Christie to highlight accomplishments, family in GOP convention keynote speech (AP via therepublic.com)

In the book that catapulted him into the national political arena, Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations, Al Franken talks a fair bit about the Republican National Convention of 1992, the year of what was then the most recent presidential election. I was in high school at the time, and I really hadn’t paid that much attention to politics that year (at least not compared to when Franken wrote his book in the aftermath of 1994’s Republican Revolution). Popular wisdom about that election is that Bush 41  lost  because of the recession — James Carville’s famous pronouncement about what the election was about, “It’s the economy, stupid,” will probably remain in our politics for generations to come — but Franken posits that what really sunk the Republicans was Pat Buchanan’s convention keynote speech. After challenging President Bush in the primaries, Buchanan got a prime time speaking slot at the convention — at a time when all the major networks covered every day of the conventions in prime time — and used it to deliver a cultural diatribe that, even by 1992 standards, was so over-the-top in its homophobia and hatred. Franken posits that the speech turned off swing voters and cost Bush several battleground states. I’m not sure if I completely believe Franken on this, but it’s something to consider.

These days the conventions are relegated to the cable news networks for all but the last day, and in a lot of ways they don’t hold the sway that they once did over the voting public. Still, the last two Democrats to become President, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, gave the keynote speech at the convention before they were nominated. Obama’s speech was an immediate success, of course, but Clinton’s was actually perceived as a disaster at the time, a painfully long monologue that got so bad that the crowd actually cheered when he said he was about to finish. (As Hunter S. Thompson notes in Better Than Sex: Confessions of a Political Junkie, Clinton was written off by Democrats as a worthy national figure as early as 1972 when he worked on George McGovern’s disastrous campaign. Say what you will about the man and his policies, but how he kept coming back from setback after setback is nothing short of remarkable.) Maybe the conventions aren’t as important as they used to be, but they still matter. Candidates always enjoy an upswing in popularity after their party’s conventions, and with how the polls have been tightening in the past couple of weeks, Mitt Romney stands a good chance of taking at least a temporary lead over President Obama in the days following next week’s Republican convention. (If the Todd Akin stuff sticks around in the press, though, that might not happen.)

Recently the keynote speakers at the Republican National Convention haven’t been as good of a guide to the party’s future presidential candidates, but Republicans have still made strong tactical moves with their choices. Four years ago the party tapped Rudy Giuliani, hoping that his presence would evoke memories of 09.11 (and call voters’ attentions back to national security, a topical stronghold for them) and not the caricature of himself “America’s Mayor” had become by that point. In 2004 Republicans gave the spot to a conservative southern Democrat — Senator Zell “Spitballs” Miller of Georgia — to make the case to voters that the Democratic Party was in chaos and that some in the party saw John Kerry as an out-of-control far-left ideologue. The keynote speech may not get the television coverage it once did, but it’s still a big tool for both parties.

The Republicans’ choice of Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey for this year’s keynote is kind of puzzling to me. On paper there’s a lot going for Christie: He’s a Republican who won the governorship of a solidly blue state and remains popular among his constituents, and he succeeded in taking on unions in his state before Scott Walker got so much press for the legislation he got through in Wisconsin. After Republicans suffered such huge setbacks in the 2008 elections, Christie’s election in 2009 was one of the Republicans’ first real signs of life, and his star has only continued to rise in the Republican ranks since then; before he publicly disqualified himself from the posts, there was a lot of serious talk about him being either the Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate of the party.

Outside of the politically-minded, though, Chris Christie is most well-known for being, well, rude. This surfaced in his 2009 election, but it was overshadowed by his Democratic challenger, Jon Corzine, calling him fat, the kind of catastrophic political move that leaves you scratching your head. Compared to some of the things Christie has become famous for since then, though, Corzine’s remarks about Christie’s weight seem kind of tame by comparison. It makes me wonder if I need to learn more about the residents of New Jersey, given the prevalent stereotypes about them; I’ve only really gotten to know one personally, one of my friends from when I was going to the University of Toledo, and he did say “Fuckin’ A” an awful lot. I don’t watch Jersey Shore because … do I seriously need to give a reason for that? Anyway, here’s Governor Christie losing his cool and saying “Are you stupid?” to a reporter who’d just asked him a question, then later referring to him as an “idiot”:

And here’s some more of Christie being crude from MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews:

In fact, a YouTube search for “chris christie rude” yields up quite a number of videos. In a lot of them Christie’s frustrations are understandable on a human level, but when you become a major political figure — even if Christie wasn’t so big nationally, simply being any state’s current governor puts you under a lot of scrutiny — then you really can’t make these kinds of outbursts, or at least not make them to the extent that Christie has. Particularly in this age of YouTube, where other nations’ parliamentary fistfights get passed around via e-mails and text messages so much, and viral videos are many potential voters’ closest examination of current events, you don’t want to make it so easy for people to make you a viral video sensation in a way that looks so bad for you. It’s nearly impossible for a politician to become a viral video smash in a good way — Elizabeth Warren is the only one I can think of who’s pulled that off — but anyone can become a negative viral video celebrity, regardless of fame (or lack thereof).

I’m reasonably sure that Chris Christie won’t be calling anyone “stupid” or an “idiot” or using language that incendiary in his convention speech next week, but that certainty is far from 100%. Although I can’t recall Sarah Palin using words quite on the level of “stupid” or “idiot” when she first rose to national attention as John McCain’s running-mate four years ago, she quickly took the art of dismissing your political opponents to new heights; I can’t think of anything that better distinguishes Palin’s rhetorical style, either during the 2008 campaign or everything she’s done since, than how she waves off those who disagree with her, whether political figures or the American citizenry. As much as it turned off swing voters four years ago, it definitely charged up the Republican base — as private citizen right-wing talking heads like Rush Limbaugh proved long before 2008 — and it quickly entered mainstream Republican politicking after President Obama took office. Christie’s rhetoric may very well be an evolution of what Palin brought to the Republican party in 2008, and if it’s so successful in New Jersey then Republicans may very well see it as a possible template for future rhetorical and electoral success. Having Christie use this year’s keynote to introduce the kind of insults he’s made famous on YouTube into the national political rhetoric could be Republicans’ way of testing it out.

Al Franken’s example of Pat Buchanan’s keynote in 1992 would point to the significant dangers involved in using that kind of hate-filled rhetoric in a major, party-defining speech, but twenty years have passed since then and the voting public is in a far different frame of mind now. I can see the entertainment value in a politician calling someone “stupid” and an “idiot,” but I think it’s a horrible way to campaign and govern because it takes even more attention away from substance and draws it towards style, and style isn’t what gets things actually done. If Christie’s success in New Jersey carries over to the national stage, though, it could very well be the new rhetorical norm in Republican politics soon, just like Sarah Palin coarsened Republican rhetoric four years ago. Fuckin’ A, man.