RNC Recap for Thursday, September 4

This past Monday, we provided a preview of the themes we expected to see this week during the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, MN. Here is a recap of Thursday’s events.

The theme for the night was “Peace: A Safer and More Secure America,” and the discourse was raised to a more sophisticated and positive level from that of Wednesday night. While there were a few references to Obama being “not like us” (U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham said “I’m not saying Barack Obama doesn’t care; he doesn’t get it”; McCain suggested that Obama believes he is anointed by God to save the country), Theme 1 from Monday was generally not reflected, for the most part, in the language from the last night’s speakers. Overall, there were few messages that would be more successful because of racist predispositions. Theme 3 (McCain is conservative) was similarly minimal on Thursday night, though McCain had a number of lines such as “. . . the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan is going to get back to basics.” While there were some other mentions of Ronald Reagan, low taxes and keeping government out of people’s lives, these messages gave way to stronger themes of change and reform. Theme 4 (Republicans are inclusive) more closely resembled that of Tuesday night than Wednesday night, with nearly all of the speakers being white and male (notable exceptions were U.S. Senator Mel Martinez and Cindy McCain), and the few people of color in the audience getting predictable camera time.

Theme 2: McCain and Palin are Change
The most prominent theme from those that we predicted on Monday was Theme 2. In the film designed to introduce Governor Sarah Palin (which was supposed to air last night, but was bumped due to time constraints), the word “maverick” was mentioned three times in the first 15 seconds and was used at least three more times in the brief clip.



In short, it was a very strong final night to a strong convention. McCain did exactly what he needed to do: he placated the Evangelical right with his choice of VP, but maintained his ability to appear to be “independent” with the messages that came out of the convention hall. In particular, McCain’s “ask not what your country can do for you” speech Thursday night will clearly resonate with a large number of Americans. In contrast to the fear mongering that took place earlier in the convention (there was a particularly offensive graphic film about 9/11 victims shown earlier in the evening) and the vitriol that was so much a part of most of the convention’s speakers, McCain’s call for civility, bipartisanship, and putting country above self was a breath of fresh air. After an unfortunate start due to Hurricane Gustav, the GOP put on an energetic and moving event that will clearly result in a solid bounce in support in the coming days.

Walking the High Wire
McCain and Palin are going to have a difficult time maintaining the momentum that they built this week, though. It will be tough to continue to walk the very thin line between change and appeasing the conservative base of the Party. Particularly in Thursday night’s speech, McCain did an admirable job of simultaneously running against Obama and the Bush Administration. But that was a scripted speech in front of a supportive crowd; he will have difficulty keeping aloft on the high wire when things are being thrown at him from multiple sides. Here are a few examples:

• During the Palin film, the narrator noted that “she managed to increase funding for infrastructure by cutting property taxes” when she was mayor of Wasilla. How did she manage that? Early reports suggest that she hired a lobbying firm and received nearly $27 million worth of federal earmarks, something that McCain has vowed to eliminate if elected president. Conservatives will like that she didn’t raise property taxes, but will be upset to learn that she was part of the spending that they find so “wasteful” coming out of Washington.
• McCain used an example of a Michigan couple who lost their real estate investments in the housing crash, saying that he’d “fight” for them. That will be appealing to the populist wing of the party, but fiscal conservatives will be more likely to side with the statements McCain made in March: “it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers."
• Sarah Palin said that she’d advocate for children with special needs, but what did she mean? Parents of special needs children need a lot of help, not the least of which is financial. While it is compassionate to “advocate” for children with special needs, she will have to explain to the far right how this type of governmental spending is warranted, while others is not, or she’ll have to explain to these families why securing funding for treatment and education for these kids is not what she meant by “advocate.”
• McCain mentioned that the daughter of a Latina worker is one of “God’s children” who deserves to be fought for. If the worker is undocumented, he’s right that the child is “American,” but many on the far right would like that child to be sent out of the country. Will he fight for that child or deport him or her?
• McCain promised to provide assistance to the unemployed worker (through Community College training), but was not clear if he was going to spend federal money to make the transition. The working class supporters will favor such a program, but if it costs money, McCain will run into problems with others in the Party.

