Political Asylum — September 6, 2012, 1:22 pm

On Booing God at a Political Convention

For political hacks at modern party conventions, the answer to the Reagan Question—Are you better off than you were four years ago?—should be knee-jerk, no matter the party, no matter the year. This year? Any comatose Republican will say the answer is no. Any Democrat should involuntarily say, as Dick Harpootlian—the scabrous South Carolina Democrat, said to me: “Absofuckinglutely.” Yet, there was Maryland governor Martin O’Malley on CBS, saying, “No, but that’s not the question of this convention.” And David Axelrod, emptying a clip of blanks on Fox News: “Here’s what I can say, we’re in a better position . . .” On the Daily Show, Jon Stewart zipped through a conga line of prominent Democrats lurching here and there at the question.

For reasons that befuddle outsiders and delight the G.O.P. rank and file, the modern Democratic Party and the president himself long ago decided that buying into the Republican frame on any issue was easier than putting in the donkey work of crafting their own message. Watching the health care debate a few years ago was a marvel. The Republicans would mischievously move the goalposts around the playing field—single payer, public option, insurance exchanges, new tax, pay as you go, $716 billion in Medicare savings—and the Democratic leadership would race after each week’s nonce solution like a kitten pouncing on shadows.

In 2010, Obama put forward a middle-class tax cut, a classic political trick. How could Republicans oppose a tax cut! John Boehner, then minority leader, flipped out and thoughtlessly said, “If the only option I have is to vote for some of those tax reductions, I’ll vote for them.” But Senator Mitch McConnell slapped Boehner down and banished him from the microphones for the crucial weekend. He knew Democrats were capable of much more surrendering, so he boldly threatened total rejection—of a free-standing tax cut—unless it was linked to more tax cuts for the wealthy. As he announced his opposition to middle-class tax cuts at a press conference, a tiny grin emerged from deep inside one of his several flaccid faces. As usual, the Democrats panicked and McConnell prevailed.

The genius of the Republican Party is that it wins most of its issue fights via its brilliant media strategy. But that advantage is amplified by the fact that its members understand in their bones what their ideology is and how to answer the dopey bunny questions asked by the media. But Democrats, even top Obama aides, instinctively assume the Republican narrative as the basis of reality (we are worse off now than four years ago), then sputter and hem before finally coughing out what any PR intern knows is the answer (and even then without resolve): “Oh, wait, better off than four years ago? Uh, okay, then, hmmm. Ha! Uh, that would be a ‘yes,’ or so I have read.”

Yesterday, after Democrats took some heat about erasing the words God and Jerusalem from the platform, the familiar panic and lack of planning set in. Apparently, Obama himself ordered that someone—it turned out to be Ted Strickland’s job, since he’s a pastor—smear some rhetorical paste on the already-stale bread that forms the planks of any party platform. Some references to “God” were sprinkled in, along with a “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.” The latter phrase is just another of the many tiresome things that get said quadrennially at conventions. While politically loaded, they don’t mean whole lot in terms of policy. They’re the equivalent of “two-state solution” or “pre-1967 borders.”

Yet if you look at video of the moment when these changes were put to a vote (starting at about the one-minute mark), it appears—and this is the most forgiving possible interpretation—that delegates on the floor thought that some new, undebated declaration about Israel was being slipped into the platform. Since many of the delegates are Arab-Americans or aren’t up to date with the rituals of Israeli–Palestinian kabuki, they shouted “No!” The nos were as loud as the ayes. Strickland looked well, stricken, while Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, holding the gavel, was visibly freaking out. He called for the vote again, clearing indicating to the “aye” crowd to kick it up a decibel. But the Democrats on the floor didn’t quite understand that they were being invited to shout down a wing of the party that was making them look like morons, and the result was the same. Villaraigosa’s face became a facial-recognition homework assignment: 50 Shades of Are You Fucking Kidding Me, people?

Republicans instinctively know to shout over Tea Party types when they get too black helicopter-y or vaguely racial. But by the time Villaraigosa had regained control of the room, the little movie of the moment was raining down over the Internet like balloons from the rafters: Three times, Democrats shouted down God in a loud voice vote! Did no Democrat plan for this? Try to quietly get the delegates to understand what would be happening? And who were the people on the platform committee who blue-penciled God and Jerusalem out of the language the party dusts off every four years?

Too late. Bill Clinton’s words later that night are now competing with breathtaking video of an entire convention booing God. I believe that’s what PR flacks call a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad optic.

