Drumpf's gop

           

             

                Political conventions are meant to create a narrative. In other words, they're organized to tell the story of the political party's vision, as embodied by its hero.  A convention should be first rate myth-making, each speech (or chapter) building up to the overarching climax of the hero's emergence. Or, in some cases, it's the hero's vision, imposed on the party.

Elephants, Republican icon

           I confess that I was  unable to watch the GOP Convention. (For folks outside the U.S., the GOP acronym stands for "Grand Old Party," another name for the Republican party. True, there's little "grand" about the Republicans' current incarnation, so the acronym becomes just a vaguely Teutonic sounding one syllable word, "gop," reminiscent of "glop," defined rather fittingly as a "sticky and amorphous substance, typically something unpleasant." But I digress....) It's been said that the GOP is dead and has been replaced by Trumpism. Whether that's true or not, it's pretty clear that the candidate is running on his own platform, and dragging the party along with him.

            I did dip my toe in, so to speak, by looking at a veritable sea of clips and listening to commentary and discussion. But the thought of listening to a Ben Carson or Chris Christie speech in full caused anticipatory earaches. The recitation of anger and sadness on the first night, the general nastiness on other nights, the pure ignorance of some attendees (including the candidate), were just too depressing.

            I did force myself to listen to the nominee's acceptance speech. He seems to believe he's the only person who can solve all of the problems we face, at home and abroad. He doesn't seem willing to tell us how, but he does ask that we believe him.

            Seriously?

            Evidently we should do that because we can't believe his opponent. The over-riding theme throughout the days leading up to the coronation of the Donald was the insistence on the alleged dishonesty of Hillary Clinton.

            Does Hillary over-simplify or distort facts to frame issues in a way that leads to the point she's trying to make? She does; it's an advocacy trick well-known to litigators, politicians, and debate teams.  I think it's a mistake in this election cycle, but it's a well-worn technique in a country generally unwilling to examine the complexities of cause and effect.

            But the allegations of her "crookedness" are over the top. There isn't a lot she can hide after some 25 years of scrutiny and public service. There's just nothing of substance to find--some bad judgment, maybe, and some arguable carelessness, but no malicious intent or criminal action.

From pixabay.com

            What's hard for me to fathom is how the Donald (with the help of the demagogic manipulation of Chris Christie) managed to convince his people to cry out for her to be jailed; he excoriates her for lying, but he himself has little  apparent relationship with truth-telling  and in fact has engaged in practices that come so close to fraudulent that it's surprising he's not yet been charged.

             The difference seems to be that Hillary knows (or should have known) what she's doing, according to her critics. While the Donald believes he's telling the truth, or is able to convince himself that his fantasies are real.

            So that's the story that I heard come out of the gop convention. The vision  revealed the hero, who turns out to be a self-deluding narcissistic bully.

            This is a tale best tossed in the trash, but it looks like it could be a best seller...