From the eye of the storm to the nay of the platform – The Republican Party after  Tampa

For the last three days I’ve watched the most of the speeches that graced the GOP convention at Tampa. If, the poet tells us, on occasion even Homer nods I’m afraid I – twice – drifted off to sleep.

The savour of modern of political discourse – on both sides of the Atlantic  – tastes to  my jaded palate rather dull fare – a dry filo-pastry of metaphors drenched with oxymoron wrapped around a thin filling of under-heated ideas served up with the panache of a trainee in fast food chain. but one should remember that at the time the Gettysburg address made little impression and that the rhetoric of great debate often only appears to fullest effect in the retrospect of History.

Yet, even as late as 1980 American political conventions produced moments that transcended the staged theatre of the expected. On that occasion Senator Edward Kennedy who had lost in a bruising primary campaign against President Carter electrified the convention with speech of great craft. It was from the pen of that master craftsman of fine rhetoric, Ted Sorenson the sometime speechwriter for John F Kennedy; Robert F Kennedy before serving in the same capacity of Edward More Kennedy the youngest of the controversial Kennedy brothers – who lived to help Obama to the crown of Democrat nominee but died before seeing a Universal Health Care Act passed by Congress.

Since then the conventions have been unremarkable – perhaps save for the long winding speech Bill Clinton infamously delivered to a very patient audience in 1992. Governor Romney was duly nominated – hurricane Isaac permitting. Rep Paul Ryan was duly nominated as the vice Presidential candidate. Anne Romney spoke to the delight of the audience. Rep Ryan tripped himself up with wobbly facts that melted like jelly in the heat of the media kitchen. The speakers were carefully chosen  – black, white, Hispanic and lots of women – to give one impression. but the cuts to the delegates – white, middle class and very middle aged gave another impression entirely.

The southern strategy of Nixon in the late 1960s (link) which made the Republicans the majority party that was consolidated  by the so- called, blue-collar Regan Democrats, who voted for Regan and Bush, both father and son, were predominantly male and white –  these have left the GOP with a demographic problem. Hispanics are now the fastest growing element of the electorate and are dominant in the Western and Rocky Mountain States where they are overwhelmingly Democrats. The majority has stuck with the Republicans but all men die younger and conservative white males living in the south may bring more votes to the GOP but they will not bring them more states in the Electoral College (link)

This was the real problem which the Convention needed to convincingly address. And Romney and his campaign worked hard to do so. The governor himself spoke – at times quite movingly –  but unfortunately he followed on from Clint Eastwood & his now infamous stool. And as any ham actor knows – never  come on after a comic turn involving children, animals or a legend. Thus the thrust of Romney’s speech was cut away by the bizarre act that was duly given equal top-billing by the Media circus.

There actually was one speech of exceptional character and delivery if not of particularly novel content. Senator Marco Rubio demonstrated – rather as Senator Obama did at the Kerry convention in 2004 – why he deserves the accolades Fame has already bestowed upon his young shoulders. He spoke beautifully – a simple family tale of rags to riches in two generations. He’s Hispanic. He’s handsome. He’s utterly plausible and he uses his rhetoric to great effect. Within five minutes he had invoked the Almighty more times than the Pope in a general audience and reclaimed that other stalwart of the narrative of the American Dream – American Exceptionalism. Rubio may indeed have been the best pick Romney might have made as VP to help the ticket to win maybe Nevada and Colorado and Florida. But Romney has made his choice and he must live with it.

It is easy to belittle the proposals the Republicans make for getting the US economy back on its feet. These ideas of cutting spending, cutting taxes and freeing up American industry from the burdens of over-regulation have been the mantra of all the parties of the right since at least the 1980s hey-day of Thatcher-Regan. From time to time they’ve been tried and on other occasions the tax cutting has been delivered but cutting government borrowing has proved more intractable. And among the shortage of political ideas it often seems our unimaginative politicians merely return to those well trodden paths that led us into the current morass in the first place. But that is purely my opinion and the American electors must decide for themselves. And they can start to do so on 27th September when postal votes open in Iowa,

Meanwhile the soothsayers of the commentariat consult the runes of the pollsters. Romney should be getting a bounce if the conventional wisdom applies. Thus far in North Carolina –  still edging Republican – Romney has a 4 point lead on one poll and is tied on another; in Florida Obama has a 1 point lead. Statistically leads like these either way mean nothing much – save these were the same leads that existed before the Convention. The famous dead cat bounce isn’t the bounce for which the Republican party hoped & most fervently prayed.

This election there are still fewer states in contention that any I can recall at this stage of a campaign. Florida (29); Ohio; (18) Michigan; (16) Virginia; (13); Wisconsin (10); Colorado (9)  & Iowa (6) are genuinely competitive and at present all lie in the Democratic column. North Carolina is also competitive and lies currently in Romney’s column. Obama seems able to rely on around 225 votes in the Electoral College – which means he needs to find 45 votes to regain the White House. Romney has a lock upon around 189 electoral votes. you can see from that math that the Governor has a very limited range of possibilities to make it over the 20 vote finish line. It’s hard for him to manage it without both Florida and Ohio – the President could make it without either; and, were he to hold one of either of the two, Romney’s task becomes even more difficult.

This week the Democrats meet in Charlotte. This choice is undoubtedly based upon the hope it will help make North Carolina competitive. There will accompany this the same flurry of Media excitement. Obama’s acceptance speech will offer a moment of interest – will he finally lay out a clear choice for the voters which will pitch into a wider battle for congress or will he play – as he has so – safety first. It’s hard to know which one reason why the lection remains close and the American public seem so unmoved by this UK election of 2005 when Tony Blair fairly decisively but unenthusiastically won a third term (link).

Once the conventions are done and dusted everyone will turn their attention to the debates. But the reality is that since 1960 it’s hard to find a debate that has turned an election – perhaps Ford’s slip in 1976 – perhaps Regan’s polish in 1980 – Clinton’s suavity in 1992. The thing that thus far impresses of this 2012 election is how little has changed over the year. Despite the economy not providing the fillip it looked as if it might deliver to Obama last January – the President holds much the same edge. And maybe, just maybe all those hundreds of millions of dollars will turn out to have changed nothing very much between then and November.

So american arrives at this moment of decision with two imperfect candidates – one whose performance has disappointed in the recent past (Obama) facing one who has (repeatedly) disappointed in the present campaign (Romney) both looking towards an uncertain future. Who shall we have? The future-prefect pretends more certainty than it truly knows. We will still have to wait upon events rather than placing too much weight upon opinion – no matter how well informed.