RNC Night 1: How My Predictions Played Out

Last Friday I gave my predictions of what to look for this week, and after two hours watching the first night of the Republican National Convention, I think it’s safe to say I was right.

Here's the Executive Summary of Last Night

1.    The Republicans had the advantage of being able to see what works and what doesn’t for a virtual primary, and they played that card exceptionally well: It was great pageantry, and great introductory tweetable-and-repeatable messaging (if underplayed). They lived up to my expectations.

2.    The Republicans and Democrats did an equally predictable job of saying why the other party is seeking to destroy life as we know it. Blah blah blah, we really, really don’t need four nights apiece to hear it over and over.

3.    But the RNC also sadly lived down to my expectations with regard to toxic messaging strategies. I really hoped that with all the other advantages, they would show how they could rise above the reputation for divisiveness and the President’s reputation for fear mongering, and speak in a way that models greater integrity of leadership communication. Although some individuals did, the night, on the whole, did not.

Let’s do the easy ones first: PAGEANTRY

As I touted all last week, the Republicans had a major advantage in going second, and they used it well. Unlike the lackluster and relatively uninspiring first (and arguably subsequent) nights of the DNC, the RNC figured out how to bring the pageantry and rock-concert-like atmosphere of the in-person convention to the screen.

In particular, they created great “sizzle reels,” video montages that showcased key people, key moments, and key soundbites to great effect. One particularly strong example right at the start was what could be called “the best of Trump” a compilation of President Trump in other live arena events in which he sounded the most “presidential,” using the soundtrack of cheering crowds along with patriotic, anthem-sounding music, complete with French horn fanfares and all. The passion and energy were perfectly designed. It was cinematic and marketing genius. 

Another way in which the Republicans used it very effectively, and the Democrats missed the opportunity: Sizzle reels don’t just need to show excerpts of why your candidate is great; they are equally effective for showing straight-from-the-horse’s-mouth evidence of things your opponent said that would make him (or her) look bad now. Another effective sizzle reel last night pertained to the corona virus: a montage of statements by Democrats (who knows from how early in the pandemic) ranging from Joe Biden to Nancy Pelosi to Bill DeBlasio and others, claiming that it wasn’t that serious and people should just go about their business, contrasted with clips framing President Trump’s response as being swift and decisive.

The Democrats created no such video, despite the fact that, based on their claims over the last four years about Donald Trump being everything from sexist and racist to befriending dictators and leaving allies in the lurch, there should have been plenty of fodder for that kind of clip.

The RNC also had a very smart counter-punch to the “Black Lives Matter” theme heard throughout the DNC last week, specifically, they made the case that black people don’t have to vote for Democrats just because they’re black, despite Biden’s terribly clumsy suggestion to the contrary. They had a great lineup of African-American legislators ranging from Maryland congressional nominee Kim Klacik (R-Baltimore) to Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) to promote the notion that the Democrats have failed black people year after year, and independently-minded, free-thinking black voters should vote Republican. Once again, very powerful messaging.

Was it TWEETABLE-AND-REPEATABLE?

As I have originally described it time and again, the refrain “Make American Great Again,” is a great “tweetable and repeatable” sound bite from 2016, and it has stuck. Subsequently, the Trump campaign hasn’t disappointed for 2020, with their new slogans “Greater Than Ever” and “Promises Made, Promises Kept.” As expected, they are clear, powerful, easy to understand and remember, and inspiring, based on whatever specifics you choose to remember or imagine. I was only surprised that we didn’t hear these phrases repeated MORE throughout the night, which I think would have served them well.

Yes, these slogans are unquestionably more inspiring than “Build Back Better.” But there were other refrains that we heard far more often, and in my opinion, detracted from the quality and value of the event.

Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones, but What’s the Power of a NAME?

To no one’s surprise, we heard the word “socialist” used dozens of times over the course of the evening. But it was more than a little disappointing to hear it used interchangeably with the terms “communist” and “Marxist” on more than one occasion. All of them are certainly more liberal than today’s Republican platform, but they are nevertheless unique and distinct structures and philosophies. Lumping them all together in this way seems to rely on the assumption that the audience is too ignorant to know the difference, and that such ignorance should be exploited since all three terms sound very scary, and more scary words are better than fewer scary words when looking to dissuade.

