Excerpts
SUMMARY: New York Times columnist David Brooks and syndicated columnist Mark Shields sit down with Judy Woodruff for a look at the conventions and agree the Democrats were more successful — even if Hillary Clinton failed to connect emotionally. “If we are in some Hobbesian state of nature, in which we want a strongman who has no compassion,” then Trump comes out ahead, says Brooks.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): And with that, we turn to the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
So, gentlemen, looking back on those highlights from both Cleveland and Philadelphia, what does it make you think, Mark?
MARK SHIELDS, syndicated columnist: It makes me think that the Democrats — this was my 24th convention — and I think this was as good a Democratic Convention as I have seen since the 1976 convention, which nominated Jimmy Carter, which was — he left with a 30-point lead over President Ford.
I just thought it was a spectacularly successful convention. I don't think Hillary Clinton's speech was spectacular, but I don't think she's a spectacular speaker. But I thought their messages worked. And certainly the national security and preempting both faith and country and patriotism from the Republicans, which had been the Republican symbols for so long, was effective.
JUDY WOODRUFF: David?
DAVID BROOKS, New York Times: Yes. Well, the Democrats had the better convention by a long way. It's rare we see the gap so big, frankly.
They controlled the debate. Donald Trump tried to set up this debate where it was going to be globalists vs. nationalists, and the Republicans were going to be the nationalists. But, if anything, the Democrats looked more patriotic and more nationalist at the end of these two.
And so that was a big win. And I agree with Mark. The whole presentation was just powerful. It's funny. Maybe it just because I'm tired, but the further away you get, the less you know about the convention, and it boils down to a core theme, to one thing.
And so for the Republican Convention, I think of Trump's speech and sort of the darkness, the fear of crime, the need for a strong arm really, and so that one core theme.
And then, for the Democratic one, I really think of Trump erratic. I think that was the big message that came out. The positive agenda for Hillary was a little less vibrant.
And of those two, I do think that the — right now, at least in my mind, the Democratic theme is eclipsing the Republican one. So, the Democrats won this volley, I think.
-----
MARK SHIELDS: In a strange way — there are a couple thoughts of David that reminded me of this — an awful lot of people don’t ordinarily have day-to-day contact with police officers.
In both Cleveland and Philadelphia, the police were enormously, enormously impressive, I mean, their temperament, to use a word that’s going to be central…
(CROSSTALK)
JUDY WOODRUFF: You don’t mean the police on the stage. You mean the police in the street.
MARK SHIELDS: No, I mean the police in the streets.
I mean, I really — the interaction with the police. They had to be tired. You know, they had a lot of jerks, including several in the press. And it was hot. It was hot. And they had long hours, and they were just so professional and so cool.
-----
DAVID BROOKS: And so — but that doesn't mean we're not — it's settled. Events are in the saddle here. If ISIS really begins a sort of continual series of weird, random attacks around the world, then that does underline the theme.
And that goes back to something I have been saying for the last couple of weeks, is, we're not quite sure what ball game we're playing here. If we're playing the normal political rules, where you want to have people loving each other, compassionate, working together, being generous toward each other, being well-informed about the issues, well, if those are the rules, then the Democrats are doing really well.
But if we're in some sort of Hobbesian state of nature, where you just want a strong man who has no compassion, who you just want a toughness, well, then that — by those rules, Donald Trump is going to do a little better. So, we will figure out what game we're playing.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Which is what the Democrats were trying to say for three or four days — for four days, Mark, which, is, we don’t need this. We’re a strong people. We’re a good people and we don’t need some bully telling us what to do.
MARK SHIELDS: No, exactly. And the President did that, I thought. President Obama did.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Which is what the Democrats were trying to say for three or four days — for four days, Mark, which, is, we don’t need this. We’re a strong people. We’re a good people and we don’t need some bully telling us what to do.
MARK SHIELDS: No, exactly. And the President did that, I thought. President Obama did.
-----
MARK SHIELDS: Michelle Obama was probably better than Barack Obama, if you think about it.
Her speech is a masterful, masterful speech. And she delivered it in a persuasively conversational tone. You can’t say this is a political attack or a political document. It was just — so, in a strange way, she’s getting compared to — instead of to Donald Trump, she’s being compared to Joe Biden, who gave this emotional valedictory about America and his life, and both Obamas, who were dominant.
