From the remove of television, the most enlightening way to soak up the now-completed political conventions was to simply mute the sound, absorb the pictures and merely look at who was there.
This is not to slight the speeches, which were by turns stirring and clarifying. There was Paul Ryan articulating the modern-day Republican philosophy: Dismantle government and hand the spoils to people who own tennis courts! There was Bill Clinton offering a full-throated defense of collective action to address shared problems while laying out a crucial question: "What kind of country do you want to live in?"
But on your screen, in image alone, the two party gatherings delivered their own sharply contrasting answers to that question.
In Tampa, the Republicans looked like what they have become: a men's group for angry middle-aged white guys enraged by demographic change and inclined toward the politics of blame. Here was a besieged slice of America desperately seeking to maintain the privileges of a bygone era.
In Charlotte, the Democrats looked like what America has become: an often-disorganized, internally contradictory and above all racially diverse collection of people grappling with common troubles, like not enough paychecks, too many worries about bills to pay, and no reliable hold on middle-class basics like housing, health care, education and retirement. We saw military veterans in uniforms and professionals in suits; white, black, Hispanic and Asian Americans; gays and straights; Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus.
This contrast in optics was stark and meaningful, because this election confronts us with more than the question of what sort of country we want. At stake is no less than who gets the right to decide.
The circumstances of these times make this an election fraught with importance. The worst economic downturn since the Great Depression has been followed by a wholly unsatisfying "recovery" that has beggared the meaning of that academic jargon -- a reality only enhanced by Friday's crummy employment report. People without jobs have lost homes and are living in their cars. People with jobs often earn so little that they need food stamps and donated groceries to feed their families. Talk of middle-class decline may have become a cliché, yet the truth of this conversation seems to deepen by the day.
And yet, at a time when we should be debating how to reverse this decline and restore the traditional middle class bargain -- decent living standards in exchange for hard work -- we are instead having what feels like a referendum on the essential nature of American democracy and what sort of people should be entitled to participate.
The Republicans continue to deploy thinly veiled racial code to denigrate the nation's first African-American president as "not one of us," with "us" being the sort of people in abundance in Tampa: white, male and inclined to view those who require help from the government as morally degenerate parasites. This is the essential message of both the relentless questioning of Obama's American citizenship and the factually baseless claims that he wants to undo welfare reform.
All of which makes the mere spectacle of the conventions rich with pertinent information: To whom are these two competing parties speaking? What does their encapsulation of America look like?
Who was there matters, because the Republicans are trying to keep so many people away from the polls. They have a candidate who is widely and legitimately viewed as an aloof creature of privilege, a man who got rich by dismantling other people's creations, trading businesses and jobs like chips at a Monte Carlo casino table. His strategists understand keenly that if too many voices are heard on Election Day, if the balloting reflects the sentiments of a genuinely representative cross-section of the nation, their guy loses. He doesn't speak for a broad enough range of communities -- unless your version of diversity means owning both beach houses and ski chalets.
With this limitation in mind, the Republicans are doing everything in their power to limit turnout, and particularly among people who are not white and not relatively affluent. They are carpet-bombing battleground states with negative, racially divisive political advertisements that seem engineered to disgust large numbers of would-be voters, making people so beleaguered and turned off that they stay home.
In case mass-disseminated cynicism does not get the job done, the Republicans are also employing actual barriers to access, such as voter identification laws, crafted to bar minority and low-income people from voting. They are narrowing the window of early voting to limit turnout among students and people who work multiple jobs -- both core components of Obama's base.
The Republicans fear heavy minority and youth turnout because the party grasps that it is the real minority. It appeals to a narrow and aging slice of the electorate that seeks to preserve a bankrupt idea: the notion that government is for nanny state-loving losers, while free enterprise addresses all of life's problems.
It is a notion that serves two masters: wealthy people, for whom tax cuts amount to serious gobs of money, and corporations, which have exploited weak regulations to profit while harming the public.
The Democrats are hardly paragons of virtue. They are rife with corporate conflicts of interest themselves. Their rhetoric of concern for vulnerable people has often exceeded their action. (It was especially unpalatable to hear Clinton deliver such a cogent rebuke of the Republican plan to gut Medicaid by turning it into a program of limited block grants to the states: This is precisely what he did to welfare, and with predictably disastrous results.)
The Obama administration has failed to limit the foreclosure crisis by catering to the interests of giant banks, an area conspicuously absent from the president's speech at the convention.
But the president is at least speaking to the right people: virtually anyone who lives in America.
He is describing a nation governed by a spirit of inclusion. The people who gathered in Charlotte looked like that nation. In an election in which claims on American identity are themselves at issue, this is no small thing.
Follow Peter S. Goodman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/petersgoodman
However, Agree that "voter fraud" is a very red herring; but I'm not sure that I'm on baord with the idea that there are many people out there who don't bother to get an id but would worry about showing up for an election.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 out of the 312 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the future this country.
There may be a few good ones left but for the most part the entire swamp needs to be drained and reclaimed.
pathetically in this this country BIG Money is Speech
the more money you have the more speech you have
no BIG money, no speech
no speech, no voice
corporations and the wealthy neocon 1% are
"FINANCIALLY ENGINEERED SUPER HUMANS"
with unlimited speech, voice, influence, money, and therefore votes!
the wealthy 1% neocons and corporations have NO allegiance to America
our current 2nd Great Depression was "financially engineered"
by wall street, corporations, the wealthy 1% neocons, and dutifully bought and paid for politicians, administration, and supreme court
predictably, they are also the vultures begged by their bought politicians to buy OUR assets,
THAT THEY DESTROYED,
for pennies on the dollar,
FULLY GUARANTEED against any risk
by our tax dollars!
corporations and the wealthy 1% neocons are sitting on
HUNDREDS OF TRILLIONS IN CASH
which they refuse to invest in America because of
too much risk!
that they created!
FINANCIAL ENGINEERING = FINANCIAL TERRORISM!
CORPORATE SOCIALISM and
ECONOMIC COERCION -
unless we ELIMINATE ALL OF THEIR RISK via our tax dollars they won't invest
next they will sell us that
corporations have souls and
are created in the image of the corporate god who
created the corporate universe.
welcome to neocon ayn rand's feudalist and fascist utopia and
our serfdom 2.0
It is a matter of picking your battles. Women's rights preserved? I will take that. Gay rights? Yes.
Better health care by way of more of us having access to insurance? Sounds good to me.
Preserving the middle class? Fair taxation? Better educational opportunity? Cutting global emission? A plan to pay down our debt? Progressive diplomacy? Working together?
Recognizing diversity and finding a way to live that way in peace? Ensuring fair elections?
Obama has a plan for these things. He works very hard to find solutions. He needs us and congress to help him do it. Mitt Romney's and his base philosophies are based on mistrust, phobias and fear which are outdated American habits. Good traditions are worthy of maintaining. Hurtful ones can go and be replaced by progressive ideas I see with Obama and his agenda.
I also wanted a public option. I'm still holding out hope.
The undecided independent voters that's who.
Those that are the least engaged and least knowledgable with no core principles make the final decison based on ads they see on TV.
At least the muddle-headed middle votes.
Voting should be a requirement of citizenship. Voter registration should be a uniform system handled by the Federal Government. Unless and until everyone votes, the courting of extremism will continue.
I'd love to see it happen here. Republicans would have a heart attack.
maybe not the rich and powerful, but what's worse - the very small minority that are politically active and at the same time doctrinnaire and recalcitrant.
Even tho he will never read this, I will answer his question: The people get to decide the future of America. I know that's not acceptable to LIb radicals as they feel they are the only ones qualified, but that's the way it goes.