And there were some questions that remain unanswered. Specifically, who is the “me-first, country-second crowd” to which McCain referred in his speech Thursday night? The handful of politicians who have been caught in scandals are obvious and common enemies of the people, but beyond that, is he referring to Democrats? It was a common call of previous speakers that “liberals” in Washington “want your money for themselves.” But those who favor government spending on social issues (or foreign policy, for that matter) don’t get to keep that money for themselves. Who is in this “crowd?” The call all week was for “country first,” but who were they suggesting puts themselves ahead of country? There was some implication that Obama is out for himself (a political opportunist), but the vague attack on an ambiguous target is parallel to the attacks against “the media.” During the debates, there should be some push to be specific about what is meant by such claims.




Racial Equality Through Education
Our concern, of course, is the move toward racial equality. There is very little that came out of this convention that suggests that McCain/Palin will be committed to bringing about more racial equality in America. After noting Obama’s historic nomination, McCain made a general reference to “defending the rights of the oppressed” and making sure that all Americans have opportunities. But we were quite impressed that he said that “education is the civil rights issue of this century.” There is more to racial inequality than education, but for the most part, McCain is exactly correct. The problem, though, is that his plan to fix the education system is pointed in the wrong direction.

Educational opportunities are unequal in America largely due to the way schools are funded. While some federal and state money is given to schools by way of grants, much (usually most) funding of schools is reliant on property taxes in the district. So if a neighborhood is wealthy, the schools are wealthy; if it is poor, the schools are poor. Poor districts are understaffed, do not have materials and resources necessary to educate in the 21st century, and do not attract the most talented teachers. Further, poor districts are likely to have students whose parents have to work long hours and consequently may not be home to help with schoolwork. After-school programs are not possible because of funding issues. McCain promised Thursday night to “shake up failed school bureaucracy,” a vague phrase that directs attention away from the real problem. Bureaucracy does not create discrepancies in school funding, economic inequality (which is closely tied to racial inequality) does. McCain promises to make schools compete with one another and then allow parents to have the “choice” to move their students to a better school. But what does this really mean?

Without equality in funding, the “competition” is not fair. Particularly since No Child Left Behind financially punishes schools whose students do not meet standardized benchmarks, the “competition” is not likely to become fairer without a major change in funding structure. But that change will not happen if the far right continues to dictate policy. McCain promised folks that they should be able to keep the fruits of their hard labor. That is precisely what does not need to happen.

To make schools more equal, wealthy people will have to give money to poor schools through taxes and redistribution of finances. So long as wealthy (mostly white) folks move to the suburbs and keep their wealth in their own schools, leaving poorer families behind (or, as Obama said last Thursday, “on their own”), there will be inequality in schools. A voucher that gives a family a $4,000 credit to put toward tuition at a private school will help families that are $4,000 short for private school tuition of, say, $12,000 per year, but for those who can’t get the remaining $8,000, that’s simply an additional $4,000 that will not be in the pool for the local public school.

Further, while it is popular in conservative circles to run against unions, his promise to take education out of the hands of “bureaucrats and unions” and give it to parents and children is wrongheaded. Letting students decide what should happen in schools is like having physicians permit patients to make their own medical diagnoses. Until teachers are treated like professionals and not merely government employees (i.e., better pay, greater respect and autonomy), great leaps in education will not be possible. In short, without a major redistribution of wealth for school funding, McCain’s vision of civil rights being achieved through education will not be realized.

McCain spoke of the sort of selflessness that wealthy persons like to applaud, but only occasionally advocate in practice. The truth is that there is economic inequality in this country, and those who have wealth do not usually support policies to help those who do not. So while it is probably soothing for wealthy folks to cheer calls to serve a cause greater than oneself and put service first, the policies that are advocated by the Republican Party in 2008 are not a change from those of the past forty years. Tax-deductible contributions to get one’s family into a lower bracket are welcome, but they are no substitute for the greater good that can come from working together as a national community to solve our great problems of homelessness, hunger, poverty, and inequality. The market cannot solve those problems, and when the confetti clears in St. Paul, it will be obvious that the real empty rhetoric is not coming from Obama, whose policies are designed to address inequality, but from the GOP, whose presidential candidate we believe is personally committed to making the world a fairer, better place for all (at least Americans), but whose power is still centered in the far right, which have already pulled the “maverick” from his comfort zone and into a policy world with nothing but continued and increased inequality on the horizon.