View on the News

A lackluster, fear-stoking convention

By Christopher Curran
Posted 7/27/16

At the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio, the GOP faithful formally nominated a man who is perhaps the most inordinate candidate in Republican Party history. Donald J. Trump, a real estate developer from New York City, became the party's nominee. In

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
View on the News

A lackluster, fear-stoking convention

Posted

At the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio, the GOP faithful formally nominated a man who is perhaps the most inordinate candidate in Republican Party history.

Donald J. Trump, a real estate developer from New York City, became the party’s nominee. In a convention where most of the speakers were third-rate celebrities and second-rate Republican officials and the Donald’s attractive and accomplished children, the festivities were filled with depictions of a nation in utter distress, vacuous of hope, and on the verge of collapse.

Along with tepid endorsements of Trump and expositional indictments of illegal immigrants and Hillary Clinton, there was the ranting of a conspicuously embittered defeated primary candidate, Ted Cruz.

Most dire was the nomination acceptance speech itself. Trump erroneously painted a picture of an America as disjointed as it was during the 1968 presidential race. His cure-all for the perceived problems he listed was simply imbuing himself with the power of the chief executive. Portraying himself as some sort of wizard who by sheer force of personality can resolve the country’s problems, he definitively stated the answer to what ails the nation is him.

Trump has defied all odds and secured the nomination of a major party. He is an election away from the Oval Office. Should he be elected he will face a stark reality. Due to his lack of knowledge of government, he believes he can unilaterally change trade deals, which he cannot. He believes he can deny American protection to fellow North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members if they are not up to date on their dues, which he cannot. He believes he can order that a 2,000-mile wall be built between the United States and Mexico, and then force Mexico to pay for it, which he cannot.

The assertions made in the Republican convention by Trump were outlandish and virtually undoable. Yet, despite his fictional depiction of what he can implement and because of the blatant deceitfulness of his Democrat opponent, this outrageous braggart may indeed be our next president.

In an arena with a seating capacity of 20,562, the average attendance at the Republican Convention was 12,000 each day for the four days. Why so low? First of all, many Republicans are fearful of an election debacle in November that will cause many down-ticket races up for grabs to be lost. Second, Trump doesn’t have the campaign infrastructure to work a GOP apparatus into populating the convention floor. His entire campaign has been run with a diminutive staff. By comparison, Clinton has a get-out-the-vote framework and a campaign organization several times larger than her opponent.

Also, the selection of celebrity speakers looked like a list of guest stars from the old “Love Boat” television program. Soap opera actor Antonio Sabato, strange ex-boxer Mike Tyson, and faded actor Scott Baio were among the roster of the insignificant.

Similarly, only four of the 31 sitting GOP governors spoke. This was the smallest number of party governors speaking in over the last 100 years of conventions. Obviously, they were scared to be associated with the nominee, for either their re-election might be in jeopardy or the re-election of party officials within their state would be at risk.

Notably, favorite son and former primary candidate Ohio Gov. John Kasich refused to appear at the convention. Instead, he was tooling around Cleveland during the convention and conducting informal meetings as a conspicuous manner of protest.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie fulfilled his role as loyal attack dog. Inciting the crowd to chant “Lock her up” and “Guilty” in reference to Clinton, the corpulent Christie spoke disdainfully and cruelly in his indictment of the Democrat.

Speeches by nascent Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, and West Virginia Sen. Shelley Capito were generally entertaining and besmirching of Clinton. Although their endorsements of the party nominee were hardly enthusiastic, they did warn against a Democrat victory in November.

However, their fellow Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas did not endorse Trump. As a matter of fact, he as artfully as possible tried to elevate himself and diminish The Donald. As a result, he was ostracized by virtually everyone and sounded a death knell on his own future political career.

Most damning from a party perspective was the absence of four out of five of the living former presidential nominees of the party. This absence, perhaps above all that was missing from the convention, told the tale of Trump’s lack of support among the party elders.

Even the current leaders of the GOP, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Senate Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, gave effective speeches in great favor of conservatism. Strangely, Trump was barely mentioned because his conservatism has been questioned by longtime party stalwarts. He is seen as an impetuous enigma whose principles are tentative.

Understandably, the reason why Trump’s support within the party is half-hearted not only has to do with down-ticket considerations, but also has to do with Trump’s prospective leadership and lack of a known ideology.

For example, Trump’s nomination acceptance speech was filled with untenable assertions of potential executive actions that display a lack of knowledge of how government works. Ever the huckster, The Donald spoke a nationalist and populist message and sought to endear himself to the ill informed.

First and foremost, Trump alerted the nation that crime is rampant. He cited violent crime statistics in inner cities as increasing 17 percent year to year. Yes, but overall crime statistics nationwide have actually decreased over the past five years. Certainly, serious problems exist, but not to the degree that they did 48 years ago in the turbulent 1968 election year.

He claimed that “beginning on Jan. 20, 2017, safety will be restored.” Since violent crime is basically fought by municipal and city police departments, short of federal monies allowing police departments to purchase more resources, how will Trump’s inauguration change those urban statistics?

