This piece is only available to Political Wire members.

Join today for exclusive analysis, new features and no advertising.

Sign in to your account or join today!

[button color=”dark-blue” font_color=”#ffffff” link=”https://politicalwire.memberful.com/checkout?plan=9725″ size=”small”] Monthly – $5 per month [/button] or [button color=”dark-blue” font_color=”#ffffff” link=”https://politicalwire.memberful.com/checkout?plan=9724″ size=”small”] Annual – $50 per year [/button]

Just for members: Leonard Steinhorn, Professor of Communication at American University and a CBS Radio News Political Analyst, offers this report from Philadelphia.

It may be 2016, but as the final night of the Democratic convention made clear, this election will be the last of the 1960s. Both parties are deeply rooted in the cultural conflicts and transformations of the Sixties — and the side of that decade that prevails in November will say a lot about where we go as a nation in the years ahead.

Just walking into the two conventions was a jolt of cultural symbolism — the almost all-white GOP gathering versus the remarkably rainbow diversity of the Democrats, and the rifle bearing open carry men demonstrating their masculinity and power outside the Cleveland arena versus the ratification of LGBT equality in Philadelphia.

But more important is what these parties have come to represent. For Democrats, America is a nation conquering its bigoted demons of old, a nation that is advancing what the Sixties liberation movements started. Think back to an era before the Sixties when African Americans straightened their hair with a mixture of lye, potato, and egg that burned fiery sores in their scalp, or when they bought skin whitener called “Black No More.” Or when classified ads told women they were qualified for the job if they were attractive and 5’5″ to 5’7″ in heels. Or when gays and lesbians pretended to be something they weren’t, or when Jews bought Christmas trees and changed their names to stay inconspicuous.

We still have plenty of progress to make, Democrats say, but the very fact that we have buried the old ways and are internalizing and indeed living the new — this next generation in particular — is cause for celebration and pride. The Sixties were all about changing norms, about egalitarian values, about respecting individuality, about everyone having an equal seat at the table where no one is left outside with their noses pressed to the glass simply because they look, act, or live differently from the mainstream. Even today the one main Sixties-style activist movement, Black Lives Matter, is no different from what the movements of that decade were all about — being treated with dignity. And giving it a platform at the Democratic convention was fully in keeping with the convention’s Sixties spirit.

And thus Democrats had an answer for Donald Trump — that our nation is great and greater than ever because we have become a more open, inclusive, free, and equal society than at any time in our history. So the angry party that protested against an outmoded and discriminatory society in the Sixties is now the sunny party celebrating what we have accomplished and what we have become. The culture wars are over, Democrats are saying, and the Sixties have won.

Not so fast, says the GOP of Donald Trump. America is being undermined by this emphasis on diversity, by elites that want to impose a politically correct culture on traditional Americans who believe that Black Lives Matter activists show no respect, that gay advocacy undermines our families and faith, that immigrants are interlopers, and Muslims pose an existential threat. To them, it was their stiff backbones, sturdy hands, and lunch pail jobs that built America, and the fact that liberals and minorities show them no deference and in fact label them as bigots is infuriating.

Now this of course is nothing new. It may wear different clothing, but it’s exactly what Richard Nixon tapped into during the 1960s when he appealed to an increasingly aggrieved and resentful Silent Majority — a Donald Trump term as well — and campaigned against elites that impose “quotas” which demonize whites to privilege minorities.

Back in 1964 the great journalist Theodore White wrote what may be the most prescient piece of that decade about the roiling white middle-class resistance to racial integration. “Backlash,” he called it, and he described it as an “unease whose impact will be felt not as much now as over the long range,” one that would force the Republican Party, “born in racial strife, to choose whether it abandons its tradition and becomes the white man’s party or refreshes its tradition by designing a program of social harmony.”

Donald Trump may not represent the entire GOP, but from the look and feel of the Republican convention, Theodore White got it right 52 years ago. The Trump constituency wants its America back, and this may be the last election in which the backlash that began in the Sixties will have an opportunity to win.

The Sixties are long over. Long live the Sixties.

This piece is only available to Political Wire members.

