Conventional conventions

Political junkies were on a high the last couple weeks during the Republican National Convention in Cleveland and the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. The Republicans were first, and after Melania Trump was accused of plagiarism, there seemed to be nowhere to go but up. Not so. Sen. Ted Cruz's controversy bypassed the Melania speech embarrassment.

Democrats were already winning, and they hadn't even had their convention yet. Then-chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee Debbie Wasserman Schultz luxuriated in what she perceived to be a victory, tweeting, "Hey @Reince -- I'm in Cleveland if you need another chair to help keep your convention in order." Cute, but as a commenter wrote in response, "You're going to regret this tweet next week."

Next week came, and leaked emails revealed that she was in Hillary Clinton's camp and against Bernie Sanders. Anyone with half an eyeball saw this all along, and Sanders himself had pointed it out. Wasserman Schultz announced she would step down at week's end. Not exactly how you want to start a convention. But she was, interestingly, rewarded immediately with a job in the Clinton campaign.

Some points about both conventions

RNC: Sen. Ted Cruz should have stayed home or at least not mounted the stage. While many have criticized his non-Trump-endorsement-vote-your-conscience speech, that's not where I take issue. I believe conscience does matter, so I tread lightly upon people who feel they cannot endorse or vote for this one or that one. It's not about criticizing conscience, but it is a lesson in how to handle conscience. Cruz, like all GOP candidates, signed a pledge that he would support the Republican nominee. He should never have made the vow to begin with. I said it then, and I still say it: No one deserves unconditional support. Therefore, signing the pledge was mistake No.. 1. But once he did, reneging on it calls his character into question -- particularly in the minds of those who don't trust his motives anyway.

Since he felt unable to honor his word, why get up there and speak? Perhaps what irked me most involved Cruz's meeting with the Texas delegation the day after. After downplaying the obvious refusal to endorse Trump in his speech -- after which his wife had to be escorted out and he was booed off the stage -- he still made no endorsement and said he would keep his eyes open and do what's best for the country. Noble, right? Well, the longer one speaks, the more likely the truth will emerge. That truth was, as Cruz eventually admitted, "I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father." If that was his reason for not endorsing, why didn't he say that in the first place, rather than pretending his reason was love of country alone? People would have had more respect for his decision if he would have just said what we all knew anyway -- that he was still ticked at Trump for suggesting his wife was ugly and his father was involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Most of us would feel the same way, so we get it. What we don't get is pretending his reasons were solely noble. What I don't get is his taking the stage at all.

On a lighter note, Republicans tried to put together an entertaining convention, but their music selections need help in terms of diversity. Yes, music matters.

DNC: Democrats had their own issues. They started with leaked emails revealing racial, religious and political discrimination, and then there were battles between Bernie Sanders supporters and Hillary Clinton supporters. Sanders enthusiasts were bitter against Clinton, and many said they could never vote for her unless "Lock her up" was on the ballot. It sure does appear that Sanders folded. How could he spend an entire campaign -- and their money -- blasting everything that is Hillary and then endorse her? Did he not mean what he said? Did he place party above principle? Was he promised something for his endorsement? Many of these questions still hang over our heads.

With Cruz, we saw someone who chose, according to him, to stand by his principles, telling people to "vote [their] conscience." With Sanders, we saw someone who seemed to have no conscience at all at the end of the day.

I was glad to see that Democrats didn't boo God this time, as they were too busy booing Hillary, but Nancy Pelosi took care of insulting folks with her "guns, gays and God" comment.

Another point: President Bill Clinton couldn't even stay awake during his wife's historic speech. So much for igniting enthusiasm.

Some good

What level-headed person would deny that the history Hillary Clinton made on the last night of the convention was something to behold -- notwithstanding her annoying voice and subpar speech delivery? The moment on stage following her daughter, Chelsea's, introduction was moving. It almost made us forget that the Democrats had to be shamed into putting a flag on that same stage, mentioning terrorism and honoring our fallen law-enforcement heroes.

And who would deny Republicans did well humanizing their nominee, as family members shared with us the Trump we rarely, if ever, see? Who would deny that Trump's speech gave the impression that he will, indeed, be the "law and order president," and that national security would be his top priority?

My takeaway

Nothing has changed, not really. There may have been extra bombast and more raucous outrage, but both parties did what they conventionally do, and politicians on both sides did what politicians do: They say what they feel needs to be said, and then do whatever they feel like doing. And, as convention would have it, we watch from the front row, eyes glued to the spectacle.

Adrienne Ross is an author, speaker, columnist, editor, educator and Southeast Missourian editorial board member. Reach her at aross@semissourian.com.