 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Non-fiction and essays |
|||||||||||||
| University essays |
|||||||||||||
| American Studies Second Year |
|||||||||||||
| Road to the White House 232 |
|||||||||||||
| What functions do party conventions play today in the presidential nominating process? (AMST 232, Spring 2003) Since the 1830s, party conventions for the Republicans and Democrats have served a variety of purposes in ultimately determining who will run for the presidency in the United States. Originally conceived as a replacement for the congressional caucuses that chose the presidential candidate prior to the 1830s, the functions of conventions have changed with the political climate of America. Ostensibly, the primary function of the convention is to nominate the party’s candidate for the presidency, and officially, this is a function that continues to the present day. However, while this function has been reduced to a mere formality with the increasing importance of presidential primaries, other functions have taken precedence. As Stephen J. Wayne describes, today’s conventions “are a showpiece for party leaders and elected officials. They are a mechanism by which nominees are formally chosen, platforms drafted, and presidential campaigns launched.”# Indeed, in the presidential nomination process since the mid-twentieth century, the primary importance of the convention has been as a launch pad for the general election campaign. While performing such functions as nominations for president and vice-president and party platforms openly, there are also the equally important but more surreptitious functions such as demonstrating party unity after a potentially divisive campaign for nomination. This reflects the rise of candidate-centred politics with a candidate dominated convention, but conventions still perform other important functions. In examining how the functions of conventions have changed up to the present day, it is necessary to determine what their initial functions were. In the nineteenth century conventions were aimed at gathering delegates from party organisations throughout the United States into an arena where they could put forth their nomination for the presidential candidate. After a ballot, the candidate with the most votes would be put forth for the general election. However, in the Democratic Party conventions from 1832 until 1932, a two-thirds majority was needed, which often resulted in numerous ballots. For instance, the 1924 convention needed 103 ballots to nominate John W. Davis, but since then, only four conventions (two from each party) have needed more than one ballot.# Apart from selecting the candidate, conventions also served as a chance for discussions among party leaders, who were often separated by long distances, and an opportunity to formulate a party platform. In the first century of party conventions, the state party leaders, who controlled the party organisation in their area controlled the meetings. This led to the ‘smoke-filled rooms’ and ‘brokered’ conventions of the nineteenth- and early twentieth century, where deals and compromises were worked out by a handful of powerful men.# Part of the reason why so few conventions have needed more than one ballot since the 1920s, and none since the 1950s is the importance of primaries in the nominating process. When a candidate wins a primary, he is virtually guaranteed the support of all those delegates in the convention. Therefore, once a candidate has won enough primaries, they are at least mathematically assured of gaining the nomination at the convention. This suggests that the nominating function of the convention has been replaced by the ratifying of a decision made elsewhere. This is part of the reason why conventions have become so candidate-centred, because if they control the delegates, they effectively control the convention. This idea has been summarised by Wayne and Wilcox: “Today, conventions are big, public extravaganzas. They are designed primarily to demonstrate the party’s enthusiastic support of its presidential nominee – who had effectively won the nomination in the caucuses and primaries prior to the convention. Conventions now ratify the people’s choice rather than determine it.”# In some cases, the result of the primaries will put forth a candidate who is not popular with the party organisation, even though they received the majority of popular support. This was the case with George McGovern in 1972 and Jimmy Carter in 1976, and reflects that in the political climate since the 1950s and 1960s, it is the candidate and not the party that is in control of American politics.# There have been attempts by the party to reassert some control over the nomination process, albeit with mixed results. The most notable of these attempts has been the introduction of ‘super-delegates’ into the convention. Super-delegates are party notables, such as members of Congress, who come to the convention officially uncommitted to any particular candidate. The Democrats introduced this practice, and the Republicans have since followed suit. According to Baumgartner, “Their presence has re-introduced party voice into the convention, as well as some as some excitement, since they are asked not to discuss their choice for nominee,” however, their introduction has not altered the present formality of confirming the winner of the primaries.# Despite Jesse Jackson’s argument at the 1988 Democratic convention that the super- delegates diluted the principle of proportional representation, the truth is that they have had little impact on the nomination outcome.# The convention is now a formal endorsement of candidates, who can use the convention as a launching point for their election campaign. The acceptance speech offers a great opportunity for candidates to get their campaign message across. Coming at the end of the convention acceptance speeches, a tradition begun by Franklin D. Roosevelt, have become focal points of the convention for both parties. They offer a call not only to the assembled delegates, but to the viewing public as well, giving the candidate an opportunity to talk to the people about their policies.