Tales from the Convention Floor

Indy reporters on pollsters, protestors, and the Grand Old Party.

This summer, the Harvard Independent teamed up with Respectably French's Nicholas Krasney and Ho Tuan to create CampusPundit.com, an interactive student space for political discourse. As part of this venture, the Indy dispatched Nick and Tuan to the Republican National Convention. Read on for their impressions of McCain, Palin, and the state of the GOP...

Introduction

For all the talk of “change” we’ve been hearing in this election, it’s interesting how little has change has occurred in the realm of the partisan public display that is the political convention. Whether the masses are chanting “yes we can” or “drill, baby, drill,” the sloganeering and reinvigorated party loyalty remain essential, inseparable parts of the convention tradition.

Earlier this month, we had the rare opportunity to attend the Republican National Convention and observe the public spectacle of a political convention first hand. It’s no secret that a larger majority of Harvardians probably paid more attention to the Democratic National Convention, while villainizing or even ridiculing the Republicans. For two moderates (including a self-identified Republican), this is perhaps what made our adventure to Minneapolis such a fascinating opportunity.

Stepping off our respective planes in the Hubert Humphrey Terminal and Larry Craig’s infamous Lindbergh Terminal at the Minneapolis/St. Paul airport, we were told that the first day of the Republican National Convention was to be cancelled due to Hurricane Gustav off the Gulf Coast. In explaining this decision, McCain told his party that they needed to “take off our Republican hats and put on our American hats,” and cease partisan politics while Americans were in danger.

We both wondered what McCain meant by this. On the eve of one of the two most quintessentially partisan political events, were the “Republican hats” and the “American hats” mutually exclusive? Do Republicans actually wear two hats? If so, which one is on top?

Over the course of the next few days, we would get a very close sense of the patchwork that makes up a party. After eight years of Bush, the party needed to restore its reputation and promise change while still staying the course. It had to drive a wedge between them and the Democrats, while offering reconciliation and unity.

This is what we found.

A Big Tent?

For all the appearance of unity within the Republican Party, at close glance there were clear cracks and breaks in the Republicans polished façade.

To borrow from McCain, it was as if there really was a “Republican hat” and an “American hat.” Speaking with individuals in the halls outside the convention hall, on the buses, in the taxis, in restaurants, hotel lobbies, and elsewhere, the degree to which many delegates and guests expressed views diverging from standard Republican platform surprised both of us. Put everybody together in a convention hall, however, and it doesn’t take much for the same people who had just expressed their disagreement with offshore drilling to start applauding, even partaking in, the chants of “Drill Baby Drill!” for the cameras.

Perhaps it is the social pressure and raw excitement of being among thousands of supposedly like-minded individuals that compels one to cheer. Or perhaps it is one’s personal agenda to get McCain elected at all costs that compels one to energetically cheer even on issues that one cares little about.

Looks were often deceiving. On the day before the convention, we encountered Buddy, a friendly volunteer from Alabama. As he was from the South and agreed to volunteer for the GOP, it was easy to assume that Buddy was a staunch, dedicated southern Republican, or else he would not have flown all the way up to help out a party he didn’t believe in. Speaking with him again after Palin’s speech, however, we were taken aback by his unenthused honesty about his personal dissatisfaction. “I want to hear facts. I want to hear about national security, about the economy, about energy, about jobs, about industry, and about fighting terrorism. Neither McCain nor Obama have completely done that for me. Obama makes bold promises without all the details and so far at this convention, McCain’s people have not addressed the real issues. I think I’ll have to wait for the debates to decide.”

We met numerous hardcore delegates who were closet Ron Paul supporters; we met candidates and citizens who privately (and sometimes publicly) told us that they don’t believe in the conservative social agenda; we met former members of the Bush White House who were skeptical of offshore drilling, but admitted “drill, baby, drill” was a catchy slogan; and we met Republican activists who were actively underwhelmed by McCain but were driven to see him win because of his necessity to the party.