Join today for exclusive analysis, new features and no advertising.

Convention special: Use coupon code “LovePW” to get 10% off your membership.

Sign in to your account or join today!

[button color=”dark-blue” font_color=”#ffffff” link=”https://politicalwire.memberful.com/checkout?plan=9725″ size=”small”] Monthly – $5 per month [/button] or [button color=”dark-blue” font_color=”#ffffff” link=”https://politicalwire.memberful.com/checkout?plan=9724″ size=”small”] Annual – $50 per year [/button]

Just for members: Leonard Steinhorn, Professor of Communication at American University and a CBS Radio News Political Analyst, offers this report from Philadelphia.

To me at least, one of the most memorable lines of conventions past is when the Reverend Jesse Jackson, speaking at the 1988 Democratic gathering in Atlanta, sought to explain that he is a far more complex person than his media caricature would suggest. “You see me on TV,” he said, “but you don’t know the me that makes me me.”

In many ways that can apply to all of us, but especially to politicians whose personae and character are mediated through the images we see and the news we consume. We like to think that these images say everything about the people we elect, that they give us real insight into what drives them and who they are. But maybe Jesse Jackson was right: what we imagine about politicians may say more about us than about them.

I thought of the Jackson quote because of the riddle inside the enigma that Hillary Clinton has been to so many of us over the years. And I began to wonder if the chattering class that gets paid princely sums to pontificate has gotten her all wrong. Perhaps we’ve misinterpreted those characteristics that pundits and critics alike have labeled as guarded, defensive, calculating, and secretive — a Machiavelli in heels, as so many have called her.

And here’s why. Hearing her biography over and over this week confirmed one undisputed fact about her: she’s not only “from the Sixties,” as she said at a Democratic debate last year, but she’s of the Sixties. And she’s of a very specific side of the Sixties, the earnest activists who wanted to transform the world by digging deep into policy and challenging outdated norms and practices.

For these activists, the popular phrase “question authority” had both a political and personal meaning — political because they were going up against an entrenched society built on values they wanted to change, and personal because they distrusted anyone whose ego seemed greater than the movement of which they claimed to be part. These were behind the scenes types, the activists who toiled away at the Legal Services Corporation or went South as Hillary Clinton did to challenge school segregation. Participatory democracy was their mantra, and they suspected anyone who tried too hard to lead. They looked askance at the class presidents as more image than substance, they believed virtue and not public relations would yield results, and when journalists wanted to write about them, they said no, write not about us but about what we do.

Ours is a culture in which celebrity is a career. Contestants on The Apprentice or Survivor hire agents, show up on game shows, and get paid on the speaking circuit. So we simply assume that people do things for the fame, not the substance, for the power, not the morality. Now Hillary Clinton is a public figure, and in an era of wall-to-wall PR it’s hard to argue that she’s not playing the game.

But perhaps she simply backed into it. Perhaps she’s that Sixties activist at heart who preferred behind-the-scenes advocacy and the humility of action — but got drawn into politics as a result of her husband’s career. Perhaps she is a reluctant politician, not a Machiavellian schemer. Perhaps she sees the presidency as a vehicle for change, not a driving ambition. And perhaps because we are so accustomed to politicians who thrive on attention, we are simply mistaking her discomfort with the process as arrogance. It may well be that the Hillary of 2016 remains the activist driven by her inner Sixties.

It’s been said that the close up photograph of a century-and-a-half ago changed the relationship we have with our presidents, turning it from a civic to an emotional connection — that we see their image and then project onto them our own hopes and desires, fears and uncertainties. So perhaps Jesse Jackson was right. We may have seen him on TV. But “you don’t know the me that makes me me.” Something to think about as we make our judgments about the woman who may become president of the United States.

Just for members: Leonard Steinhorn, Professor of Communication at American University and a CBS Radio News Political Analyst, offers this report from Philadelphia.

It’s day three of the Democratic convention, and so we must ask: Has the party missed its opportunity to define Donald Trump, who he is, and what he represents?

