The Republican Convention Through the Looking Glass

It’s weird how the reporting on the Republican convention and its speeches differs depending on which outlet you consult. If you go to any right-wing outlet, say, National Review, what were the best speeches of the convention? Probably the most excitement is about Paul Ryan (“fading Obama poster”), Clint Eastwood (“the empty chair presidency”), and Mia Love. If you go to any of the MSM guys, or the officially left-wing press, what were the great failures of the convention? Paul Ryan’s speech (“he lied”), and Clint Eastwood’s speech (“bizarre and embarrassing; a train wreck”). (See, for example, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-carman/lies-and-the-lying-liars-_b_1848894.html) And Mia Love? Her speech was cut by NBC; never shown nor mentioned. A search on Google News shows few references to it anywhere in the left-wing or mainstream media.

Both perceptions cannot be true; someone must be either scamming their listeners/readers, or delusional.

That last factoid, the odd absence of Mia Love from NBC and others, makes me believe that it is the right that has it right. (Of course, I could be accused of partisanship. I am Catholic.)

Another factoid that makes me believe this: Slate Magazine, definitely leftist, ran a snap internet poll right after Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech, asking whether Romney’s speech made readers more or less likely to vote for him. The result showed a strong jump in Romney support. Yet the Slate readership is presumably predisposed towards Obama. This reaction, inevitably, also reflected the results of the Eastwood speech immediately before Romney’s. SurveyUSA ran a similar snap poll, and detected a 10% swing from Obama to Romney over the night. (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/01/new-florida-poll-shows-vindication-of-eastwood-strategy/). So Eastwood seems to have hit home.Rasmussen is also detecting movement Mittward.

So we have solid, objective evidence that Mia Love and Clint Eastwood really were good. What about Ryan? Did Ryan lie in his speech? It really ought to be possible to determine, objectively, whether what he said was in violation of the facts or not.

The main or marquee claim is that he lied about the closing of a plant in his home town. But a careful reading of what he actually said shows that it was precisely accurate, and his words seem to have been extremely well-chosen.

The second claim is that he lied in accusing Obama of “doing nothing” in the face of the Simpson-Bowles debt report. The critics point out that Ryan himself voted against that report. But he did not blame Obama for rejecting Simpson Bowles per se, but for “doing nothing”—in other words, presumably, it would have been okay if he had had any alternative plan to reduce the deficit, if not Simpson-Bowles. Did Ryan himself vote against it in favour of “doing nothing”? No—he had his own plan, as everybody knows well. Again, his words seem to have been truthful, and carefully chosen.

Of course, it is not literally true that Obama "did nothing" about the deficit. But it is true that the deficit has grown exponentially on his watch. Seems like fair comment, well within the realm of normal political discourse.

Was there an intent to mislead? Possibly, possibly not. I don’t see it. Everyone is free to judge that for themselves. You can’t prove intent.

And you cannot fairly accuse someone of lying when their words are true.

So, given that the mainstream and left-wing media are well off the beam here, what is going on? As noted before, they must either be deliberately conning their readers and listeners, or they must be delusional. Either reflects poorly on the prospects for the left this time around. If they have resorted to the con, they have lost the moral mandate of heaven, and must themselves be feeling desperate. If they are delusional, they are not going to be able to respond to events sensibly and intelligently. They are likely to do things that are not in their best interests, and fail to do things that are.

And the RNC Chair Agrees

No sooner have I posted my perception that Obama's campaign is losing the all-important likability factor, than I read a quote from Reince Priebus (try getting that through your spell-checker), RNC chair, showing his perception is the same:

I’ve got to tell you, the brand of Barack Obama, hope and change and bringing us all together, it’s completely broken. When people come to realize that you’re not real anymore, you’re not who you said you were, that’s a big problem for Barack Obama.

Of course, it is his job to claim the Obama campaign is floundering, no matter what, but it is interesting that he says it is floundering on this particular basis.

Is Obama Throwing It Away?

Here it is, almost 24 hours later, and the Romney-Ryan momentum seems to be holding. Another thought as to why: perhaps Obama has damaged his own vital likability factor by telling too many whoppers recently about the opposition. These tactics, of course, call his personal ethics into question, and that matters. Because of his background, he is in danger of recasting himself as a Chicago machine-style pol. But, perhaps more importantly, they speak of contempt for the average voter; of an assumption that we can all be manipulated, lied to without being smart enough to know different.

Richard J. Daley Sr., the archetypal Chicago politician. Last machine in America.

 

A modern spiritual heir.

