A Referendum on Strength?

July 20, 2024

HERE'S MY TAKE

American politics attracts a global audience partly because it matters far beyond U.S. borders. It is also unpredictable. But rarely has there been as eventful a few weeks of “game-changing” stories as has just occurred. It’s still ~100 days until the November 5^th presidential vote and the story is by no means final. Even so, there seems little doubt that the ballot question that will determine the votes of many Americans is a very different one than it was just a few weeks ago.

Let’s quickly review the twists and turns of the past seven weeks.

May 30 – Donald Trump becomes the first former U.S. president to be convicted of a felony after a New York jury finds him guilty on 34 charges relating to falsifying records connected with election finances. Most concede that the 40%-plus of Americans who are on either side of the partisan divide are likely only to have their views reinforced by the verdict. However, this conviction is likely to influence the views of less politically engaged swing voters (whose collective choices will likely decide the outcome in November.) Does being declared a felon by a jury in a court of law make a difference regarding a candidate’s electability?

June 27 – The first general election debate between U.S. President Biden and former president Trump takes place. By all accounts (including his own—“I had a bad night”) President Biden performed disastrously, at times seeming incoherent. The narrative changes from a focus on Trump’s character to Biden’s competence, not just to be a candidate and serve for the next four years, but on his present ability to continue as president.

July 13 – An assassination attempt on former president Trump at a Butler, Pennsylvania rally came within millimetres of ending the former president’s life. In a now iconic image seen by most American voters and around the world, Donald Trump defiantly raises his fist, with blood on his face, perfectly framed in front of a U.S. flag as the Secret Service takes him from the stage. That image broadcast around the world frames Trump patriotically shouting “Fight, Fight, Fight!” There are various interpretations of what the image means: defiance, resilience, courage, strength, and martyr are some of the most common words used. Whatever your take, the previous descriptor of felon was no longer primary. 

July 15-19 This week’s Republican National Convention in Milwaukee was significant in embedding a new narrative regarding former U.S. president Trump. Let’s skip the speculation regarding how much of this was authentically a response to him almost dying; how much was a clever political strategy to leverage the natural sympathy that comes to any leader who is unjustly targeted for assassination; or how much was part of a longer-term strategy to “humanise” him. I suspect all three are at play. Whatever the motives, the extensive narrative of personal stories of “Dad” and “Grandpa,” a caring person showing empathy to families in grief and loss, and a decent boss to work for (Kellyanne Conway talking about the five working moms with a combined 19 young children who were part of the former president’s executive team) all worked to reframe Donald Trump from the felon image and reality that previously defined him.

July 18  While former president Trump was basking in the glow of the favourable frame his partisan convention provided (the Democrats will get their chance to shape the coverage during their Convention on August 19-22), the Democrats continued to implode. The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday on the activities of multiple political players working to build the case for removing President Biden as the Democratic nominee on the same day that he had to cancel campaign appearances due to a positive COVID test. By the time you read this, the story will undoubtedly have unfolded further, but as long as President Biden remains on the ballot, the narrative of weakness and frailty, to the point of questioning his competence, is the frame within which the election is being considered.

Politics is about narratives. In seven weeks, we’ve gone from “felon and controversial” vs. “experienced but tired” to “strong vs. weak.” Although there is a complex mixture of considerations that goes into a voter’s decision (a few weeks back, I outlined a character, competence, and conviction template that I use to sort through this complexity when making political decisions), the overarching narrative is most determinative of how voters behave.

I can’t recall so dramatic a narrative shift in so short a period of time. Whether the narrative of leadership confidence is entirely fair or accurate really doesn’t matter. A 93-minute rambling acceptance speech Thursday evening may distract political junkies but when a narrative sets in, it gets processed differently. Few switchers watched the whole thing. The clips that matter will be Trump’s first-person account of the assassination attempt and most of the rest of the ramble will get dismissed as his brash trash talk. “But you can’t deny he’s tough” is a cover that overlooks a lot, especially among those who are unlikely to get past the first few paragraphs of a news story. Their impressions are formed and reinforced by the one-minute conversations at the water cooler with colleagues or with friends and family. For the 80%-plus whose minds were made up either way, it doesn’t matter. For the switchers who genuinely whose vote is genuinely up for grabs, this implicit frame becomes defining.

The past 50 days of change may be superseded by even more drama in the 15 weeks before election day. But what we’ve already experienced is historically rare. The frame of the election has changed from a choice based on character evaluation to a referendum on strength. The emerging ballot question is strength versus weakness. This may force the Democrats to change their ticket but introducing a new face at this stage as a stronger candidate is a tall challenge. I’m not a betting man but if strong vs. week remains the frame, the odds are that weak loses.

WHAT I’M READING

Republican Party Choices

If the “strong versus weak” narrative survives, it practically means that nothing else really matters in determining the 2024 U.S. presidential election. But there is more that happens at a party convention, some of which has provoked significant debate and has longer-term consequences. Jonathan Van Maren provides an exposé of how Republican officials manipulated the proceedings to prevent meaningful pro-life participation in the policy process.  An explicit pro-choice abortion policy is now the official Republican position. While many speakers from the stage were explicitly religious, even citing Proverbs 28:1 in declaring that “the righteous are bold as a lion” and repeatedly describing Donald Trump as “our lion," the stage was also controversially given to a former stripper known for hosting so-called “Slutwalks” as the party sought to broaden its base and change its image. Having Rev. Franklin Graham’s prayer as the follow-up to wrestler Hulk Hogan’s schtick prompted several “this is a segue that I’d never thought I’d have to describe” from MSM broadcasters. Social media was abuzz with some arguing "I'm a Baptist pastor and I believe the right must win" while others were feeling "shocked, betrayed, trampled, depressed, deflated." Lots of fodder for the thesis that American Christians (and Canadian Christians) lack a coherent public theology framework within which to sort through these issues.