What the convention has given viewers so far is light fare — an Elizabeth Warren address, a few Trump critiques embedded in speeches, and short video snippets showing Trump’s bigoted statements and business duplicity. These do well on Facebook and are both easy and fun to share, but with all due respect to social media, sharing is not persuasion and linking is not repetition, and the Democrats seems to be violating a fundamental principle of political communication, which is to define an opponent more powerfully than the opponent defines himself. Democrats certainly want Americans to embrace what they see as the real Hillary Clinton, but even if they succeed at that, campaigns are also about framing an opponent, and if they were hoping in part to make this election a referendum on Donald Trump, they’re not doing too well at this task.

“I come from the Sixties,” Hillary Clinton said in one debate, and there’s actually a refreshing Kumbaya tone to this convention, one bound together not by anger but appreciation for how America has become more inclusive, open, free, and equal since the segregationist, McCarthyite, and organization man era of the 1950s — and how our goal must be to advance those values to include more and more of us, and to make sure we don’t succumb to divisiveness and bigotry. Emblematically, in the 8 p.m. hour, we will hear a stirring rendition of the classic 1965 Jackie DeShannon anthem, “What the World Needs Now is Love.”

Don’t get me wrong — there’s something wholly uplifting about affirming our values and better angels. Cynicism and resentment offer no oxygen for a thriving society. But politics is about strategic communication, and as much as we might not like to embrace it, this is a contest that will be determined in part by how much people distrust the other candidate.

So the key for Democrats is to define Donald Trump in a way that’s consistent with the dignity of the convention. It can’t come off like the hyperventilating Chris Christie or the mouth foaming Rudy Giuliani when they attacked Hillary Clinton at the Republican convention. But it also can’t come off as snark, which is the tone of the current DNC Trump videos and makes them appear a dash arrogant. The Democratic knock on Trump almost seems too clever by half.

Instead, consistent with the Sixties feel of this convention, what’s needed is a speaker who plays the role of a great professor teaching Trump 101, someone who knows how to open eyes and help people understand what they might sense inside but don’t know how to express. And go the whole classroom here — the giant video screen should have a PowerPoint listing facts and links, one that the party can make available to anyone who wants it. And cover the most important points: Trump’s nativism and bigotry, his reckless statements, his willingness to exploit September 11 and the housing crisis, his failed businesses, how he has fleeced customers and shortchanged employees and contractors, and why he seems so implacably opposed to releasing his tax returns. Ground it in fact, make it compelling, don’t distort, and respect the intelligence of viewers seeking to understand this man who is running to become their president.

I often wonder if those who live on the East Coast don’t fully appreciate the appeal of Donald Trump to the rest of the country — much like the famous 1976 New Yorker cover of Manhattan as the center of America and there’s no need to see things the way others do. Easterners who grew up with the Trump brand see him as a charlatan, narcissist, and crude self-promoter, which may explain why many in the press for way too long trivialized his chances of winning the Republican nomination.

But those outside the East associate Trump with skyscrapers, luxury buildings, vacation resorts, golf courses, and an entertainment empire — in other words, as someone who epitomizes success in America, someone who knows how to get things done. If Democrats don’t fillet this image of Trump, if they don’t undercut his infomercial pitch, if they don’t cast doubt on who he is and what he represents, then voters fed up with Washington gridlock and desperate for change may pull the lever for the man who promises to aim his wrecking ball at our political institutions and rebuild them in glitter and gold.

Just for members: Leonard Steinhorn, Professor of Communication at American University and a CBS Radio News Political Analyst, offers this report from Philadelphia:

If the American presidency was all about being the head of government, Hillary Clinton might win in a landslide this year. After all, she has a curriculum vitae full of government service, she has extensive experience in the political ring, she made efforts while in the Senate to bridge the bipartisan divide, and her policies on families, children, wage equity, guns, the environment, and immigration are far more aligned with the American people than those of her opponent.

But in our system, the presidency is about far more than the head of government role. It’s also about being head of state — about a leader whose voice we want to represent our nation and articulate who we are as a people. This is the symbolic side of the presidency, the part that expresses our national identity, that uplifts in times of trial, that projects our values overseas, that salves national wounds and speaks to our better angels.