# In return, the acceptance speeches offer the public a chance to hear what each candidate has to say, and therefore will offer an early chance to compare the two main party candidates. For example, in the most recent presidential election in 2000, both candidates were able to help their campaign by a well-received acceptance speech. As Robert Denton reports: “Bush’s speech targeted beyond his base. Gore was more focused toward traditional Democratic constituencies. Perhaps it can be argued that Republicans, overall, had a more perfected and successful convention. But in terms of strategic importance, Gore saved his campaign.”# Following Gore’s speech at the convention, his significant deficit in the polls was transformed into a slender lead, but Bush also received credit for delivering arguably his best speech of the campaign. Therefore, while the nomination is more or less a formality, what the candidate has to say can have an important effect on the ensuing election. The convention not only confirms the presidential candidate of a political party, but also his running mate, the vice-presidential nominee. This is arguably as important as the choice of a presidential candidate, as the right choice can greatly aid in electioneering, while a mistaken choice can have a detrimental impact on the campaign. In the convention, it is ultimately the choice of the presidential candidate as to who will become his running mate. There are numerous factors to consider in choosing a vice-presidential candidate, but a common strategy is to try to produce a balanced ticket, and search for someone with qualities and appeal the presidential nominee may lack. Polsby and Wildavsky have summed up the search for a vice-presidential candidate: “The parties console themselves by attempting to confect out of two running mates a composite image of forward-looking conservative, rural-urban, energetic-wise leadership that evokes hometown, ethnic, and party loyalties among a maximum number of voters.”# If the presidential nominee is from the Northeast, they might seek a southerner to appeal to that part of the population, or in the case of Al Gore, who chose Joe Lieberman, the first Jewish vice-presidential candidate. In this case, Gore “won plaudits for being bold and exciting” which were “adjectives not often applied” to Gore.# A potential opportunity for reconciliation among the party is presented by choosing the runner-up in the nomination race as the running mate. Therefore, the choice of a vice-presidential candidate at party conventions is often an early indicator of a candidate’s decision-making skills, a very important consideration in deciding on the potential leader of the country. When running mates come into question, for actions past or present, this can cast a shadow over the presidential candidate himself. An important feature of the convention since its inception has been the publication of a party platform, although more noticeably in recent years, this has been increasingly usurped by the platform of the presidential candidates rather than the party at large. As Baumgartner writes: “Although theoretically the document is the party’s official party document, the reality is that has always been, to some greater or lesser degree, a candidate-centred document.”# The platform offers a manifesto on a wide range of areas and issues, and lays out the candidate’s (and effectively the party’s) position on tax, health, education and other important aspects of governance. Drafting of the platform takes place prior to the convention, and during the first two days of the convention, this draft is taken up by the delegates and eventually adopted. While this platform is notable for its relevance to the campaign of the presidential nominee, it is worth remembering that it also needs to be acceptable to the other members of the party running in House, Senate and other elections. Therefore the tend in recent years has been to announce a platform that is as wide-ranging as possible, and for the platform committee, the challenge is “to write a platform all party candidates can use in their campaigns.”# While some analysts have criticised the party platform as being irrelevant and too vague to be of any use to the public in determining what the candidates stand for, others have refuted these claims. As with the convention itself, the platform provides an opportunity for disparate factions within the party to become united under a common policy through negotiations and compromise.# In cases where the platform has been viewed as too partisan, the party has suffered as a consequence. An example of this is the Republican convention of 1964, which produced a much more right-wing platform than is usually seen, and as a result there were major rifts in the Republican Party. It was the “damage being done to their cause through the highly visible intransigence and rudeness to moderate and liberal party spokesmen” that undoubtedly contributed to the Republican defeat in the presidential election.# In a study of party platforms produced at conventions of both parties, L. Sandy Maisel discussed the various viewpoints regarding the importance of platforms. According to Maisel, some saw the platforms as being: “Central to the parties’ missions; they give citizens reasons to support the parties’ candidates. They lay the foundations for the policies that the parties will adopt if elected. Voters can measure party performance against party promises and hold future candidates accountable for past actions.”# Others did not see the party platform as being a rational way of deciding whom to vote for. Regardless of the precise relationship between party platforms and the electorate, Maisel suggested it was clear that party-platforms have now been taken over by the candidates themselves, and they are now “presidential candidate-centred platforms. They are the platforms on which candidates feel comfortable running.”# Platforms are just one more aspect of the convention that has fallen under the control of the presidential candidate. In conventions today, with the presidential nomination assured, and the candidate in control of both the choice vice-presidential candidate and the party platform, the most important function of the convention is as a launch pad for the election campaign. Before the televised coverage of conventions occurred, the opportunity to advertise the campaign message and candidates to the public was limited to press and radio coverage. As television came into its own in the mid-twentieth century, coverage of the convention was ‘gavel to gavel’ and in some cases, the number of hours of television coverage was greater than the length of the convention. However, as television audiences for conventions dwindled as they became endorsements rather than debates, both candidates and television news executives sought to adapt the relationship to best serve their own needs. Media coverage of the convention is still important, as Wattenberg notes: “Despite the decline of the convention as a decision-making body, more media coverage is nevertheless focused on it than any other event in the nomination process.”