To begin with, the list of speakers
highlighted the unity of the Democratic party. President Obama, Michelle Obama, Booker, President Clinton, Warren, Bloomberg, Biden, De Blasio, and President Carter outshone Trump's
speakers, because esteemed
Republicans avoided the convention, and those attended either
managed
to avoid saying you-know-whos name, or were not serious
names. Remember, both Republican presidents declined to endorse the
nominee. Senator Cruz, a serious candidate refused to endorse the
candidate. Bernie Sanders, decided party unity was a reasonable and
honorable goal, and tried to toss out the water he had thrown into
the ship, instead of standing idly by.
Of course it wasn't all ballots and
balloons. The release of over twenty thousand emails from the DNC by
Wikileaks threatened to inscribe animosity on the hearts of Berners.
A kind reader of the documents would conclude the DNC leadership,
from the chair down, disparaged the Sanders campaign, while a
partisan would assume outright sabotage. The delegates for Bernie
Sanders, in spite of their god's pleas for unity, disturbed the
process a number of times. At the opening of the convention, Sanders
supporters booed any mention of Clinton's name and chanted “Bernie”.
A mild game of back and forth repeated itself often the first day.
Also, during the convention Sanders
supporters, in spite of Sanders endorsement of Clinton, attempted to
smother Leon Panette's speech by chanting “No More War”, until
the DNC turned the lights out over the insurgent sections.
Considering Clinton's recklessness and continuous advocation for
combative positions overseas, and the inclusion of Panette and
General Allen, their cry may someday seem prescient. The revolution
also regularly chanted, “No TPP”, including during Sanders
speech, which he recognized with a smile. Clinton, after origonally
supporting the TPP has backed away from it, but her moderate
running-mate, pretty good at smiling with no dire controversy guy,
unequivocally supports it.
Sanders supporters walked out on
Tuesday, but most returned the next day. And a plan to walk out
during Clinton's acceptance speech, only approved by a small number,
was eventually shelved. There were probably some Sanders delegates
who did not return, but the vast majority of them did.
The best speeches of the convention
delivered by politicians were those of President
Obama, Biden,
and Michelle.
None of them were insipid theater like Chris Christie's, nor self
promoting equivocation like Ted Cruz's. They were not about the
failure of the United States, nor did most of them focus on the
enemy, whoever they are. All of them warmly embraced candidate
Clinton, but the majority of each speech was dedicated to the success
of the United States.
Instead of the deeply pessimistic
circus of the week prior, the speeches at the DNC were heartfelt and
hopeful paeans to eternal American Values. That America is a shining
city on a hill and with the commitment of all citizens it will remain
so for centuries. If after eight years, one doesn't believe the
speeches of the Democratic party, there can be some support for that
position. However, if offered speeches between despair and defeat
(except for a savior strongman), or American exceptionalism, one has
to make a choice.
If one is still committed to, “I
alone can fix it,” and a supporter who says, “There is no next
election. This is it, there is no more time for us to revive our
great country,” the question is, how bad is ones' life right now
(not someone else's, not the news) but one's own life to create such
anger, and commit to such apocalyptic language.
The surprise speech of the event was
delivered by Khizr Kahn, a lawyer whose son died in Iraq. It was a
singular rebuttal of the anti-Islamic message of the Republican
Convention from a grieving father. It was powerful, relevant, and
emotive.
But on the other hand one has to wonder
if the continuous parade of death for political purposes is worth the
price. Watching both of the conventions one is bathed in a constant
stream, like the river Styx, from beginning to end.
Whether it was the RNC inviting the
mother of a Benghazi
victim to denounce Clinton personally, or the DNC hosting
mothers of African Americans who died to gun violence, one has to
question the purpose and the result. Undoubtedly, these speeches are
heartfelt by their deliverers, and powerful to the recipients. One
can't listen to either side without agreeing in at least a small
measure. A viewer can't escape the raw emotion of grieving parents.
They speak of their children, but use them for a political goal.
They haven't twisted their stories purposefully, but the confused
suffering of their hearts they may have altered the story in the
heads.
Lincoln, of course, spoke of the death
of soldiers in the Gettysburg address. But while others since have
used their own dead children, and the death of others to further
their cause, Lincoln's speech was more concerned with honoring those
who sacrificed. His concern was with their souls, and how they
superseded those of the living. Politicians at the RNC and DNC may
have wished to honor their children, but by using them at a political
convention to condemn the other side they have only squandered them.
Socrates, as long ago as ancient Athens
spoke on the just practices in a trial. In elections are like
trials. Both sides defend their own convictions, while attempting to
convince a jury of the injustice of the opponent's. Accused of
corrupting the youth of Athens, Socrates was convicted. After his
conviction he was asked why he did not weep as it might have proved
his acquittal, nor bring his family and friends to weep for him if he
would not. He said:
“I had not the boldness or impudence
or inclination to address you as you would have liked me to do,
weeping and wailing and lamenting …. as I maintain, are unworthy of
me. I thought at the time that I ought not to do anything common or
mean when in danger …. I would rather die having spoken after my
manner …. For neither in war nor yet at law ought I or any man to
use every way of escaping death …. The difficulty [is] …. to
avoid unrighteousness; for that runs faster than death” (Plato,
Apology).
Socrates condemned those who used
emotional manipulation to obtain what they desire. Innocence is no
justifier of manipulation, for Socrates was innocent and condemned it
anyways. An ultimate goal of goodness and harmony do not justify the
scene of mothers, children, fathers, and friends to alter the opinion
of the jury. Any manipulation tarnishes the victory. And instead of
children crying for their father, as Socrates discouraged, the
leading political parties slander their childrens' honor invoking
them for the insubstantial opportunity to alter an election. The
citizens of the United States are a jury in the election of the
president. And because it is unjust, along with its ability to widen
an already divisive electorate it should be abandoned.
On a final note, it's incredible how
often the spectators at the DNC changed their handheld banners. In
every speech they held a different streamer: Joe, Bernie, Michelle,
Obama, Stronger Together/Hillary. And just as the mob-like
atmosphere of the RNC disturbed, so too did DNC. The continuous
'USA, USA' cheers seemed like the sounds from soccer hooligans at a
match, or of a crowd hearing of the assassination of a terrorist by
the United States, or the bleating of sheep right before the
slaughter.
The value of the message at the DNC was
uplifting compared to the RNC, but words must be reinforced by deeds.
This general election season will be ugly, and one can't help worry
about the idolization that both sides demonstrate every four years at
their indulgence of self-congratulation.
Comments
Post a Comment