When we choose a head of government, we often make rational choices about which policies serve our interests and suit us best. But when we choose a head of state, it’s all about the emotional bond we have with that candidate, whether we want that person representing us, whether we can feel a personal connection that’s built on trust, honesty, rapport, and authenticity.

Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, in American politics it’s the emotional side of the voting equation that often trumps — no pun — the rational. That’s the side that motivates us, generates enthusiasm, makes us want to affirm our choice rather than go through the motions — and for many people it’s the difference between casting a ballot and staying home. Emotion clearly drives Donald Trump’s candidacy — notwithstanding the revulsion among those oppose him, it’s almost religious among those who support him. But the passion among those who favor Hillary Clinton is far more rote. Creating that emotional bond with voters may be the most important task of the Clinton campaign this week.

For voters to imagine her as our head of state, she must address two deficits that have dogged her candidacy thus far: her personal trust issues and her vision for the country.

Even those sympathetic and supportive shrug their shoulders when discussing her emails or speaking fees or Whitewater or the windfall she made trading commodity futures when her husband was the attorney general and governor of Arkansas. Why, they ask, did someone so committed to social justice jeopardize her credibility by skirting so close to the unwise or unethical even if not the illegal? If friends can offer only lukewarm support on these issues, imagine how undecided voters process them.

For voters to envision her as head of state, as someone who symbolizes their aspirations and calms their fears, they will need to see the passionate Hillary, the authentic Hillary, the long-time advocate for children and families and women and strivers who has dedicated her career to improving people’s lives. And that portrait must be strong and vivid enough to override any lingering image of a calculating or unethical Hillary. It must, in other words, stick. With Donald Trump you get a man whose businesses have gone bankrupt, who’s been sued numerous times, who has been charged with civil rights violations, and who refuses to release his tax returns as if he has things to hide. Yet his image as a successful business owner and advocate for working people barely gets dinged. Flipping the Hillary narrative must be task one of the convention.

Task two as head of state is to tell the story of our times in a way that makes sense to voters. Think of Ronald Reagan’s city on a hill, or Barack Obama’s inspired tableau of hope and change for a country battered by economic uncertainty and war. Donald Trump has a vision this year, one that evokes a great nation on its heels in need of a strong and resolute leader. These are relatively easy narratives to impart — simple, direct, and not at all complex.

For Hillary Clinton, she has to thread an emotional needle in the portrait she weaves. She must applaud Americans for the progress and recovery we’ve made under President Obama. Yet she must also tap into the frustration of those who feel dispossessed by a political system tilted toward the well-connected and an economic system tilted toward the well-heeled. You govern in prose, the late Mario Cuomo once said, but you campaign in poetry. Hillary Clinton must find her inner bard to make hers a compelling vision.

So the question facing Hillary Clinton this week may not be whether she’s ready to be head of government. It’s whether she can convince Americans that she has the right character and leadership quotient to serve as their head of state. How well she does that may well determine who becomes the next president of the United States.

Just for members: Leonard Steinhorn, Professor of Communication at American University and a CBS Radio News Political Analyst, offers this report from Cleveland:

If, as many in the chattering class suggest, 1968 is the model for Donald Trump’s grim and dystopian description of America today, the question is whether there’s any comparison between then and now. And if Donald Trump really believes so, what does that say about him?

So let’s remember the realities of 1968 for a moment. Troop levels in Vietnam reached 536,000 in 1968, and nearly 17,000 American soldiers breathed their final moments that year — with the cumulative Vietnam War death toll reaching nearly 37,000 by December 31. In March of that year, American soldiers killed almost an entire hamlet of unarmed villagers in My Lai, and reports of other American brutalities began to seep into the news.

That year two of our nation’s cherished leaders were assassinated, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. And in the aftermath of Dr. King’s murder, riots of despair and anger broke out in more than 100 cities nationwide, leading to more than 40 deaths and almost 3,000 injuries. In Washington, DC — in the shadow of our nation’s Capitol — about 1,200 buildings burned.

