When Did Blue Become Red?

September 3, 2008

I’m glad I’ve got tenure, because I am beginning to wonder if I have ever understood American politics. This two-week immersion into Presidential Campaigns and Conventions is completely altering my understanding of the two parties. Today helped me get in touch with a question that has been nagging at me for years:

When did Blue change to Red?

Back when I went to college, Republicans were associated with the word blue, and Democrats were associated with the word red. On election night the blue states were Republican states and red states were Democratic states. But since at least the 2000 election the colors representing the two parties have been reversed and that’s not all that has been reversed.

I came into this convention experience with an understanding of the two parties that has proven to be largely upside down.

I assumed the Democrats were more disorganized, more poorly financed, less disciplined, and more angry than the Republicans.  I assumed the Republicans put on better parties, held more coherent conventions, not merely because they were more corporate, but because they were wealthier and more worldly wise.

I thought I might have exaggerated when I published the Slow Parade blog at 2:00am CDT this morning. I thought it was a fair reflection of the day, but I suspected that it was probably an unfair assessment of the Republican convention as a whole. Sitting with the idea for 24 hours has led me to the conclusion I got it right after all.

The two conventions are almost beyond comparison. The Democratic convention was brilliantly conceived, well financed, well executed, and from start to finish an experience of sensory overload in which they utterly controlled the message. Moreover, because they so overwhelmed the media with large quantities of scripted, disciplined events, none of us in the media had time to do anything else but absorb the message they created. (I think Sean Hannity is still trying to get over it.) It was a theme of technical beauty and the best convention money can buy.

After two days of the Republican convention, save for this morning breakfast meeting and the final hour tonight, it strikes me as two days of poorly executed missed opportunities. The nicest thing that can be said about the Republican Convention so far are the Volunteers from Minnesota. Today’s ‘Minnesota nice’ story come from the volunteers who came by to personally apologize to each and every member of the press in the press box, because the Secret Service was making them be strict and they didn’t want to hurt our feelings. The media guy sitting next to me from New York City asked the nice woman if she was a member of some kind of ‘cult.’ She just said, “No, young man, I’m from Minnesota.”

This RNC program started too late in the day to take full advantage of the news cycle. The Democrats gave the press 6 hours of intense programming for 4 straight days. The Republicans gave us 4-½ hours the first two days of the convention, and until Fred Thompson presented the story of John McCain, the convention was a non-stop argument for caffeine. It wasn’t that there wasn’t a story to be told, but it was told looking backward. The visual images, the dress, the music, the cinema asked those of us in attendance to look backward to an era that, for the most part, no longer exists and cannot be recovered unless it is presented in a compelling fashion. Good politics pays deference to the past while always looking ahead.

What’s worse is that there is virtually no caffeine available in the arena. Only 5% of the concession stands are open. It is gluten-friendly because it is actually hard to find anything to eat. (Really) Why the free-market doesn’t work at a Republican convention is beyond me.

Moreover, I think a case can be made that the Republican establishment is more angry about the nomination of John McCain, than Hillary supporters are upset with Obama, or the anti-war protesters are venting on everyone. The Republican Establishment channels their personal anger in passive-aggressive behavior manifest in substandard fundraising for John McCain.  The disapproval of John McCain by the Established wing of the party is clearly evident. The fact that the Obama campaign has raised $300,000,000 more than tells the story.

Yet before the Republican readers of this blog dismiss me as an agent of the Citizens for the American Way, Air America, the ACLU, or the Huffington Post, the truth is that during the last hour of yesterday’s Republican convention two moments occurred that were deeper than anything we witnessed in Denver last week, and depending on how they went over on TV (and whether anyone was still awake to watch), they may have surpassed, in their own way, the crescendos of Denver.

The first was the story of John McCain, as told by Fred Thompson. It is a story so profound that there were moments when the entire audience and press corps were absolutely riveted. The room was so still and people focused their full attention on his story. Whether you like or dislike McCain’s politics or personality, his life story, past and present, commands respect. I didn’t listen to the pundits tonight, but even those like Chris Matthews had to give McCain is due. To do otherwise is to live without any pretense to journalistic integrity.

But even so, Thompson’s telling of McCain’s story took 2nd place to Senator Joe Lieberman’s endorsement speech. It was understated, but so authentic that it emerged as the most poignant moment of either convention. It was a far better speech than the one he gave when he accepted the Democratic VP nomination 8 years ago. It was as if tonight he was unleashed to give his speech and he delivered. It took real courage for him to do it, but he crossed the aisle, and did it. Everyone in the room knew the price he was paying to give it, and as a result, when Lieberman nailed the delivery it was greeted with the loudest applause of the night. It communicated the message that despite their disadvantage in organization and money, the Republicans have reason to believe that McCain and Palin can make a case for their ticket that is so deeply compelling they might just win the election.

Which brings us to tonight and Governor Palin’s acceptance speech. The enthusiasm building up to her speech is equal to the anticipation for Obama last Thursday night. The major difference being that the expectations on Obama’s were very high, whereby it is only the hopes that are high for her.

If she comes out and nails the speech and the landing, and then if on Thursday night McCain builds on the enthusiasm by improving on what Fred Thompson did last night, McCain/Palin have a real chance to win in November. But it won’t be because they have the wealthiest, most organized, organization

Blue has changed to Red in many ways. Now I need to try and figure out why and how.


Comments

2 Responses to “When Did Blue Become Red?”

  1. Sam Inman on September 3rd, 2008 8:04 am

    It seems like the entire Democratic party has merged into/improved from the Obama campaign. They seem, at times, better organized, better funded and better prepared than Bush/Cheney in 2004.

    I think the Republicans are going to liven up a bit tonight when “Hurricane Sarah” hits St. Paul

  2. Tom Lee on September 3rd, 2008 2:44 pm

    Dale:
    Your blog is intriguing, quirky and thought provoking. You remind me of a Hunter Thompson on tranquilizers. I do wish that you could transcend your dismissal of the 10,000 antiwar protestors in the streets of St. Paul. You might take a break and talk to a few. I say this not because I am a knee jerk liberal, but because this election has come down to a choice between war and peace - as these protestors (the vast majority of whom are peaceful) understand. Barack Obama is by no means a “peace” candidate. He is already vying to prove he is as “tough” as McCain and his gun-toting brand new friend Sarah. But in the end, the difference will be either an administration which will elevate diplomacy and a preferential option for peace versus one led by a 72 year old irascible man who sees the world as a collection of armed camps.