USUALLY political conventions are attempts to tell a story — a story about what a party stands for, a story about where its presidential candidate came from, a story about what kind of chief executive he would be.
The Donald Trump National Convention in Cleveland (technically the Republican National Convention, but let’s be real) wasn’t really much for storytelling. Its messages were muddled, its shared agenda boiled down to hating Hillary Clinton, many of its speakers didn’t want to talk about the candidate and one declined even to endorse him.
But if the convention didn’t tell, it definitely showed: It was less an advertisement for Donald Trump than a perfect synecdoche for his entire ascent, with every element of the Trump phenomenon distilled into four strange days of drama.
First, it was a showcase for the institutional failure of the Republican Party in the face of Trump’s assault. The party’s past presidents were absent, and many of its younger politicians also. The ones who did appear found varying ways to cover themselves in dishonor — some with pained, phoned-in endorsements, some with opportunistic zeal, and some by simply being good apparatchiks and squashing the last attempt at delegate dissent.
Almost none of these figures made a positive case for Trumpism, or attempted to explain how his ethno-nationalism fits with their professed Reaganite worldview. But then that worldview also seemed threadbare — a concatenation of clichés so rote and unconvincing that its abandonment by Trump’s voters looks almost inevitable in hindsight.
Meanwhile the convention was also a showcase for Trump’s unique political style, which is basically ramshackle and improvised, and which treats the controversies that most politicians fear as part of the fun, part of the show, a reason for voters and viewers to tune in. Trump literally said this, after his wife’s speech bizarrely plagiarized Michelle Obama and his campaign even more bizarrely let the controversy spin for days: “Good news is Melania’s speech got more publicity than any in the history of politics,” he tweeted, “especially if you believe that all press is good press!”And he does. How else to explain the stage-management of Ted Cruz’s deliberate non-endorsement, a striking and admirable moment of defiance that Trump’s campaign actually seemed to hype — by apparently whipping boos against Cruz from the floor, and by having Trump show up in the hall as the speech wrapped, as though the two men might stage a W.W.E. confrontation.
That this reality-television approach is poorly suited to an office with the powers of the presidency is, well, obvious enough. But not content to let us draw the inference, Trump also used the convention week to offer a case study in the damage a reckless president can do, by giving an extended interview with this newspaper in which he casually undercut America’s commitment to our NATO allies in the event of Russian aggression in the Baltics.
One need not be any kind of Russia hawk to recognize that this is the kind of thing that encourages brinksmanship, aggression, war. (It also dovetails, rather creepily, with Trumpworld’s conspicuous Russian ties, Vladimir Putin’s history of backing right-wing European parties, and Russian television’s conspicuous pro-Trump propaganda.) And nestled amid the whole ramshackle convention, it was a reminder that the greatest danger of a Trump presidency might not be his transparently authoritarian tendencies, but rather the global chaos that a winging-it Great Man in the Oval Office could unleash.
But then, finally, there came the Great Man’s acceptance speech itself, which was everything that critics charged — exaggerated in its law-and-order fear-mongering, free of policy beyond the promise of quick fixes and delivered with a strongman’s permanent shout — while also pulsing with an ideological message whose power will outlive Trump’s wild campaign.
That message was a long attack, not on liberalism per se, but on the bipartisan post-Cold War elite consensus on foreign policy, mass immigration, free trade. It was an attack on George W. Bush’s Iraq war and Hillary Clinton’s Libya incursion both, on Nafta and every trade deal negotiated since, on the perpetual Beltway push for increased immigration, on the entire elite vision of an increasingly borderless globe.
No recent presidential nominee has given a speech like it. But it gave full voice to sentiments that are widely held on both sides of the Atlantic — sentiments rooted in the broken promises of both right and left, in 15 years of economic disappointment and military quagmire, in the percolating threat of globalized jihad, in an ever-more-balkanized culture governed by an ever-more-insulated elite.
At his convention as in his entire rise, Trump was a walking spectacle, a carnival barker, a man without normal caution or foresight or restraint. And those flaws should doom him in the end.
But his speech wasn’t just a spectacle. And after this strangest of elections is over, Trumpism will come around again.
<
ROSS DOUTHAT>
댓글 안에 당신의 성숙함도 담아 주세요.
'오늘의 한마디'는 기사에 대하여 자신의 생각을 말하고 남의 생각을 들으며 서로 다양한 의견을 나누는 공간입니다. 그러나 간혹 불건전한 내용을 올리시는 분들이 계셔서 건전한 인터넷문화 정착을 위해 아래와 같은 운영원칙을 적용합니다.
자체 모니터링을 통해 아래에 해당하는 내용이 포함된 댓글이 발견되면 예고없이 삭제 조치를 하겠습니다.
불건전한 댓글을 올리거나, 이름에 비속어 및 상대방의 불쾌감을 주는 단어를 사용, 유명인 또는 특정 일반인을 사칭하는 경우 이용에 대한 차단 제재를 받을 수 있습니다. 차단될 경우, 일주일간 댓글을 달수 없게 됩니다.
명예훼손, 개인정보 유출, 욕설 등 법률에 위반되는 댓글은 관계 법령에 의거 민형사상 처벌을 받을 수 있으니 이용에 주의를 부탁드립니다.
Close
x