Protests shut down campuses across the country, hard hats battled anti-war protesters, the draft tore families and neighbors apart, and at the Democratic National Convention that summer in Chicago, an anti-war movement that came to defy the authorities and protest the nomination of a pro-war candidate faced such violence from the police that the official commission investigating it labeled what happened a “police riot” against “persons who had broken no law, disobeyed no order, made no threat.”

It was in that context that Richard Nixon rolled out his “law and order” campaign, one designed to rouse a “silent majority” who believed the nation was careening out of control — who viewed young people and minorities as threats to their social order and in need of a firm response to restore respect. He tapped their anger, and he won.

So are we anywhere close to 1968? Notwithstanding the terrible police shootings in Dallas and Baton Rouge, or the unacceptable police violence against innocent African Americans, or the ghastly terrorist attacks against our people in Orlando and San Bernadino, our society itself is not coming apart the way it was in 1968. We may have protests, but no mass riots. We may argue with one another, but our institutions remain strong. We may face racial tensions centuries in the making, but we are a more inclusive and less prejudiced society than at any time in our history. We may have police violence, but we don’t resist the need for change. And while we face the ISIS threat worldwide, we are not immersed in a large-scale war with multiple body bags arriving home every day.

That Donald Trump may believe we are living through another 1968 says less about the nation today and more about a man who may be our president. He admits to getting his news on cable, which creates a virtual 1968 with its constant images of unrest, violence, terrorism, and crime. But a virtual 1968 is not a real one, and we must expect any leader of our country to resist the emotional pull of gruesome television images and to think rationally and deliberately about the real state of our nation. And as frustrated as Trump’s “silent majority” may be, it should give us pause when the dark portrait he paints of America seems politically calculated — much like Nixon in 1968 — to stir the anger of voters who think the nation is crumbling because they are no longer dominant and their prejudice is politically incorrect.

The commentariat sometimes sees politics as sport and themselves as color commentators. But unlike sport, the consequences are real.

Just for members: Leonard Steinhorn, Professor of Communication at American University and a CBS Radio News Political Analyst, offers this report from Cleveland:

How revealing this convention has been about the man who came close to the GOP nomination and the man who may become president of the United States. In the modern media era political parties view conventions as carefully choreographed and managed public relations spectacles designed to inspire voters, lionize nominees, celebrate unity, show off elected leaders, and burnish the party’s image. But sometimes character and reality break through the pageantry and imagery. It has here in Cleveland.

Ted Cruz simply can’t compromise or let go. He’s never been able to, and he likely won’t for the rest of his political career. He’s a lone ideological warrior in Washington, a senator with few friends willing to shut down the federal government if he doesn’t get his way. Cruz put his heart and soul into building a political machine that would mobilize conservatives and secure him the nomination this year, and he imagined himself on stage tonight accepting the nomination, not giving a consolation speech the day before. So yes, like so many other Republicans, he’s probably in denial that Donald Trump swept through the primaries and captured the energy and imagination of his party.

Now some might say that the savvy political side of Ted Cruz would have swallowed his pride and endorsed Donald Trump — if for no other reason than maintaining his future viability as a presidential candidate. Cruz the politician should have that understood the near religious fervor of Trump supporters who see disloyalty as heresy, and he doesn’t need them as enemies when he runs for the White House again. But for anyone who needed more evidence of the character and temperament of this man who came close to securing the nomination, last night provided it. If he ever becomes president of the United States, he will not compromise, he won’t back down, he won’t let go, and he won’t care what anyone thinks who’s not aligned with him personally and ideologically. File that away for four or eight years hence.

As much as Donald Trump and Ted Cruz dislike each other, they share the trait of excessive pride, and as we’ve seen too often in politics, “pride comes before a fall,” as John Lennon once sang. So without belaboring the Melania Trump plagiarism fiasco, consider it a small window into the soul and persona of a prospective Donald Trump White House. Their first instinct was to blame others — the media and Hillary Clinton. Then came an attempt to ignore the facts and trivialize them. Then came a look for scapegoats — hanging speechwriters out to dry. And when they found a Trump employee willing to take the fall, to them that was the end of the story.