Another fear-provoking tactic was that he mentioned 180,000 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions have not been deported. Without question, these illegal immigrants should be deported. First you have to find them. Then you have to reverse sanctuary city policies that are conducted on a city level. A president has little to do with this.

Trump evoked emotion with a story about a 21-year-old young woman slaughtered by an illegal immigrant. Could a president impose policies that would change this? The message here is that somehow President Trump will track down and evacuate these criminals.

Additionally, in true “Democrat” fashion, he spoke of black and Hispanic poverty, black unemployment, and disgruntled unemployed workers of all heritages. No policy ideas were suggested to alleviate this circumstance. He merely offered an obvious statement: “young people in predominantly black cities have as much right to live out their dreams as any other child in America.” This part of the speech sounded like Bernie Sanders on the stump.

Further, he mentioned the 43 million Americans on food stamps. And yet there were no policy ideas to resolve family dependence on this program, either.

Just saying everything is going to be great again, everyone will have a high-paying job, everyone will be so rich in America, I will stop all the crime, and I will send those illegal immigrants packing does not solve any problems. They are unsupported claims that might make a voter feel hopeful momentarily, while the proof is in actually governing.

Perceiving himself as the answer, Trump stated: “I have joined the political arena so that the powerful can no longer beat up on people that cannot defend themselves,” and “I am your voice.”

This populous message is the core of his appeal. He has recently been referred to in the press with the oxymoronic nickname of the “Blue-Collar Billionaire.” People seek a political messiah to deliver them from the country’s malaise no matter how far fetched his assertions may be.

All in all, the Republican convention was a display of half-hearted endorsements, malicious attacks on Clinton, and a picture of a party that still cannot believe that Donald Trump is its nominee. His populous followers truly hope he is a wizard who contains a special magic to cure the ills of our nation. However, his glaring lack of knowledge of the constitutional limits of the executive branch of government, coupled with his outsized ego and bombastic self-assurance, are a poor combination to lead the country.

Comments

4 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • davebarry109

    While not a fan of either candidate, I find it amusing that Chris, a diehard democrat, states that Trump lacks a knowledge of constitutional limits of the executive branch. Did Chris Curran not live through Obama's executive overreach of the last 7 years? He has ignored the constitution repeatedly and has been slapped by the courts for it. The most recent 'slap' was for his immigration overreach. Trump may not be likeable but he is no Obama when it comes to violating the constitution. A particularly grievous offense for Obama because he is purported to be a constitutional scholar.

    Friday, July 29, 2016 Report this

  • Insight

    You'll have to blame the expansion of executive power not on Obama but on Jefferson & Madison, who enlarged those powers enormously through the Louisiana Purchase. The constitution has never been as fixed as the Ten Commandments (hence major amendments in, for example, 1791, 1795, 1870, and the 1960s). The Cornell Law School "explanations" of the constitution, especially the pieces around Article II, which deal with the Executive Branch of US Government. There, you'll find summary and explanation notes on the many practices, court cases, and decisions that have shaped the Constitution since its origin: https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art2frag3_user.html#art2_hd13

    Friday, July 29, 2016 Report this

  • Straightnnarrow

    DB, You write that CC is "a diehard democrat" with a small "d" Did you mean with a "D"? CC has written that he is a Republican who can't find a place to go, so he is probably a Rockefeller Republican or RINO who will whine til November and then cast his vote for Hellery. The system is rigged and the elites have decided that Hellery will be the next President in the same way that they decided that she would take the RI delegates at the DNC even though she lost to Bernie. On the topic of elites, who decided that the Democrats would be given the color BLUE and the Republicans the color RED, when everyone knows that the Democrats are REDS? And who decided that we would have Espanol at the ATM machine when everyone wants the English language only? Who are these elites that feed us this crap?

    Tuesday, August 2, 2016 Report this

  • ronruggieri

    "....depictions of a nation in utter distress, vacuous of hope, and on the verge of collapse.". For the vast majority of working class America that is no exaggeration. As a democratic socialist I see clearly the character flaws of Donald Trump but don't condone this Establishment USA organized smear campaign against him. How can any Democrat who had an iota of respect for the Bernie Sanders campaign now support " Corrupt Hillary " ( yes, Trump gets that right too ) ?

    With the support of President Obama, the Pentagon, the CIA , the FBI , corrupt leaders of organized labor- in general, Establishment USA supports Hillary Clinton. In just a few weeks the Hillary Democrats have evolved into a neo-con War Party, the kind anti-imperialist author Mark Twain ridiculed more than a hundred years ago.

    Do you think Hillary Clinton can win the hearts and minds of millions of " angry working class " voters with her shallow " identity politics " ? There are plenty of reactionary female politicians in high office around the world.For millions of working class American women Hillary does not represent " progress ".

    Here in Rhode Island I never run into a single voter enthusiastic about " Wall St. Hillary ". No surprise that " socialist " Democrat Bernie Sanders humiliated the Clinton political machine here.

    And how popular is Hillary's friend Governor Gina Raimondo here in Rhode Island ? The working poor and senior citizens just love her ? Say that on the side of a RIPTA bus.

    Saturday, August 20, 2016 Report this