As The Republican National Convention comes to an end, I am reminded as a writer what the past two weeks have been about: speech. Whenever I turned on the TV, I was presented with these career politicians persuading me to side with them, believing that in their hands the next four years could be better, providing opportunities that we could only imagine right now. While I have my own personal bias, I did my best to watch both conventions with an open mind, understanding not what appealed to me, but how they could persuade me to vote for them come November.
Before I go on, I want to state that while I am a writer who studies prose, I am not by nature an experienced speechwriter. I do not study the greats and break down things like word choice and inflections. While the best (and worst) speeches use these to a noticeable degree, I couldn’t tell you who the most eloquent American president was. The best that I could say was that Abraham Lincoln had a knack for humbleness and John F. Kennedy overused contradictory rhetoric very often (for example: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”). Frankly, I couldn’t tell you much about the other 43 presidents.
But these are conventions meant to persuade others to come over to their side, believe their cause, and come away feeling like they have the right ideas for America. On the one hand, it’s a very direct argument (new ideas vs. core values), but in 2020 and in a more sensationalized media environment, it’s become bout more intangible concepts that are somehow represented in both groups yet somehow divide them.
Both believe that they’re right. They speak to emotions and the common man, believing that the other side screwed them over with lies. There’s a vague outline of their platform, but mostly this is an example of punching down, believing that by making your opponent look worse, there is some advantage in making yourself look altruistic like your ideas are the greatest in the world.
So, who is right? To be totally honest, neither side was totally persuasive in swaying the election. That’s just how things are right now. It’s a polarized culture and as much as these two conventions are meant to symbolize their platform, it’s also reflective of how the same image is seen differently. It’s as simple as seeing the Black Lives Matter movement as a protest or a riot. The word choice is subtle but speaks volumes. Good people protest, bad people riot. With riots, you imagine chaos in the streets and, in some radical examples, find pundits willing to justify citizens committing homicide. Those people, my friends, shouldn't be encouraged.
That may be a good place to start, actually. In both cases, it felt like the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor were used as emotional pleas. It makes sense since their names have become shorthand for police brutality, examples of avoidable murders that show an unfair treatment of Black citizens. They’re the reason that this summer featured protestors taking to the street, expressing themselves in an unprecedented manner. It’s a moment meant to start a conversation but featured a president infamously gassing people to take a cheap and useless picture in front of a church. It’s clear that his brief departure from his bunker wasn’t to talk to the good people on both sides.
So, how did The Democratic National Convention take these matters?
They’re the group more likely to refer to this as a protest. As they played packages with clips of people taking to the street, they used soft music and molded a unity onto it that was supposed to be hopeful. They weren’t ashamed to use the Black Lives Matter moniker, seeing it as a source for positive change. In a way it was this statement of pride, reflecting how young people are standing up for their virtues and wanting to make the future America one that’s more inclusive and hopeful.
Measures were discussed where the power of the police would be reduced. While neither Republican nor Democrat party spoke out for the defunding that became a popular message, The DNC spoke closer to this theme by desiring training and focus on what their capabilities can be. It’s the type of message that suggests that police officers know their place in society, limiting their chances of murdering innocent citizens because they were trained better.
What The DNC spoke of was something more hopeful, desiring to break away from the modern course. To them, Republicans have been nothing but bullish, encouraging violence and festering an issue that leaders should stop from happening. Why should you elect a leader who encourages chaos and division? Why should America be full of hate? One of the biggest words of the campaign was “decency,” and it’s one that clashes intentionally with the Republican goal of “exceptionalism.” It makes them seem humble, about the individual, about recognizing every voice.
Of course, there’s more to the campaign than how they saw Black Lives Matter, but reflecting on this one detail speaks to one of the most buzzed-about topics across the past two weeks. They were the “protest” group. They were speaking to an idea of compromise, of coming together and listening to each other. This isn’t to say that there was talk akin to “riot,” but it was always presented as an outlier, that it wasn’t the direct inspiration for the cause.
 |
| Jacob Blake |
Then there are the Republicans, who were more likely to use “riot.”
Obviously, their timing was terrible, as this past week saw the murder of Jacob Blake (shot seven times in the back) and two others in Kenosha, WI (along with one injury). However, it spoke to a random irony that becomes clear when you look at who was speaking. This included a couple who infamously brandished guns as Black Lives Matter protestors passed their house. They spoke about their second amendment rights and the need to protect, spreading a paranoia and sense of victimhood. Similarly, student Nick Sandmann spoke of how he got “canceled” for not being able to express his right to protest against abortion. The media was to blame for not being truthful.
The latter may not seem significant, but it’s victimhood that’s attractive. It’s the perspective that citizens need to stock up on firearms and protect themselves, that Democrats are dehumanizing their humanity. While I personally think that Sandmann, outside of any differing opinion, had one of the more persuasive arguments, it was also a symbol of how free speech was being taken away. Somehow this was wrong, and yet Black Lives Matter’s free speech is a hate crime reflective of a “Radical left” who wants to elect “Beijing Biden” to lead “Antifa” to The White House. Suddenly calling this teenager names feels like a hypocritical tactic.
