The Republican convention in Philadelphia made lots of people angry. Particularly upset were the mainstream media and their friends in the “chattering class.” These purveyors of conventional wisdom didn’t like the diversity, didn’t like the tolerance, and didn’t like the new link between these values and the candidate’s religious faith.

That’s not quite right. The media and punditry love to talk about diversity and tolerance, and they usually praise it when they think they see it. But they hated this convention’s consistent message of true tolerance without complete acceptance, and respect for diversity without mindless quotas. Mostly, they didn’t like this convention because it directly challenged their own carefully nurtured stereotypes about the GOP.

The Philadelphia funfest unveiled not a new Republican Party but rather a new, attractive, and well-disciplined presentation of longstanding party principles. There were three reasons why Philadelphia worked so well for Republicans.

The first reason is George W. Bush. This was the nominee’s convention from start to finish. The program’s diversity directly reflected Mr. Bush’s intent to welcome to his Republican Party folks of any ethnic, social or other background. While his father might have used the four-second sound bite “message: I care,” the younger Bush took four days to illustrate in myriad ways his concern for others less privileged than himself. This was a new generation of Republican leadership, the “gap” between now and then eerily underlined by the minor stroke suffered by former President Ford. While some elements of the party are no doubt less open than Governor Bush, the dominant feeling at the convention was relief that someone who can present its core values accurately and attractively again headed the party.

Take, for example, the linkage between religion and politics, again a popular subject given Al Gore’s choice of Orthodox Jew Joseph Lieberman as his running mate. One usually expects from Republican presidential candidates a fairly clear assertion that America is God’s chosen, righteous, nation. That chosen position usually leads to two major policy consequences — a strong defense that preserves “the American way of life” for its citizens, and (at least for the last twenty years) opposition to abortion and pledges to restrict its practice. George W. Bush’s speech was different. There were, of course, proposals to strengthen defense and limit abortions. But these were placed in the policy section of the speech, placed far away from any religious reference. The religious language came later, and it was exclusively personal in tone, expressing the candidate’s own need of grace and experience of peace. The candidate’s religious experience had only one consequence that could at all be tied to policy — tolerance and love of neighbor.

The second reason was the substantive agenda of the convention or, more precisely, the lack of such substance. With no controversies to resolve, conventioneers needed to be entertained. Entertained they were, but they were also introduced to a more interesting and inclusive way of talking about their party. There was a palpable excitement among at least some conventioneers over the program, not because it presented a new Republican Party but rather because it gave them fresh material to talk about Republican principles in new and exciting ways.

The third reason was public fatigue with the Democrats and Bill Clinton. For all their talk of diversity, opportunity, and special attention to lower income Americans, the public has seen little change. The national Democratic leadership is no less white, male, or privileged than the Republican leadership. The reverse discrimination of quotas has not receded despite promises to “mend” if not end affirmative action. And, for those that focus on the supposed gap between rich and poor, that gap is no smaller after eight years of Clintonomics. The moral advantage that Democrats have claimed since the Watergate years has finally eroded to zero.

All told, it was a frustrating convention for those who love to hate Republicans. Healthy political parties constantly seek majority public support so that they can win elections and determine government policy, their major objectives. To do so, parties often attempt to change at least their image, if not their principles. The Republican convention displayed a healthy and apparently popular change of emphasis. In response, Democrats seems to be making their own set of healthy decisions, although their image at this point seems more tarnished and their policies less credible. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. At the least, it should make for an interesting, and close, election campaign.

Douglas Koopman teaches political science at Calvin College and is an adjunct fellow at the Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University.