Reaction to Melania Trump speech: No evidence to back up her words

Nichola Gutgold | Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at Penn State Lehigh Valley

 

By all accounts, when Melania Trump finished her much anticipated, well delivered 2016 RNC speech last night, it was considered a great success. Now, the media is focusing on whether or not the speech was a failure because of alleged plagiarizing of Michelle Obama’s 2008 DNC speech.

I believe that the speech is a failure because Melania Trump did not give a full picture of her husband. Donald Trump has no elected experience, has been twice divorced and continually makes inflammatory remarks. Melania’s speech was a moment for the person who likely knows him most intimately — his wife of 18 years — to say that he is thoughtful, tender, kind and honest and to back up the assertions with evidence.

Nichola Gutgold

Nichola Gutgold

She did not do this to the extent that she needed to in order to change his image from boor to a person fit to be president. She said his “kindness is there for all to see” and that it was “one of the reasons I fell in love with him in the first place.” But there were no examples.

In contrast, when Elizabeth Dole spoke in 1996 about Bob Dole, the Republican nominee, who was described by Time Magazine as “the nation’s mortician,” she offered evidence, such as the formation of The Bob Dole Foundation to help people with disabilities.

All the attention is on whether or not Melanie Trump plagiarized Michelle Obama’s speech, which is probably the fault of a sloppy speechwriter. But the true failure of Melania Trump’s speech is that she needed an illustrative story or two to prove Donald Trump’s “goodness of heart” beyond having well-educated, impressive children of his own.

The blowback from Hillary bashing

Hillary Clinton speaks at a January 2016 campaign stop at Iowa Western Community College in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Photo Credit: Matt A.J./Flickr

Hillary Clinton speaks at a January 2016 campaign stop at Iowa Western Community College in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Photo Credit: Matt A.J./Flickr

Sophia A. McClennen, Penn State professor of Comparative Literature and International Affairs, has penned a piece on Salon.com. Here is an excerpt of the piece:

Sophia A. McClennen

Sophia A. McClennen

“Last week brought two tales of an email scandal. In one version the former secretary of state and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, committed a crime by using a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State. She sloppily handled classified information, left our nation vulnerable to terrorist hacks, and lied repeatedly to the public and the authorities when asked about it. She was crooked and careless and acted as though she was above the law because she is a scheming she-devil. In another version of the story, there is no story — no crime, no carelessness, no lies worth paying attention to. The case is closed and we should all move on and get ready for to root for Hillary at the upcoming Democratic convention.

“For some of us, both of those versions of the story are completely idiotic. They make no sense at all. But they aren’t equal in their nonsense. One of the versions is far more delirious and far more vicious. And that is the problem.

“The right-wing attacks on Clinton are so excessive, so misogynistic, so mean-spirited and so often absent of any connection to reality, that it has become almost impossible to criticize her at all.”

Read more here.

Research: Donor’s company is best predictor of political leanings

Image: Public domain

Image: Public domain

Even the most casual political observers know that candidates track red and blue states, but new research from the Penn State Smeal College of Business suggests that savvy fundraisers should pay closer attention to the companies for which individuals work when attempting to raise campaign funds.

“If it makes any sense to think in terms of red states or blue states, it makes even more sense to speak in terms of red companies and blue companies,” said Donald C. Hambrick, co-author of the forthcoming “Red, Blue, and Purple Firms: Organizational Political Ideology and Corporate Social Responsibility” in the Strategic Management Journal. “If I want to predict whether one of these gifts goes blue or goes red, knowing who your employer is allows me a much better prediction.”

Donald C. Hambrick

Donald C. Hambrick

In conducting their research, Hambrick and co-authors Forrest Briscoe and Abhinav Gupta initially set out to discover what drives the degree to which companies commit to corporate social responsibility (CSR) in their operations as exhibited by factors such as advances in domestic partner benefits; proportion of female executives; and metrics around environmental stewardship, product quality and human rights.

Prior research has suggested that companies engage in CSR when under external pressure to do so or when their CEOs have liberal values.

Forrest Brisco

Forrest Brisco

To explore the possibility that prevailing political beliefs among rank-and-file employees — known as the body politic — also influence CSR, the researchers pored over a database of 1.4 million donations of $200 or more from employees in Fortune 500 companies over the course of multiple election cycles.

Their research reveals that organizations frequently act as magnets that attract workers with similar political ideologies, that the body politic’s ideology influences CSR action more than that of the CEO or top management team, and that liberal-leaning employee populations drive CSR more than conservative-leaning populations.

“When we drill down on industries like tech and finance, for example — the so-called human capital industries, where there’s an ongoing debate about progress on gender diversity — you find a major liberal-conservative divide in how fast firms add women to their senior ranks,” Briscoe said. “Over a 10-year period, it’s the equivalent of four more female executives being added in the liberal tilting firms.”

Briscoe, Hambrick, and Gupta’s research illustrates that while political discussion may be taboo in many workplaces and companies do not explicitly hire or fire according to politics, self-selection among employees is a reality.

“A further implication is that these big economic powerhouses exert political influence,” Hambrick said. “Firms are ideology-laden microcosms that help to advance or retard various forms of societal and corporate practices. Their ideologies shape the world beyond their boundaries.”

Forrest Briscoe is the Mary Jean Smeal Research Fellow and associate professor of management and organization. Donald C. Hambrick is the Smeal Chaired Professor of Management and Evan Pugh University Professor. Abhinav Gupta received his Ph.D. from Smeal in 2015 and is now assistant professor of strategic management at the University of Washington’s Foster School of Business.

_______________________

More information:
Read the full research study here.

Contact:
Donald C. Hambrick can be reached at dch14@psu.edu and Forrest Briscoe can be reached at fsb10@psu.edu. Contact the Penn State News and Media Relations office at 814-865-7517.

Skip to toolbar