On the surface, it’s an attractive piece of sensationalism. However, it’s also been suggested that these speakers, to varying degrees, are reflective of the man who drove from Illinois to Wisconsin with a rifle just to murder people. It’s the notion that they need to protect their free speech while eliminating another. As speakers get up and speak loudly, quickly, with such frenzy that some have been accused of being high on cocaine, it kind of creates a sensation that the world is terrible and the only way to change things is to vote Republican, ignoring any negativity over the past four years.
But this seems too egregious. At a certain point, this is more than a speech. The term “riot” feels like it manifested in very negative ways. Then again, it’s part of a message that Democrats will ruin America, taking away rights and ruining an economy. It’s a bully tactic that gets by on brisk language, festering on paranoia that wants to scare you. They say that “the silent majority” under a Democratic regime will be “the silenced majority.” Never mind that this is cribbed from a Richard Nixon quote. It’s clever writing, and there’s no denying that it’s attractive.
Who wants to be silenced? That sounds terrible. America is the land of the free after all. We need to hold onto our values, and there is something borderline evangelical about it. These speakers want your heart to race, feeling like you’re witnessing the apocalypse and that your vote will send The Four Horsemen home. It’s a message slammed into every speech, and one that suggests that Black Lives Matter is full of unpatriotic jerks destroying businesses and tearing this nation apart. Why would you want to defund the police when all of this is going on?
The crazy thing is how Republican speakers make it all sound so convincing and normal, playing to a fear of change. It’s also one that is secretly racist while featuring speeches that make the argument that “America is not racist,” believing that because a handful of minority speakers had success within the Republican party, that the country is changing for the better. It’s an encouraging undertone and one that comes through in the more compassionate, grounded speeches. If these were the only ones you saw, you’d understand what’s so appealing about voting for them.
It’s just the issue of networks like ABC, who refuse to air most speeches outside of the major ones that end the evening. There is no balance in the presentation. Even when talking about The DNC’s presentation of the states, the network decided to forgo it because it was “boring,” ignoring one of their biggest highlights, where Rhode Island presented a plate of calamari while casting votes. It’s charming and gives a depiction of culture.
The RNC is a bit more straightforward, having most talk in similar locations. They were draped in American flags excessively splayed out to symbolize patriotism. They claim that they’d never kneel for the flag and that it somehow was a big deal that others did. It’s all about iconography and what has worked before, which should play to every viewer’s sense of pride not only in the country but the voting system itself. It’s almost boastful that they did their speeches live as if their sloppiness was going to age well in archival footage.
This isn’t to say that The DNC was less sloppy. If anything, it used its limitations far more effectively but made every speaker come up with their own snafus. They felt less formal, more about the individual, and it worked. Even if sometimes it felt awkward to play to an empty room, it allowed the words to be front and center, making speeches brisk and to the point. There were symbols in the background, of speaking from schools in hopes that it clarified the educational conflict. And, in less flattering moments, there were those performing in parks to symbolize, most obviously, America at a “crossroads.”
At the end of the day, The DNC seemed cleaner because they played to compassion. Their focus on “protests” made all the difference in how it reflected those likely to vote for them. Even then, it was light on platform goals, playing more to decency, and this warmth that comes with a calm conversation. The RNC was more about the energy, the urgency in keeping the world from being on fire. The biggest difference? Any bullying (and there was some) from Democrats was couched in far more compelling points.
Is either side right? Like I’ve mentioned, I have my bias. I tried to look at this fairly, reflecting how both debate the idea of candidacy. It’s the need to appeal to emotion, that they’re sympathetic to the common man. By the end, you should have some idea of what they stand for, and I think that The DNC had a more diverse pool to pull from in terms of topics. Every speech at The RNC had a regimented focus that is admirable in terms of the brand but exhausting to listen to. Frankly, only The First Lady diving into mental health and personal issues made her stand out in ways that are positive, provided you ignore the larger context.
Though both fail the one rule of debate, which is not to put the other side down. The debate shouldn’t be about the judgment of the individual, but the subject at hand. Calling the other side negative names only seeks to make you look weak, that you need other tools to win besides the facts at hand. While The DNC did a far more effective job of being on subject, the need to attack the other side showed a division that may continue to last, even if they believe that they can work together to solve problems. Of course, they look a lot better than The RNC, who took to outright name-calling, but it was still an argument that amounted to “the other side is wrong,” which is about the only thing they agreed upon.
On the one hand, it’s difficult to suggest that these conventions were going to persuade anyone. At best they’re chances to reaffirm what you liked about these individuals and wanted to double down on. For The DNC, it’s a message of hope for the future. For The RNC, it was about keeping things the way they were. It’s your decision to determine which sounds better, and a lot of it can be picked up in the rhetoric and tone of these speeches. Both had their highs and lows, there’s no denying that.
Though again, it all comes down to how you look at things like Black Lives Matter. Do you see a “protest,” or do you see a “riot”? Is America great, or does it need to be decent? At the end of the day, both sides made their case in a debate that wasn’t all that successful. It’s doubtful that a significant margin was persuaded by anything. Still, it is a reminder of what needs to be done to get your point across. These are the candidates we’re stuck with, and whose appeal to the emotion you prefer. This is mostly written to reflect the HOW of these conventions, not the WHY. I think from there you can figure out everything else.
Comments
Post a Comment