The Democrat and Republican National Conventions and Pride
Rethink The Words
Democrat is not the democracy and the Republican is not the Republic. And conventions are commonly held norms. The Democrat party is not a party and neither are the Republicans. In the sense of going to a party for fun. You can register for the Republican Party or register for the Democrat party. But neither is a party. Now a rock concert that is a party. However both conventions are parties.
I hope that shakes some cobwebs out of just accepting our use of “party” as a convention.
Our two party system is quite conventional. Let us use this definition for a convention; a way in which something is usually done, especially within a particular area or activity. (Googled) A convention is also like an agreement between two countries that is less than a treaty but more than just how things are normally done. Kind of like writing down what is going on.
The way we use it, it means a gathering of people interested in getting together to get into accord. An accord basically meaning parties agreeing.
I do not attend but love the concept of the ComiCon conventions. I do not like the idea of an ABA convention – as law should be conventional but lawyers never should be. Now they have Religion conventions. I do not think those are covered much by the media. Everyone should have heard of the Geneva Convention which is a loose agreement between countries about how they handle matters like prisoners of war. So two countries are at war and they follow an accord or convention? Rules of war?
Hopefully that gives us a little pause when we just toss around the word convention. The Democrats and the Republicans hold their own conventions but wouldn’t it make sense if they had a 3rd convention together?
What would tearing down of other opinions have to do with a convention? I guess you could have a “hater’s” convention. But that would be all messed up if they came to an accord among themselves. How about an “anti” convention. That resonates. That seems to be at least fifty percent of our two national conventions. So you get together and convene in order to attack another point of view or policy.
So do we have it wrong? It should be the anti-republican convention and the anti-democrat convention. But it works differently. The party out of power has to say how bad it is with the other party leading and the leading party has to say how great it is with them leading.
Now that I can understand.
Proud to be an American means something altogether different to me than 99% of people. Most folks point to accomplishments and way of life and freedom to be proud of. I am proud that we really mix it up to get what we get. The opposite of love is not hate, it is apathy. I am proud that in general our country is not apathetic. We care.
Voting. Many people do not vote. That is their prerogative. Are they saying that they do not care and cannot be bothered? Or are many saying that I will follow the majority of those who care enough to learn and vote? So getting people to vote if they agree with you is a very important task.
Now to my understanding the conventions do not change people’s minds much but they can rally them to vote. They can rally them to care enough to vote. They can charge them up to believe that their vote matters. So conventions are good that way. Survey after survey show that most people vote against someone rather than for someone. So it would seem that negative conventions are the conventional. Makes sense. A lot of people base their decisions based more on fear than optimism.
Viewership. This many millions versus that many millions. If I were to be a predictor I would say that the convention with the most views will win the election. Because that many more people care. But many watch the opposing party’s convention in order to get mad so that could be wrong.
Protests. It would seem that conventions would be a good spot for protests outside. The media is there with millions of viewers. You could get your point across with ease. And nowadays if you really did it peacefully with respect you would get a lot of respect. But I think it was tough to do that nowadays with virtual stuff.
It is a bummer that peaceful protests are now usurped by folks who are organized to make them non peaceful. I just love a good protest. I like solidarity and the caring it takes to get up and get out there. I hate terrorism though. A really sad part about the imported rioters is that they are ruining protests for everyone.
We should now delve into partisan politics and I should state mine and then argue for my belief and then tear down yours and win. That is the conventional way of doing things but we do not follow conventions much here. Do not get me wrong I think it is fine and dandy that get into heated debate over politics. Each of us has a purpose and mine is not to engage in heavy argument about politics. I have ground rules I follow. A string of foul language and I am done. Repeated name calling and I am done. Excessive anger and I am done. Talking “over” someone and I am done. So you can see I don’t do it much.
Campaigning is such an interesting phenomenon. I love to see or hear or read something put out by one side and try to figure out why they did that in order to win. How did it fit into the master game plan? A fun example is the “defund” police concept. How does supporting it win you votes and how does opposing it win you votes in the long game. Does one or the other find majority support in your base? Will it help get people out to vote for you or against the other? It would seem you would have to figure out why a voting block would support or oppose.
Another fascinating one is “The Border Wall”. Why opposed and why in support and probably why do many not care. I think that issue gets people out to vote. Me? I am a mess on the issue. I do not have a fence around my property but I lock up my house at night. That is my own little hypocrisy. My wife thinks that cool fences add to the look of the house. She does have a point. My son is on the fence on that one. Hihihi
The conventional wisdom is that if a right is clearly laid out in the constitution then you do not mess with it. But people who do not even read the constitution have strong opinions as to those rights. People think those are political issues and in fact they are not. Except for changing the constitution which is as likely a changing the law so we all have to drive around in reverse.
OK with all that said. I did not watch one minute of the conventions. I have about 5 varied news sources and got sound bites and commentary and they sounded like great shows. I know the issues and I know where the parties stand on them.
Now I await for the debates. There I can judge the man and woman. To me it basically boils down to their character. If they cannot debate with decorum and convincing arguments with each other I do not want them doing it for me with China.