Different Cultures in One Nation

Speaking of frameworks, in last week’s Insights I expressed my concerns about Christian Nationalism, highlighting the messiness of how we use various definitions. James Wood’s essay “Whose Heritage? Which Americans?” provides interesting context to that discussion. It highlights how the emerging term “heritage Americans” can be useful, but there is still work in capturing the intergenerational and heritage nature of a national community. Wood helpfully balances the Christian citizen’s duty to accept neighbours of different backgrounds, even as those who come into a nation “have a duty to imagine themselves within the shared national heritage; however, they need not subscribe to any particular interpretation of that heritage, or share a single culture with everyone in the nation.” He helpfully highlights issues related to assimilation and points toward a path that “combines implicit conceptions of providence and hospitality, with duties of gratitude to the past but also to the neighbours in our midst today.”

NDP Premier Backs Military Spendings

Concerns are widespread about Canada’s vague commitment to take until 2032 to meet the NATO requirement of spending at least 2% of GDP on defence. Still, many would be surprised to hear Manitoba’s NDP premier urging the federal government to meet the target within the next four years with what he called a “credible” plan. Premier Wab Kinew linked the defence spending to cross-border trade, arguing that “the next administration in the U.S. is likely going to not look favourably on that really important economic relationship if we’re not looking after our obligations to NATO.”

Who is J. D. Vance?

I read J.D. Vance’s “Hillbilly Elegy” when it came out in 2016 and was impressed enough to have followed his career quite closely since then. His transformation from a “never-Trumper” in 2016 to a loyalist that earned him this week’s vice-presidential nomination is an interesting story that, at least from afar, seems to be riddled with contradictions. Of the multiple profiles published this week, Aaron Renn’s “How J.D. Vance Rejected Evangelicalism” was one of the more nuanced and insightful articles on how Vance got to where he is today as to how his faith informs his politics. Sean Speer’s analysis helpfully explains how opportunity combined with an intensifying militancy on the left to shape Vance’s political evolution.

MEANINGFUL METRICS

Rightsizing the Public Service

There’s been debate regarding the appropriate size of the Canadian public service ever since the most recent annual report showed the federal public service with a record 274,219 employees, more than 71-thousand of which were hired in the previous year. The above graph is from a CBC report and measures the increased public service as a proportion of the population growth (not entirely unreasonable given that more people require more passports, tax forms, etc. to process). This week, Treasury Board (which counts how many paycheques combine to make-up the $67.4 billion payroll, and includes more than just those officially in the public service) pegged the size of the public service at 367,772. Although not quite yet at the 1983 peak for the federal public service in Pierre Trudeau’s final year as prime minister, both counts show the current Trudeau government has overseen an increase in the size of those working for the state. The government defends the growth as necessary both to serve a growing population and to deliver new services and programs.

TAKE IT TO-GO

Busted

I’m calling this session of Insights wordplay to order. Courts are about protocol and deference and, of course, I join in respecting our judiciary and follow the “all rise” announcement whenever I’m in a courtroom (thankfully only as an observer.) However, we learned this week that the chief justice of Canada’s Supreme Court gets even more respect and deference. It turns out that the Court’s Grand Entrance Hall has for some time contained a bust of the chief justice, but curiously one not paid for by the court. The National Post reports that in the current case, the court hasn’t followed the usual discovery procedures and submitted into evidence the identity of the donor. It seems the chief justice is unwilling to testify about how this happened. Dub it a case of “The Chief Justice’s Right to Self-Indulgence” vs. “The People’s Expectation of Transparency.” I’m sure the chief justice has contacts who will be ready to advocate on his behalf. Still, in the court of public opinion, it’s as important to have a good case as a good lawyer. I don’t think the ultimate verdict will enhance Justice Wagner’s reputation.

This is a bust, not a portrait. So, it’s unlikely that either the art or the jury will be hung. Since we’re on the theme of legal disclosures, I need to declare my conflict. I’m constitutionally incapable of responding to stories of this sort without intervening with the bust puns that come to mind. I didn’t need the help of senior counsel to advise that punning about bronze is unlikely to reach the wordplay gold standard. So the only jurisprudence I can appeal to recommends court puns. And since the case isn’t significant enough to warrant long sentences, let me summarise my submission with two briefs.

1. Justice may be blind, but the public isn’t. If nobody is prepared to testify about who paid the $18,000 cost, the court’s desire to win public favour will be overruled.
2. The jurisprudence suggests that in cases where public institutions are tone-deaf to the constituencies they serve, their credibility gets busted. The precedents flowing from this case are more significant than our curiosity about who wrote the cheque.

And with that, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it’s up to you to deliberate about these matters. Have a good week. I look forward to being back in your inbox next Saturday morning.

‘Til then.