An even less surprising but perhaps more disappointing choice was Donald Trump Jr.’s borrowing a play from his father’s 2016 playbook and resorting to playground-style name calling. As if his father’s label choice of “sleepy Joe” (in addition to “low-energy Jeb,” “crooked Hillary,” and “little Marco” among others) wasn’t enough, Donald Jr. stepped it up (down?) a notch by using “Beijing Biden,” alluding to whose side he believes his opponent is on.

*Sigh.*

The Power of OMISSION

The labels and name calling is just one example of what I was afraid we would see. Yes, both sides paint each other as inherently bad people who will ruin your life if you elect them. But the RNC used a different degree of language that is as disturbing in its subtlety at times, as when it is overt, and what was missing can be as important as what is included.

For example, there were many speakers who explicitly referred to their churches, violence in churches, and the need to feel safe in church. However, there was no mention of similar needs of Jews, Muslims and others who also want and deserve to feel safe to congregate in synagogues or mosques or other houses of worship in general, despite the fact that hate crimes are prevalent there as well. That omission reinforces the notion that the RNC is pandering toward Donald Trump’s base, including but not limited to the evangelical Christian/Religious Right. They showed racial “inclusiveness” with a number of black speakers, but did not include anyone who at least outwardly identified as anything other than Christian, or referenced the needs and rights of non-Christian communities by name.

Similarly by way of omission, Ambassador Nikki Haley explicitly stated that American “is NOT a racist country…” and proceeded to describe how, when she was governor of South Carolina, after a white supremacist shot twelve African Americans in Mother Emmanuel church, blacks and whites worked together to “remove a divisive symbol.” The “divisive symbol” was none other than the Confederate flag, but apparently it would have upset too many people if she had said so outright, so that detail was conveniently left out.

Ironically, President Trump – in his live discussion with frontline essential workers – had no problem describing the coronavirus as “Covid, we could call it many different things, from China virus, I don’t want to go through all the names because some people might get insulted…” Interesting choices of what gets added and omitted in the interest of protecting “some” people from insult but not others, whoever they might be from issue to issue.

The Danger of CONFLATION 

Conflation is another dangerously questionable tactic, as demonstrated, for example, by Mark and Patty McCloskey who, during the St. Louis protests a few weeks ago, understandably stood on their front steps armed with guns to protect their property. But Mark described one of the protest leaders, Cori Bush – now a candidate for Congress – as a Marxist wearing a Black Lives Matter t-shirt. This kind of description puts the idea into people’s minds that “Black Lives Matter” is a Marxist sentiment, and as we’ve established, most Americans don’t even know what Marxism is; they just think it sounds scary. Thus, the resulting impression is that the Black Lives Matter movement is scary. It’s simple math: If A = B, and B = C, then A = C. Simple, but erroneous and destructive.

Now what?

It’s difficult for me as a voter to vote objectively on substance and platform alone when I have to filter through this kind of messaging, and am aware of the intention behind it. But adding to that, as I mentioned in Friday’s prediction, it’s doubly hard for me as a parent to sit there with my teenager (as I did last night) and feel compelled to keep pausing the feed, not only to discuss the issues and references, but also to point out these rhetorical devices and why its important in my humble opinion (or as my son and his friends would write, IMHO) to learn why it’s important to learn to be an effective leader without them.

Remember: I don’t do fact-checking as part of my analyses (I’ll leave that to Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity to duke it out). My angle is about what’s effective messaging from the perspective of a linguist, and what leadership communication lessons can be learned by everyone, for better and for worse, from these events as case studies.

My Challenge to the RNC

Over the next three days, I hope the RNC leverages its skills in pageantry and tight messaging refrains, and uses it to speak with greater civil integrity. If they truly believe their platforms are truly best or “in the right,” they – and any leader – should not need to resort to toxic messaging strategies.

My Prediction for the Next 69 Days

My prediction is that if the Republicans stay with the current strategy, it will be a much closer race. But given that it does not appear that the Democrats will ever take my advice to them and get a clear tweetable-and-repeatable repertoire together, if the Republicans do follow my advice here, lead by verbal example and take the high road on this point (and convince the incumbent to do so as well), it will be a much smoother road to winning four more years.