we’re pretending McCain will excel at when someone claims to support him “as a woman.” Listen carefully, though — you’ll never hear him actually take the women-friendly stances on these issues. McCain isn’t even in favor of equal pay for female employees. How’s that for recognizing their contributions to the economy?
Also, I’m floored by the contradictory framing of government assistance programs. Many speakers have admonished those who depend on the government for financial support. Mitt Romney blurred the truth about Obama’s tax plan when he said that it would “raise taxes to put more people on Medicaid” and “grow the ranks of those who pay no taxes at all.” It sounds like everyone’s going to pay higher taxes — oh no! — unless you’re listening and realize that some taxes would be raised in order to allow people who can’t afford to pay taxes to pay less or none. Most of you booing in the convention hall would actually pay less in taxes as a result of Obama’s plan. Nevertheless, Romney spun it so that lower taxes for the not-super-wealthy meant barnacle-like dependency on federal programs. Thus the Republicans, advocates of tax cuts, managed to pull off “Higher taxes: bad! Lower taxes: also bad!” That’s odd enough on its own, but then we heard Palin promise parents of children with special needs that they would have an advocate in the White House to make sure they get the assistance they deserve. I’m confused. When are government handouts something to cheer for, and when do they spell “death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity” exactly?
The other major area of storytelling has to do with “small towns” versus “eastern elites.” Never mind that the latter term was tossed out by a multi-millionaire, former governor of Massachusetts. This is the biggest, weirdest frame of all, and it’s one that’s crept into nearly all the campaign coverage. People from small towns are regular folks, just like you, even though about 80% of the US population lives in an urban area. Then, the story goes, regular folks just like you, or like a guy you’d want to have a beer with, are best equipped to run the country. Now, let’s play a game. Think about the person sitting next to you the last time you were in a bar. Would you trust that person with the US nuclear arsenal, or even with a legislative veto? Come to think of it, would you trust yourself? The reality is, a president needs to have a rock-solid legal and political education and needs to have some experience with government. These are not qualities possessed by the average American, so don’t use your averageness to prove that you’ll make a good politician. I want to vote for the above-average candidate (as far above average as possible!), and I don’t think that makes me elitist — it just makes me rational.
That’s really the bottom line of all of this. Politicians tell these dodgy stories to make their policies more palatable to the American public, and at the end of the day we’re left with little more than lies and distortions. There are plenty of perfectly rational reasons to side with either party, or to land somewhere in between (or off in some entirely different direction), but we don’t seem to be hearing those reasons. In all fairness, I’m sure both McCain and Obama understand these reasons and would love to talk about them. However, those of us who think of politics as an intellectual rather than emotional exercise are far in the minority, and appealing to us isn’t the way to win an election. Until intellectual discourse becomes cool, I guess we’ll have to supply the rationality ourselves.
DNC: Day 3
This was awesome. I really have literally no complaints. Bill Clinton was excellent. John Kerry was excellent. Joe Biden was excellent.
Clinton totally beat expectations (which were, admittedly, very low) and made it very clear that he was totally in support of Obama. He vouched for Obama’s readiness, and got in a good amount of clear policy attacks. John Kerry’s accusations of flip-flopping were exactly what I’ve talked about before as the way the Democrats needed to attack McCain, and because it’s John Kerry it’ll get noticed. And as good as they were, Biden outdid both of them. His speech was emotional, honest, and strident. It was perfect for the blue collar voters that Obama has been targeting. It was strong on implied mastery of foreign policy, and in a way that wasn’t about Biden’s mastery of the issue, but about Obama’s. It packaged a coherent view of Democratic positions in a way I haven’t seen many do recently. (I’m thinking about things like the psychological value of work, for example.) It was aggressive and went after McCain, but didn’t come off as a negative speech. He told Obama’s life story in an earnest way that no one else has (and Obama, because it would sound egotistical, can’t even attempt). It was, overall, an absolutely great night.
DNC: Day 2
Well, the convention got better last night. Schweitzer gave the kind of speech that I think should fill all the time in between the big headliners. It was interesting and engaging. It was exciting. It got your attention, and it used that attention to make a point. I really have trouble imagining that the Democratic Party, which includes half the professional politicians in the country, can’t find more people who can pull off that kind of speech.