Share
Single Page
undefined

More from Jack Hitt:

Political Asylum November 6, 2012, 2:01 pm

The Electoral Battle Between Corporationism and Empiricism

Obama’s data-driven approach may decide today’s race—and determine the future of the G.O.P.

Political Asylum September 25, 2012, 3:18 pm

Wall Street Places Its Election Bets

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

February 2018

The Bodies in The Forest

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Minds of Others

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Modern Despots

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Before the Deluge

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Notes to Self

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Within Reach

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
The Minds of Others·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Progress is impossible without change,” George Bernard Shaw wrote in 1944, “and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” But progress through persuasion has never seemed harder to achieve. Political segregation has made many Americans inaccessible, even unimaginable, to those on the other side of the partisan divide. On the rare occasions when we do come face-to-face, it is not clear what we could say to change each other’s minds or reach a worthwhile compromise. Psychological research has shown that humans often fail to process facts that conflict with our preexisting worldviews. The stakes are simply too high: our self-worth and identity are entangled with our beliefs — and with those who share them. The weakness of logic as a tool of persuasion, combined with the urgency of the political moment, can be paralyzing.

Yet we know that people do change their minds. We are constantly molded by our environment and our culture, by the events of the world, by the gossip we hear and the books we read. In the essays that follow, seven writers explore the ways that persuasion operates in our lives, from the intimate to the far-reaching. Some consider the ethics and mechanics of persuasion itself — in religion, politics, and foreign policy — and others turn their attention to the channels through which it acts, such as music, protest, and technology. How, they ask, can we persuade others to join our cause or see things the way we do? And when it comes to our own openness to change, how do we decide when to compromise and when to resist?

Illustration (detail) by Lincoln Agnew
Article
Within Reach·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

On a balmy day last spring, Connor Chase sat on a red couch in the waiting room of a medical clinic in Columbus, Ohio, and watched the traffic on the street. His bleached-blond hair fell into his eyes as he scrolled through his phone to distract himself. Waiting to see Mimi Rivard, a nurse practitioner, was making Chase nervous: it would be the first time he would tell a medical professional that he was transgender.

By the time he arrived at the Equitas Health clinic, Chase was eighteen, and had long since come to dread doctors and hospitals. As a child, he’d had asthma, migraines, two surgeries for a tumor that had caused deafness in one ear, and gangrene from an infected bug bite. Doctors had always assumed he was a girl. After puberty, Chase said, he avoided looking in the mirror because his chest and hips “didn’t feel like my body.” He liked it when strangers saw him as male, but his voice was high-pitched, so he rarely spoke in public. Then, when Chase was fourteen, he watched a video on YouTube in which a twentysomething trans man described taking testosterone to lower his voice and appear more masculine. Suddenly, Chase had an explanation for how he felt — and what he wanted.

Illustration by Taylor Callery
Article
Before the Deluge·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In the summer of 2016, when Congress installed a financial control board to address Puerto Rico’s crippling debt, I traveled to San Juan, the capital. The island owed some $120 billion, and Wall Street was demanding action. On the news, President Obama announced his appointments to the Junta de Supervisión y Administración Financiera. “The task ahead for Puerto Rico is not an easy one,” he said. “But I am confident Puerto Rico is up to the challenge of stabilizing the fiscal situation, restoring growth, and building a better future for all Puerto Ricans.” Among locals, however, the control board was widely viewed as a transparent effort to satisfy mainland creditors — just the latest tool of colonialist plundering that went back generations.

Photograph from Puerto Rico by Christopher Gregory
Article
Monumental Error·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In 1899, the art critic Layton Crippen complained in the New York Times that private donors and committees had been permitted to run amok, erecting all across the city a large number of “painfully ugly monuments.” The very worst statues had been dumped in Central Park. “The sculptures go as far toward spoiling the Park as it is possible to spoil it,” he wrote. Even worse, he lamented, no organization had “power of removal” to correct the damage that was being done.

Illustration by Steve Brodner
Post
CamperForce·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

After losing their savings in the stock market crash of 2008, seniors Barb and Chuck find seasonal employment at Amazon fulfillment centers.

Minimum number of shooting incidents in the United States in the past year in which the shooter was a dog:

2

40,800,000,000 pounds of total adult human biomass is due to excessive fatness.

Trump’s former chief strategist, whom Trump said had “lost his mind,” issued a statement saying that Trump’s son did not commit treason; the US ambassador to the United Nations announced that “no one questions” Trump’s mental stability; and the director of the CIA said that Trump, who requested “killer graphics” in his intelligence briefings, is able to read.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today