With both of the national conventions now completed, the identities of the two political parties need to be re-considered. If you hadn’t known better (or had just watched the visuals), you’d have thought the Republicans had gone second and the Democrats first. Consider what each week portrayed of the respective parties.
In week one, the proceedings began with a floor fight over rules (normally a Democratic scene) in which a disgruntled group was effectively denied a voice in the process. The floor speeches early in the week were dominated by the nominee’s family members and a few second rate entertainment figures. The nominee’s wife gave a stirring speech on the second night that sounded (and indeed was) very much like the speech given by the Democratic nominee’s wife eight years earlier. When the nominee gave his acceptance speech, it was an angry screed that could have caused some observers to shout “Love it or leave it!” as the nominee continuously bashed the military and the nation’s foreign policy and bemoaned the country’s flagging economy.
In short, week one looked (and sounded) very much like a Democratic convention of years past, with little evidence of patriotism (the absence of American flags and the lack of support, if not downright disdain, for America’s military forces were especially notable) or enthusiasm for the party’s nominee.
Week two was very different, both as to the visuals and overall tone. For openers, American flags were ubiquitous to the point of, at times, seeming to be part of the scenery. And coupled with the obvious display of patriotism that the flag connotes were the continuous chants of “USA, USA” that interrupted many speeches. These were shouts of unabashed love of country that would be part and parcel of every Republican convention since Ronald Reagan became the icon of that party.
But there was more love of country on display in week two in the form of exultant expressions of support for the troops (another traditionally Republican applause line) that ended with an impassioned speech from a retired four-star Marine General (backed by a coterie of retired military leaders and veterans). The speech was a classic “peace through military strength” exhortation normally associated with the hawkish perspective. And in the lineup of A-list speakers who extolled the virtues of their party’s platform (a platform, it should be noted, that was passed without debate and was endorsed fully by both the nominee and her chief opponent in the primary campaign) nary a negative word was uttered about the party’s nominee or her principal primary opponent.
In sum, week two looked (and frequently sounded) very much like any Republican convention since the end of World War II, with flag waving and patriotism so conspicuously in evidence that at times it bordered on the surreal, while everyone who spoke was unabashedly supportive of the nominee and condemnatory of the other party’s nominee. It was, in short, a well-orchestrated campaign commercial that only needed a flood of red, white and blue balloons (all of which were released in abundance from the arena’s rafters when the nominee completed her acceptance speech) to look as Republican as a convention could possibly look.
The apparent role reversals of both political parties at their respective conventions is either a curious but insignificant side-bar note or the first meaningful sign of the impact that Donald Trump is having on the identity and ideology of the parties. From the Republicans’ perspective, it can be argued that Trump, while outside of the conservative mainstream on many issues, must be given control of the party’s image and message as its presidential nominee. And if Trump seeks to make America “great again,” it clearly cannot be great (or much to be loved?) now. On the other side of the aisle, the Democrats’ “rediscovery” of patriotism can be seen as a natural result of seeking to continue the electoral success of President Obama by proclaiming the United States to be a great country now as a result of his policies and leadership.
Simply stated, if you are seeking to regain control of the presidency and you have attacked both the current president and his predecessor (who came from your own party), then you have to make it look as if the country is a miserable place in desperate need for new – and different – leadership. But if you oppose the election of a nominee who wants to make the country “great again,” and if you are seeking to succeed a president who is attacked as somehow destroying its greatness, you have to claim the opposite, to wit: the country is great and will only get greater with more of the same.
All of which is another way to say that, in the end, what we saw in the two conventions were nothing more than advertisements for this year’s political packaging. The Republicans are promoting a “brand new product” that is a breakthrough in design with guaranteed (Trump-attested) results. The Democrats are pushing a “new and improved product” that is even better than the great old brand you have always loved.
And so, if you are totally dissatisfied with where the country is and seems to be going, you found the Republican’s new packaging exciting (or at least sounding different enough to be worth a try). But if you are basically pleased with the direction of the country and just want things to get better faster, then you found the Democrat’s same-but-better brand appealing (or at least reassuring enough to be worthy of a shot).
It’s all politics, folks. Don’t jump on the “brand new product” just because you’re disenchanted with the current brand. But don’t let the balloons or the flags fool you now any more than you should have let them fool you in the past, either.
Instead, bore down and study the candidates, the policies and programs they say they will promote, and their fitness and qualifications for office. Voting shouldn’t be based on advertisements or branding. The country deserves better from all of us.