NEW CASTLE —
So are you still feeling that post-convention euphoria?
Are you able to contain your excitment, your sense of exhilaration?
If not, join the club. As expected, this year’s Republican and Democratic national conventions were long on rhetoric, while short on substance.
I imagine that’s how it’s supposed to be. After all, the main purpose of the conventions is to rally the troops, the party faithful who will take their marching orders and proceed toward that hoped-for victory in November. This is a time of passion, not policy.
But because of the widespread publicity they receive, conventions also represent opportunities for the parties to reach out and try to grab the attention of the larger population, the folks who aren’t necessarly enthralled by one party or the other.
Indeed, public opinion polls record “bounces” in polling data for parties and their presidential standard bearers immediately after conventions. But typically, that bump in the polls quickly fades, suggesting that by the time Election Day rolls around, the impact of conventions is non-existent.
Today’s national politicial conventions are little more than showpieces for the main candidates and their supporters. The goal is to present a unified front, with no controversy or dispute.
It wasn’t always that way. Conventions used to come with uncertainty, including floor flights over planks in party platforms, and roll call votes involving candidates.
Today, however, having Clint Eastwood talking to an empty chair constitutes convention drama.
The predictable nature of conventions helps to explain why a declining percentage of the population bothers to watch. And it’s probably why many of the speeches included partisan declarations that were decidedly lacking in the truth. Such statements rouse the folks on the convention floor, but they run afoul of those now ever-present fact checkers.
For example, in his acceptance speech for the Democratic presidential nomination last week, Barack Obama declared his intention to use the money the nation “is no longer spending” on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to “pay down our debt and put more people back to work.”
That sounds good, until you remember that Democrats for years have criticized the Bush administration and congressional Republicans for fighting the Afghan and Iraq wars on borrowed money. So if the funds didn’t exist to begin with, how can they be directed elsewhere, particularly toward lowering debt?
The simple answer: They can’t. Obama’s statement defies fiscal logic.
But that’s not the only example. In his speech to the Republican National Convention, vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan attacked the Obama administration for cutting $716 billion from Medicare.
We can debate the significance of those cuts, as supporters say they don’t reduce medical services to the elderly. But the real issue is that Ryan oddly failed to mention he created a Medicare reform plan of his own. And it included the same cuts that Obama ordered. So how could Obama’s move be “the biggest, coldest power play of all,” according to Ryan, when he wanted to accomplish the same thing?
While the glow of the conventions quickly fades, the questionable claims made by candidates in their acceptance speeches will linger. They ought to be a bit more careful with their words.
NEW CASTLE —
So are you still feeling that post-convention euphoria?
- Mitchel Olszak
Mitchel Olszak: Snooping threat to the free press
In “All the President’s Men,” reporter Bob Woodward conducts late-night meetings with a source in a parking garage. That source, Deep Throat (later revealed to be high-ranking FBI official Mark Felt), was worried that he would be exposed as a tipster in the Watergate scandal.
Mitchel Olszak: Toomey takes a chance on guns
How does a conservative Republican senator representing a state with a Democratic majority protect himself politically? One way is to take positions that tend to straddle the nation’s ideological fence.
Mitchel Olszak: Terrorists strive to create fear
The finish line of a road race serves as the division between one world and another. Ahead of the finish line, there is structure and discipline, with attention paid to the runners as they cross over. Spectators are kept back, mainly to avoid interfering with the participants — and perhaps to keep them from being trampled.
Mitchel Olszak: Kelly, allies battle arms treaty
Supporters of the right to bear arms have a champion in Congressman Mike Kelly. The federal lawmaker, whose district includes most of Lawrence County, has been making waves with his criticism of the Obama administration and its support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
Mitchel Olszak: I like beer, so I’m watching our state closely
I like beer. More to the point, I like good beer. In my younger days, just about any swill would do. But with the passage of time, sophistication and exposure to the possibilities, my interests in beer have sharpened and matured.
Mitchel Olszak: Political lessons from distant past hold value today
If you want to gain an appreciation for great thinkers, read some of history’s major political philosophies. Here you will find the works of Plato, Machiavelli, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, St. Augustine and many others. They explored difficult social issues and offered serious insight.
Mitchel Olszak: Do the emotional centers of the brain guide our politics?
People who hold specific political points of view like to think their positions are based on serious analysis. They view their given ideologies as careful conclusions reached through assessing the world around them and examining how things work. Thus, liberals and conservatives both manage to claim the intellectual and ethical high ground.
Mitchel Olszak: Will GOP survive current divisions?
Somebody asked me the other day if I thought the Republican Party was about to split apart. I said no. It was an assessment based on history. Creating a new political party in America is a challenging process. They occasionally crop up, but they don’t last.
Mitchel Olszak: History as a matter of chance
History is full of pivotal moments. What if Socrates had decided against drinking that hemlock? What if Gutenberg hadn’t developed his printing press? What if Washington’s army failed to survive the winter at Valley Forge? What if Edison gave up on inventing the light bulb?
Mitchel Olszak: Pennsylvanians shouldn’t be fooled by electoral hijinks
Back in the 2000 presidential election, Americans received a civics lesson of sorts. Much of it involved obscure terms such as hanging and dimpled chads, as well as butterfly ballots. All of this, of course, came courtesy of Florida, whose clumsy election efforts produced an extended period of uncertainty in the presidential contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
- More Mitchel Olszak Headlines
- Mitchel Olszak: Snooping threat to the free press