This week it’s the Republican show and next week it’s the Democrats, as both parties hold their conventions in an election year that’s been full of surprises. Communication professor John Murphy has spent his career studying political rhetoric, and mostly that of presidents, and is finishing a book on the speeches of John F. Kennedy. He spoke with News Bureau social sciences editor Craig Chamberlain about what voters should look for, and listen for, in Cleveland and Philadelphia.
So what are the stories that candidates and parties seek to tell through their conventions? And how do they do that well?
Candidates and parties usually tell two stories. They explain the state of the nation in ways helpful to their particular cause – challengers will claim that things are terrible and incumbents will offer a narrative of success and hope. Naturally, it’s important to make these stories as plausible as possible. They will then explain how this party and that particular candidate are ideally suited to address the problems they’ve shown. For example, in 2012, the Democrats told a story of recovery from economic disaster and portrayed President Obama as the best person to continue that work because he had done so well to this point.
As a matter of just his words and presentation style, what’s the source of Donald Trump’s success so far?
Donald Trump uses the conventions of reality television and, more particularly, of professional wrestling to show that he is a winner and that his audience can win, too. So, he stages confrontations – at his rallies, at debates – in which he faces down or shows up protestors or opponents, much as wrestlers call out their opponents and humiliate them. Polls and news stories suggest that much of Trump’s constituency feels as if they have been left out, unfairly attacked for their words, their beliefs. Trump “wins” staged confrontations to show them they can win, too, and win back their rightful place on top of the social heap.
Ideally, what will Trump and the Republicans want to communicate this week to set things up for the fall?
They’ll wish to display a united party behind a plausible presidential candidate. Trump needs to pass the presidential timber test, the sense that he meets the minimum standards. Thus far, he’s been speaking to a limited constituency, a niche market of mostly angry, white males who feel put upon. He needs to show he can break out of that market and go national.
And what would represent an ideal convention, in terms of messaging, for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats?
They, too, need to show a united party behind a plausible president. More important, Clinton needs to rise above her constant “wonkiness,” her concern with specifics, and show that she can articulate and implement a vision for the country, providing a reason to vote for her rather than simply against her opponent.
Can you point to any elections in recent decades where a convention, good or bad, may have really made the difference?
It’s very hard to attribute effects to specific events, but Bill Clinton trailed badly in June 1992, losing in the polls to President George H.W. Bush and Ross Perot. The Democrats staged an excellent convention, Perot temporarily dropped out of the race during the convention, and Clinton emerged with a strong lead, one the incumbent never quite overcame, even when Perot re-entered.
To contact John Murphy, call 217-333-1593 (office) or 706-308-6642 (cell); email jmmurphy@illinois.edu.