Obama has always appeared at least a little contemptuous and elitist. His speaking style somehow implies it; he does not appear to feel what he says. There was his “clinging to their guns and religion” comment in 2008. He has made suspicion on that score worse with his “you didn’t build that” comment earlier this summer. People don’t like being talked down to.

And who can hear the world "Chicago" without thinking of ...

More, his 2008 “Hope and Change” campaign, in being ridiculously over the top in what it seemed to promise—“this is the day the oceans stopped rising…”—almost demanded a cynical reaction now. Just as George Bush Sr.’s “no new taxes” and Carter’s “I’ll never lie to you,” while winning strategies in one election, led to an inevitable backlash in the next. I have a friend, quite to the left politically in general, who mentioned in passing yesterday that, while he supported Obama enthusiastically last time, he would never vote for him now—because he felt he had been swindled.

"Read my lips. Hope you can't recognize the 'f' sound."

"I'll never lie to you. Sucker."

So the Democratic campaign takes big risks now by doing anything that looks clever, manipulative, or cynical. And they are blind to it—they are acting very clever, manipulative, and cynical. They are killing Obama's winning card, his likability.

Granted, Romney is not the ideal candidate to run against Obama on this score. He too seems remote from the everyday guy, God knows, unfeeling, and he has been ruthless and unprincipled in his politics throughout the primaries, both this time and four years ago. But what might do it for him is having previous Obama voters stay home in disillusionment, rather than switching their vote to Romney.

Moreover, Ryan, and the selection of Ryan, may have helped Romney out a lot on that score. It now looks as though he really does have a principled reason for wanting to be president, and an actual programme. Ryan, if not Romney, seems terribly sincere. If Ryan stays prominent in the campaign, it could make the difference.

One Nation under God No More

Shameful bunch of religious fundamentalists.

I recently got involved in a discussion on Facebook that suggests to me just how divided politics is now in the US. The wife of an old friend posted Paul Ryan saying in his acceptance speech as VP candidate, “Our rights come from nature and God, not from government.” And then her terse comment: “That just doesn't make sense!”

Whoops! It's a pretty close paraphrase of the Declaration of Independence. I would have thought simply pointing that out would reconcile her to Ryan's comment, though I cannot guess what did not make sense to her about the reference.

So I did.

At this point, three women and one man piled in with protesting posts. Apparently, the Declaration of Independence is highly controversial. One wrote, “What happened to separation of state and religion?” The man wrote “Canada grants the right to healthcare and equal rights to homosexuals. I wonder if Mr. Ryan believes that these rights also come from God and Nature. Pretty sure both countries follow the same God...” [Note the phrase “grants the right.” Not inalienable, then.] Another woman responded “And some of us don't believe in god! But Canada is looking better all the time!” Another wrote “The declaration of independence was a document that justified the colonies separation from the monarchy and the british parliament [sic]. ... most of America has moved on from 19th century liberalism.” And one wrote “Stephen Roney you are so misguided. If you are a US citizen go talk among your right wing friends, if you are a Canadian, shame on you!”

So there you are. Not only is the Declaration of Independence and the doctrine of inalienable human rights no longer in force, not only is it now controversial, but it is actually shameful to bring it up. And bringing up God seems to be even worse.

The frightening thing to me about this is that there are apparently no longer any shared values to appeal to among Americans—not liberalism, not the Constitution, not human rights, not the Judeo-Christian tradition, not conventional morality. There is no longer any possibility of reasoned discourse. It is war; really, with or without the actual shooting.

Paul Ryan

Was it a good pick?

Not great. Because of his age, Ryan looks a lot like a sidekick, an understudy. This historically does not turn out well; as witness Ferraro, Quayle, Palin. Nor, I suspect, should it, for it suggests the presidential nominee may not choose the best people for the jobs in his cabinet and judiciary. On the other hand, Ryan is not coming from obscurity. Despite his youth, unlike Ferraro, Quayle, or Palin, he is a genuine star in the Republican party.

I worry too that Ryan does not balance Romney well in terms of expertise. He's another numbers guy, his reputation built on budgeting. This is all very well if Romney can count on the economy remaining the central issue in the campaign. But can he? What happens if, as is entirely possible, either Israel or the US strikes at the Iranian nuclear facilities between now and November? Suddenly foreign policy matters too, and Romney-Ryan do not have the natural authority there.

Others point out that Ryan has a detailed record on budgeting that can now be attacked. Just so. Former prominent finance ministers do not have a terribly good record, in England or Canada, when then running in the top spot. They have too often needed to be the bearers of grim truths; they can always be saddled with this or that unpopular tax. Think of John Turner, Paul Martin, Gordon Brown.