Whatever the case, the level of divergence in views of the constituencies comprising the “Republican base” is far more pronounced than we would have ever expected. Nowhere was this more evident than in our discussions regarding Sarah Palin, the then-presumptive vice presidential nominee.

Sarah Palin and the Romney Revolt

Coming into the convention, the biggest name on everybody’s mind was not John McCain, it was Sarah Palin. The freshman Alaska governor turned vice presidential nominee had been greeted with deep skepticism and surprise by the media and many political analysts, and coming into the convention this attitude of suspicion remained fairly ubiquitous.

After all, it was Palin’s convention. Talking to many of the conservative delegates and guests, we were surprised at how deeply the controversy over Palin ran. Many of the conventioneers were happy to celebrate Palin’s merits and alleged reputation of change on camera or when we had just met. They heralded the genius and historicity of McCain’s veep pick and were proud at the prospect of a female vice president. Off camera, however, there was a different story to be told. While many did believe what they preached, others were just towing the party line, and had deep reservations about Palin. Many questioned her experience, while some looked down upon McCain for making a raw political pick instead of choosing somebody who could adequately step in as president if needed.

Perhaps it is telling that, on the first night, the Chairman of the Republican National Convention proudly extolling the Republican Party for “holding a convention that will nominate Governor Sarah Pawlenty our next Vice President [audience applauds, then the Chairman applauds].” Pawlenty, the governor of Minnesota and one of the strong contenders for the VP position, couldn’t have been too pleased. Sitting in the audience, we were just as puzzled as anyone, but nonetheless watched as guests and delegates stood and cheered. This was probably to cover up the slip, but one wonders if some of the people in that convention truly embraced a chance to cheer a McCain-Pawlenty ticket.

On the eve of the nominating convention, we heard some rumblings of a Romney revolt. It seemed that some of the delegates were floating the idea — perhaps seriously, perhaps not — to stage some kind of revolt on the floor and attempt to nominate Mitt Romney for vice president instead of Sarah Palin. The same rumor held that in order to avoid a row on the floor, McCain asked Mitt Romney to turn down the offer to address the convention on Wednesday and go home.

Of course, he didn’t, and there was no row on the floor. But when Sarah Palin stepped onto the podium to give her speech on the penultimate day of the convention, it felt as though the applause for Sarah Palin’s fiery speech was flushing away some — but not all — of the concerns from the minds of the delegates.

Drills and Oil

A delegate sign that said “we struck oil with Sarah” succinctly summed up the two main themes of the week: if Sarah Palin was the woman of the week, the topic of the week was certainly offshore drilling; if the mantra of the 2004 Republican National Convention was “flip-flop,” then this year’s mantra was “drill, baby, drill.” In the convention stands, homemade signs demanding immediate offshore drilling abounded. Just outside, numerous people were passing around stickers, petitions, and other pro-drilling materials.

Despite reports stating that offshore drilling would not affect prices until around 2030, many Republicans believe that they would affect prices within two years. We got to speak with a Massachusetts Republican and former staffer under Andy Card during the first Bush term. He recently worked for OPEC on this very topic and was stunned at what he saw as a GOP gimmick. “Knowing what I know, we’re not drilling our way out of this one.”

Additionally, we got to interview Russ Weeks, the Republican candidate for governor of the coal state West Virginia. He and many other Republicans at the convention saw clean coal as the answer to the nation’s energy problems. Others, such as a high-ranking elected Republican from Kentucky, took the position that clean coal must be the main dish of a smorgasbord of numerous new energy sources. Even though some we spoke to were skeptical of man-made global warming claims and notions that we are running out of oil, it was clear that some coalition of economically- and environmentally-minded constituents was going to push through an energy shakeup in this election, even in the party with which the energy lobby has been old friends.