Warner’s keynote speech was solid. Obama’s keynote last year was the best contemporary political speech I’ve heard, and no one could be expected to follow with anything that would really live up to it. Warner’s isn’t going to be historically noteworthy, but it was fine.
Of course, the big speech of the night was Hillary’s, and it was very good. I can definitely nitpick it, but it was strong, and it did what it needed to do. It’s particularly important because there has been some polling evidence recently that the movement of Hillary voters towards Obama was stalling short of completion. This is surprising, since revelations since the campaign ended really undermine the only rationale there ever really was for picking her over Obama. Anyone who hasn’t should definitely read Politico’s “Relentless” series. It explains how Hillary chose less competent, less experienced staff because she wanted people who were personally loyal to her, and how she allowed (or maybe requested) those who tried to alert her directly of the horrible mismanagement of her campaign to be punished, rather than rewarded. It’s exactly the loyalty-over-competence, dissent-squashing environment that led to intelligence failures and Katrina mismanagement in the Bush administration. So much for the wonders of experience. With these new revelations, there is little remaining ground for believing Hillary would have been a better president.
But that’s not really the point. Even if Hillary was better qualified than Obama and deserved to be president, and even if she was unfairly blocked by a sexist media, responding by elimating constitutional protection of abortion rights, lengthening the war, and giving up all hope of healthcare reform is illogical bordering on insane. This is obvious, but for some reason a large number of people haven’t seen it. I don’t know why. It might be feminist-oriented identity politics, or it might be racism, or it might just be that most people are dumb, but for some reason many people seem devoted to her in a way more fitting of a cult leader than a politician. Nonetheless, it’s good that Hillary herself pointed this out. We can only hope it worked.
DNC: Day 1
I’ve gotta say I was a little disappointed with the first day of the Democratic convention. Michelle Obama’s very good speech was clearly the highlight of the evening, though of course it wasn’t the outstanding caliber we’ve come to expect of her husband. It was worlds better than what most of the non-politicians on stage at these things can do. It was on a good theme, and I was happy with it.
The Ted Kennedy tribute, on the other hand, I think was a real mistake. My agreements with him are much greater than my disagreements, but he’s still not a hero to me. It’s a generational thing, and a partisanship thing, but I just don’t think his appeal is that broad. In many groups, he’s the epitome of the hated northeastern liberal. Did we really need to have a video about him and his yacht? This is not the kind of thing that could possibly attract swing voters. Now, if the goal is to get wavering older, female Democrats, then maybe it wasn’t so bad. I can see some benefit there. Honestly, though, quotes about how Obama and Kennedy will be working hand-in-hand once Obama is president are not going to help with independents. I know it’s hard. He’s a hero to most of the people in the convention center, and his health problems made his appearance inspiring to those who have been following his difficulties. Most Americans, though, haven’t been. Seeing him give a generally normal speech wasn’t that surprising to them. The Republicans are good at picking the stuff that will appeal to the audience at home rather than whatever those in the convention want to hear. That kind of message discipline is sorely lacking in the Democrats.
The rest of the night was… well, it wasn’t. Nothing got much attention. Of course, this is partly because I was watching on CNN, which chose its commentators over many of the other speeches, but that’s exactly the point. The Democrats need to put on a show compelling enough for CNN to feel like it makes better television than their repetitive talking heads. I don’t care if it’s a governor, a senator, a CEO, an Iraq veteran, or a high school teacher. They needed to find some people who know how to give a good speech and give them interesting things to say. A little bit of talk about issues, a little talk about Bush and his incompetence, a little talk about McCain and his flip-flops, etc. It doesn’t really matter exactly what it’s about as long as it’s not a brief bio of the person coming after you. (Well, it does, but anything is better than nothing.) What’s important is that it gets people’s attention. Tonight really did not succeed in that respect. Now, future nights I think will be better. A quick look down the schedule definitely shows tonight as the weak night. (Gore, Warner, and Hillary Clinton all speak tomorrow, for example.) Still, it’s one opportunity that was largely missed.