Now imagine a White House that lashes out at others when it’s at fault. That lectures everyone else about taking responsibility but refuses to do so itself. That plays loose with the facts and uses sophistry to wriggle out of the truth. A White House where the buck stops at any scapegoat it can find. It would have been easy — and rather welcome — had Melania Trump accepted responsibility for the plagiarism, apologized to Michelle Obama, and even offered to meet with the First Lady personally to express her regrets. That might have been the graceful, gracious and in fact classy and politically smart way to put this behind them and restore Melania’s image. After all, it was Melania’s speech, not the speechwriter’s, and the campaign showed no hesitation lavishing her with praise before the plagiarism charge hit. Those who seek credit also should take responsibility. But not so the Trump operation. File that away for January 20 if Donald Trump is elected president.

It’s not that we haven’t seen any of these traits or characteristics before in these two men. But at conventions you expect the candidates and politicians to put the best face on who they are and what they represent. And if you can’t hide your shortcomings and limitations at a convention, just imagine how they’ll come through in a potential presidency.

This piece is only available to Political Wire members.

Join today for exclusive analysis, new features and no advertising.

Convention special: Use coupon code “LovePW” to get 10% off your membership.

Sign in to your account or join today!

[button color=”dark-blue” font_color=”#ffffff” link=”https://politicalwire.memberful.com/checkout?plan=9725″ size=”small”] Monthly – $5 per month [/button] or [button color=”dark-blue” font_color=”#ffffff” link=”https://politicalwire.memberful.com/checkout?plan=9724″ size=”small”] Annual – $50 per year [/button]

Just for members: Leonard Steinhorn, Professor of Communication at American University and a CBS Radio News Political Analyst, offers this report from Cleveland:

Set aside for a moment Ben Carson’s rather bizarre charge in his speech last night that Hillary Clinton has an association with Lucifer. More revealing is his statement that Clinton and the Democrats deliberately set out to undercut young people by depriving them of a good education and opportunities in life in order to make them indefinitely dependent on government — because that’s how “they can be cultivated for their votes.”

Unless I’m misunderstanding him, he’s effectively saying that Democrats advocate for programs not because they want to help people out of misfortune but rather to create a state of dependency on government as a way to dole out goodies, which then translates into political support — essentially buying votes through government largesse.

And it wasn’t just Ben Carson suggesting this. In his speech last night Paul Ryan called big government “the distributor of gifts and privilege,” and others have railed against a culture that demeans personal responsibility, rewards those who game the rules, and fosters dependence on government. Without calling it the 47 percent who will only support candidates that dole out entitlements, the similarities are strong.

Now not all who oppose government programs will agree with Ben Carson that they are designed as a hustle to buy political support. Many simply and sincerely believe that these programs do more harm than good, and it’s a disservice to them to suggest otherwise.

But assume for a moment that more share Carson’s view than are willing to admit. What does that tell us about the state of our politics today? It tells us that the distrust and ill-will between the parties is so deep, so profound, that some can attribute only political cynicism and deception to those who advocate for programs designed to help those living in poverty. And if earnest efforts to assuage the pain of poverty and assist the climb out can be seen as self-interested maneuvers to buy votes, then perhaps the Ben Carson comment about Hillary Clinton’s Lucifer association — and all the other ad hominem attacks leveled at her this week — reflect far more than mere partisan rhetoric at a political convention.

This piece is only available to Political Wire members.

Join today for exclusive analysis, new features and no advertising.

Convention special: Use coupon code “LovePW” to get 10% off your membership.

Sign in to your account or join today!

[button color=”dark-blue” font_color=”#ffffff” link=”https://politicalwire.memberful.com/checkout?plan=9725″ size=”small”] Monthly – $5 per month [/button] or [button color=”dark-blue” font_color=”#ffffff” link=”https://politicalwire.memberful.com/checkout?plan=9724″ size=”small”] Annual – $50 per year [/button]

Just for members: Leonard Steinhorn, Professor of Communication at American University and a CBS Radio News Political Analyst, offers this report from Cleveland:

Imagine hearing about the United States for the first time last night at the GOP convention. We would learn about a great nation in decline and distress. Our cities and communities are beset by lawlessness, undocumented immigrants roam our streets, our foreign policy is feckless, terror threatens our way of life, blue lives don’t matter, and each of us personally is under siege.