The Libertarian Revolution

In addition to the hordes of party Republicans in the Twin Cities, Minneapolis/St. Paul also became a base of operations for Congressman Ron Paul and his libertarian followers. A Harvard event hosted by the IOP was held in a restaurant just across from the libertarian fair. In this mid-size Minneapolis park were hundreds of libertarians, many dressed in traditional 1960s hippie garb. One speaker, a radio talk show host in New Mexico, told the audiences about “the revolution” — a non-violent movement for liberty that is “to be spoken only with love” — and encouraged audience members to break the law in order to advance it. There were also the hippies of the Right: some libertarians at the fair walked across the country and held town hall meetings to talk about the global warming “hoax.” Others talked about how great a rise in carbon dioxide levels and global warming would be for Minnesota agriculture, if these effects actually existed.

Everybody hated taxes. Everybody hated government power. There were automobiles that were made to tow imitation missiles with defamations of Bush and Cheney on them. Many libertarians we interviewed over the course of the weekend, including a Ron Paul delegate from Nevada, also shared concerns over the Federal Reserve and extolled the gold standard as they claimed that (as we heard repeatedly from Ron Paul supporters) “the dollar is backed by nothing.” When pressed beyond this, however, very few Paul supporters were able to explain why that is a bad thing.

Diversity and Civil Rights

During our stay in the Twin Cities, we were often asked about diversity at the convention. Many were startled at the contrast between the speakers on stage and the Republicans in the stands. Unfortunately, the demographics on the speakers would give a disingenuous impression of the demographics of the other invitees.

Many of the less prominent speakers of the convention, including certain CEOs, various citizens, distinguished veterans, and others, delivered speeches on the Republican podium that left the impression that the GOP is a diverse crew of multiracial American conservatives.

Beyond the podium, amongst the throngs of supporters cheering on the floor and in the stands, we saw a different story. Looking around, it seemed clear that the Republican Party was still very much the white, Christian party.

We did get to meet some notable exceptions, however. At the Jewish Republican Association, many were willing to look past some of the Republican stigma about race and religion in order to focus on Israel, taxes, and other matters. We also conducted a fascinating interview with Lt. Colonel Frances Rice, a former lawyer who is currently the President of the National Black Republican Association. She made the case that the Democrats have stolen credit for the civil rights movement from the Republicans, and that they use government handouts in order to “keep blacks on their plantation.”

Although Rice congratulated Barack Obama for his accomplishments, she criticized his policies and told us not to assume that all African Americans are behind him. She called Barack Obama a “radical,” President John F. Kennedy a “racist,” and happily pulled out an article written by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s daughter verifying that he was, in fact, a Republican. She lamented that so many young African Americans she had spoken to believe that Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat and decried the “socialism” of the Democratic Party for creating a culture of dependency which, in her opinion, has resulted in the “economic decline” of the African American community. Her claims were eye-opening, and her arguments were made with the precision and verve of a former lawyer.

“The Republicans want to give blacks a hand up, not a hand out,” she said. This theme was echoed by another African-American woman we met. Dr. Deborah Honeycutt, a medical doctor and congressional candidate from Georgia’s 13th district, believed fervently that blacks must lift themselves up, without the help or interference of the government, in order to be successful.

Besides the handful of African Americans at the convention, other nationalities were notably missing. When we spoke with Robert Smigel (better known for the SNL TV Funhouse cartoons), he complained about his inability to find an Asian person with a thick accent while filming a Triumph the Insult Comic Dog sketch for Conan O’Brien.

The Log Cabin Republicans were also out in force based on the inclusion of at least 3 or 4 “Big Tent” welcome mixers in the schedule. We couldn’t decide if it was because there were too many to fit in one mixer or because they had difficulty finding enough people, and also couldn’t help but chuckle at their emphatic use of the term “big tent.” Needless to say, the homosexual constituency within the Republican Party did not appear to be widely embraced.

Church and State

At the convention, we walked past a room labeled “Chapel” and decided to go inside. It was a small room with shaded windows, with one woman in her thirties wearing a Fox News hat and a McCain T-shirt, praying fervently. Looking up, we saw a gigantic wooden cross with Christian prayer material on the table. For a Jew and a Buddhist, we couldn’t help but think that this was a side of the Republican party that they try not to showcase during the conventions. While the speakers at the convention would make the GOP seem like a pluralistic, welcoming party, there were no apparently prayer alternatives for other religions.

