Politikos XVIII Do We Still Need National Quadrennial Political Conventions? A Modest Proposal

August 28, 2012

Harvey Glickman

         As a political  blogger, I was able to receive media credentials for the Democratic Party National Convention.  I head out on September 2 for Charlotte, North Carolina.  Actual Convention business takes place over three days, September 4-6.  I am accompanying an official Delegate from Pennsylvania, so I am keeping up with preliminary information.  And, like many other people, I have been watching the TV coverage of the Republican Convention in Tampa, Florida.  It is pretty clear that both parties are working from a “script.”  Delegates and the media are part of a giant exercise in acting out what could be accomplished in smaller groups and elsewhere.  The only questions are about the quality and impact of the respective performances of the stars of the show.  And the major networks now cover only a couple of hours or so on each of the evenings, so what is on national show are a few superstars.

         Conventions came about in the mid-nineteenth century, accompanying the slow democratization of the American political process.  Parties evolved from groups of notables, who essentially reflected the great “interests” in public affairs—landholding, farmers, manufacturing, shipping, mining.  After the Civil War, the Republicans meant business and banking, while the Democrats meant agriculture and labor.  Since Presidents were ultimately elected by state gatherings of “electors” (the infamous Electoral College) and not by direct popular vote, it made sense to gather state party representatives every four years to nominate the candidates for President (and Vice-President).  By the late nineteenth century, political parties collected their bosses, machines, grandees and other influentials in one place and actually bargained about finding a winning candidate.  Current issues, region, money, previous political success all played a role in finding the man (only men then) who looked like a winner.

         The point is that conventions, with their smoke-filled rooms and sometimes endless roll calls, actually chose the candidates.  In the several days devoted to choosing, the parties moved from one point to another, reflecting changing views about the formidability of several individuals, and what bargains could be made.  Individual delegates and delegations argued and attempted to trade, threaten or persuade. 

         By the 20th Century delegates and whole delegations came to conventions pledged to a particular candidate, but they were empowered to change their minds as circumstances developed.

In 1912, Taft  defeated Teddy Roosevelt for the Republican nomination; Roosevelt ran on the Bull Moose ticket, so choosing Taft was critical, as Woodrow Wilson won the national election.  In 1944 Wendell Willkie became the favorite of the crowd at the Republican convention and defeated Thomas Dewey for the nomination…a sort of populist choice versus the establishment of that time.  In 1964  the Goldwater people were in revolt against the dominant “Rockefeller” wing of the Republican party.

         In the fabled history of Democratic conventions, even vice-presidential nominations were sometimes competitive, as when Stevenson threw open the balloting in 1956, and Kefauver won out.  It was Kennedy in 1960 who opened up the process of the primary selection, as he deliberately sought open confrontation with Humphrey, who seemed to be the establishment choice. (At the time Johnson was the southern regional candidate.)  In1968 in Chicago the Democrats in part conducted their business in the streets.   In 1972  the McGovernites had so much trouble conducting business that he did not speak until the wee hours of the next morning.

         The point is not to reminisce about great contests; the point is that conventions in themselves were choosing mechanisms, had consequences, and they had a point!  Even after a series of contested primaries, choices had to be made at conventions.  As more primaries opened up in both parties in the 1960s, presidential candidates were forced to conduct mini-elections long before the great national election.  By the 1970s nominations might be contested up to the actual convention; by the 1980s they were wrapped up before the actual conclave. 

         Party conventions are now simply ratifications of outcomes decided months before.  They have become celebrations –-sort of like extended family reunions, or national tailgate parties for the most rabid fans.  For the victorious candidate and candidate wannabes, it is chance to “re-introduce yourself; ” to tell your story, to build your preferred image.  So the nominated candidate makes an important, maybe memorable, speech.  But it is all projection; the crowd is part of the entertainment—like the kids on the field below the bandstand at Super Bowl halftime.

So why crowd all those delegates into one city and then into two venues (the convention center and the acceptance speech stadium)?   The Democrats now have Obama making his acceptance speech in a gigantic stadium, abandoning the convention building, just like four years ago. 

So why not convert the annual “nominating” convention day into a political party Super Bowl half time?  Each political party might conduct raffles or powerball lotteries for tickets to a designated arena so they can wear funny hats and cheer the nominee.  All the state delegations could meet somewhere closer to home in their own state celebrations and watch the acceptance speech on television.  Instead of spending money they could raise money.  We already have home parties to watch the acceptance speeches.  The former elected delegates to the national conventions could convert their energies into creating hundreds of sports bar type rallies on the evening of the acceptance speech.

         We are in the era of instant communication via hand held devices.  Our primaries decide nominations in mid-summer.  End of August weekend and Labor Day weekend political jamborees in every state and in hundreds of cities to simultaneously celebrate a possible president sounds like some great parties (pun!) to me.