We once lived in a city upon a hill where we respected authority, led with strength, and celebrated those who protect us without questioning their motives. But our current president cares more for political correctness than truth and worries more about Muslims in other countries than about the soldiers and citizens of the United States. As his Rasputin, Hillary Clinton has evaded responsibility, manipulated and lied to protect herself, and as a number of speakers bellowed last night, belongs in an orange jump suit.

But there’s a sheriff who can ride into town to protect us, make us safe, and bring back our golden era: Donald Trump. He’s a good and decent man who’s being demonized by the media and his opponents, and only he has the strength to take on the status quo, face down our enemies, restore law and order, and rebuild our military, economy and national spirit.

That’s the narrative the Republican Party is asking Americans to embrace. The question is whether enough voters beyond the Trump base agree that our nation is vulnerable, in trouble, and in dire need of a protector in chief. Are we that worried, that anxious as a nation? We will find out in November.

This piece is only available to Political Wire members.

Join today for exclusive analysis, new features and no advertising.

Convention special: Use coupon code “LovePW” to get 10% off your membership.

Sign in to your account or join today!

[button color=”dark-blue” font_color=”#ffffff” link=”https://politicalwire.memberful.com/checkout?plan=9725″ size=”small”] Monthly – $5 per month [/button] or [button color=”dark-blue” font_color=”#ffffff” link=”https://politicalwire.memberful.com/checkout?plan=9724″ size=”small”] Annual – $50 per year [/button]

Just for members: Leonard Steinhorn, Professor of Communication at American University and a CBS Radio News Political Analyst, offers this report from Cleveland:

As far as Donald Trump is concerned, the Republican Party convention beginning today has been decades in the making. He’s been mulling over presidential bids as long ago as the Eighties, and as the convention messaging will show this week, he has been filing away language and themes that other White House candidates — both Democrats and Republicans — have successfully used to reach and resonate with the white working class voters that he hopes will launch him into the presidency.

So one of tonight’s themes will be “playing by the rules,” which harks back to — interestingly enough — Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign when he successfully appealed to working class voters who, Clinton said, deserve a good life if they “work hard and play by the rules.” Then there’s the “law and order” slogan Trump has been advancing lately in the aftermath of the police shootings and terrorist attacks — a slogan that originated with Richard Nixon’s 1968 campaign in an era of unrest and protests. And Trump also has been regularly using Nixon’s “silent majority” phrasing to express the political identity of his white working class voters who feel that they play by the rules but get overlooked by elites who seemingly cater to others.

And of course there’s the campaign slogan Trump trademarked only days after Mitt Romney lost in 2012 — Make America Great Again! — which he essentially borrowed from Ronald Reagan’s 1980 Let’s Make America Great Again. Reagan was tapping into an aggrieved white working class that saw their manufacturing jobs rust, their standard of living erode, their status in society decline, and their proud nation humbled at first by Vietnam, then by the oil shock, and then by the Iranian hostage crisis.

So in many ways the Trump messaging is a highlight reel of greatest hits from presidential campaigns past. And it’s no surprise that his speakers tonight include an actor, Scott Baio, from the 1970s and 1980s nostalgia show about the working class Fifties, Happy Days, and Rudy Giuliani, who as mayor of New York on September 11 championed the law enforcement officers and firefighters who epitomize the white working class culture that Trump claims to represent.

Reagan in particular but also Nixon and Clinton appealed to voters who feel that something has been lost, that no one is at the helm, that our national leaders have enabled dysfunction, lawlessness and entitlement. They all won. And that’s exactly how Donald Trump imagines his own march into the Oval Office.

This piece is only available to Political Wire members.

Join today for exclusive analysis, new features and no advertising.

Sign in to your account or join today!

[button color=”dark-blue” font_color=”#ffffff” link=”https://politicalwire.memberful.com/checkout?plan=9725″ size=”small”] Monthly – $5 per month [/button] or [button color=”dark-blue” font_color=”#ffffff” link=”https://politicalwire.memberful.com/checkout?plan=9724″ size=”small”] Annual – $50 per year [/button]