The RNC is a private, non-governmental event, and the GOP has the right to accommodate any religious view they chose to. Their unwillingness to accommodate other religious viewpoints, however, was telling.

Exiting the chapel, we told the staff our concern: if there is a single chapel under the big tent that is supposed to be the GOP, there should be a space for people of other religions to pray. The chapel was a sign that the GOP was committed to representing people of faith, but only people of the Christian faith. The chapel staff was contrite: “I’m sorry, we can’t help you.”

Responses to Harvard

It was interesting to see the myriad, often paradoxical ways that the Harvard name fell upon conservative ears. On the one hand, Harvard — famous for being liberal and playing host to the “East coast Ivy League-educated elite” — is often villainized by conservatives as producing snotty academics who are out of touch with real, working people. One West Virginian used the Harvard credential as an excuse to challenge us to produce specific industrial facts about the productivity of oil and coal. The Harvard education that comes with the name was not in vain, however. As we are both physics students, we both became immediately suspicious when this delegate started claiming numbers about oil. After a little math and some Googling, our suspicions were confirmed.

While many wondered how it was possible for there to be Republicans at Harvard, we were able to demonstrate that such a thing was possible, though perhaps uncommon. Typically, the argument was won by pointing out that George W. Bush, John Roberts, and Bill O’Reilly were among Harvard’s many conservatives. To members of the Texas delegation, the invocation of the existence of Texans at Harvard usually did the trick.

Despite the stigma amongst conservatives, the Harvard name does command a level of respect and admiration; we were generally greeted with open arms and generous offers to help us out. While a few people treated us suspiciously, others bent over backwards to accommodate us and get us in to exclusive hot spots around the convention. Others still were thrilled at the prospect of being interviewed by the Harvard Independent.

Final Thoughts

Both parties have been the butt of hard critiques over the past eight years. The Republicans have had control over the executive branch for eight years, and had control over the legislative branch for six of those eight years. In the previous two, the Democrats have been accused of being ineffective legislators and not standing up to the Bush administration.

This is a critical election, and a tipping point for many crucial issues for our country and our world. Many of these — less energy, healthcare, and the environment — would be overwhelming projects when taken alone. The next president and Congress must take them together.

In his nomination speech, John McCain surprised many within the hall with his indictment of the Republican Party for losing its way. After several days of sitting through one speech after another toeing the Republican Party line, McCain offered a refreshing perspective on the way forward for the Republican Party which had many heads, including ours, nodding. McCain asserted that the Republican Party cannot survive if it does not reach beyond its own ranks to win back the youth or appeal to growing demographics, especially non-whites.

Our reflections upon what we saw that first week in September brought us to consider the potential consequences of a Republican loss in 2008. Although we do not endorse any particular candidate in this article, we came to the conclusion that a 2008 loss might be what can revive the Republican Party, perhaps even more so than a McCain presidency. One pollster, when asked what young people don’t understand about the GOP, responded by saying that the youth could gain an affinity to the Republican Party with time and increased knowledge of Republican policies on things like globalization, but that the generation that was born after the fall of the Berlin Wall started paying attention to politics after 9/11 and has therefore been conditioned to associate the Republican Party only with its failures.

Were the Republicans to lose this year, it could force the GOP to rethink, retool, and reach out. If the Republicans are right, and the Democrats are burdensome and unhelpful, then they can escape the blame for any mistakes and come back roaring. The current youth would have to give them a second chance. If the Democrats do well, then it would give the Republicans an opportunity to make real their promise of significant change within their own party. If they do not reach out, their ability to govern and represent will steadily but inevitably decline.

During the conventions, we and other Indy staffers kept diary, blog, and video entries at CampusPundit.com. We hope you check it out.

Nicholas Krasney '09 (nkrasney@fas) and Ho Tuan '09 (tuan@fas) had a Grand Old Time.