One of the truths I’ve come to believe over the years in covering conventions is that they play differently in the hall than they do on TV. I’m not in Cleveland, so I can’t tell you how it played to the room, but on the screen, Chris Christie’s show-trial indictment of Hillary Clinton came across as weird. Creepy, even.
It wasn’t just the strange political and logical contradictions—he criticized Clinton for not being hawkish enough on Syria when Trump wants to stay away from that mess; he hung the Iran deal on her even though she had little to do with it; he criticized her for being too soft on Russia when his boss is incredibly, uncomfortably, close to Putin. Like I said, leave that aside, because convention speeches don’t get judged by debating society standards.
No, what stuck out about Christie’s speech was the strange conceit that he was launching a prosecution with the audience as the jury, issuing verdicts on Hillary Clinton. And with the close of each “charge,” the audience shouted “guilty!” or “lock her up!”
On the TV screen, the hall sounded dead during Christie’s remarks, but then erupted when it was time for them to respond. Maybe this all felt playful in the hall. On the screen it came across as angry. Really angry. Like, “Give us Barabbas”-levels of angry.
Now, I’m sure Trump supporters would say, “Darn, tootin’ we’re angry! Hillary Clinton is the anti-Christ and a criminal!” And I can appreciate that. I really can.
But one of the worries about Trump is that he’s an aspiring strongman with authoritarian impulses who’s leading a bizarre cult of personality led by unpleasant, angry people.
I suspect that anyone with those concerns about Trump probably had them fed by Christie’s performance.
Not that it matters, of course. Christie didn’t issue any death threats, or boast about crushing fellow Republicans, or plagiarize. So by the standards of this convention, his speech was actually a roaring success.