# In the age of television, it is often the visuals that carry more significance to a campaign, and the convention is no exception to this. For example, with reference to the acceptance speech made by Al Gore in 2000, despite the effectiveness of his appeal to the Democrats in his speech, it was his highly publicised kiss with his wife that carried the most media attention. This action, which some might decry as cynical politicking was interpreted as Gore’s attempt to distance himself from the shadow of the outgoing president. In this case, the visual image lingers longer than the content of his speech, no matter how effective it was. In the same election year at the Republican convention, there were similar attempts at visual aids to the campaign. As Marjorie Randon Hershey described: “The well-choreographed show was meant to demonstrate the inclusiveness of the party by featuring groups generally thought to be Democratic in their leanings. There were speeches by African Americans…Hispanics, and even a gay member of Congress.”# While many citizens watching on television may not pay complete attention to what the political leaders have to say, the visual image of the convention will often be what they remember, such is the influence of television. As television has devoted less time to the convention in recent years, this has had some effect on the way conventions are organised. With perhaps a limit of two hours of prime time coverage for each day, convention schedules have been shifted to accommodate the coverage the candidates hope to receive. According to Denton this means that “prime time is devoted to speeches, celebrity appearances, and carefully crafted videos.” A side effect of this is that “delegates are reduced to little more than a ‘studio audience.’# Yet it is not simply the delegates who have to accommodate the needs of the television cameras, the convention hall itself is effectively a large television studio, producing a four-day advertisement for the presidential candidate. While the candidates will try to put forth a unified party, with clear ideas and well-choreographed speeches, the media attention is often more focused on difference and conflict within the party. The simple reason is that the more tension and uncertainty involved, the more exciting the coverage. Baumgartner has suggested that “with the presidential nominee already decided, conventions are fairly boring, neither newsworthy (as defined by the news profession) nor good entertainment.”# Therefore, television news people will seek to cover any potential splits within the party, anything that might be worth extra coverage. An interesting fact noted by Buell and Jackson was that in elections between 1964 and 1984, the convention that received the most coverage was also the party nominating the losing ticket.# Such is the relationship between television and politics, that television coverage of conventions can provide a welcome boost to a struggling campaign, but there is always the potential for a negative impact on a candidate’s chances. Yet it appears that in the carefully controlled and stage-managed environment engendered in conventions today, the opportunity for true drama is diminished, and the four-day advertisement for candidates will continue. Part of the television effect of conventions is an attempt to promote party unity. This is not an explicit function of the convention as such, but with the rise in the combative nature and length of the pre-convention campaign, the divisiveness of the primary season needs to be overcome. This unifying effect may only indeed be on the surface, but with television coverage keen to play on any hint of intra-party struggle, the surface must appear unbroken. There are various aspects to consider in the portrayal, real or otherwise, of party unity, one of the most important of which is the keynote speech. The keynote speaker is usually an important and well-respected member of the party, such as a senior member of Congress. They will usually speak early on in the convention and they set the tone for the rest of the event and the remainder of the campaign. They usually offer appeals for the healing of old wounds and a rallying call for taking on the opposition with a united front. Problems can arise when the unity of the party comes into question during the convention. In the majority of cases, political commentators interpret apparent disunity as a sign of weakness and an inability to govern. For instance, the Democratic conventions in 1980, 1984 and 1988 were “consumed by extensive negotiations between the victorious and defeated campaigns, thus reducing the time spent in celebrating party unity.”# Perhaps not surprisingly, the Republicans won the presidential elections in each of these years. Maintaining the appearance of party unity is crucial to get the campaign off to a good start, otherwise the media coverage will be disparaging and damaging to the candidate’s chance of getting elected. This is where keynote speeches and addresses by other important party leaders play such a crucial role in conventions. In addition to the outwardly visible elements that contribute to the current election campaign, there are aspects of the convention that have more influence on future conventions and campaigns. The rules committee meets to determine procedures for delegate selection and other matters of business for the convention, which can cause great controversy. As was shown in the dramatic changes following the 1968 Democratic Convention debacle, rules changes can create a substantially different event. With proportional representation and an insistence on minorities and women being present, the convention was in theory greatly democratised. This also led, eventually, to fewer challenges to the credentials of delegates, which had often been used as a political ploy in the days of the ‘smoke-filled rooms.’# Rules can have an important impact on the composition of conventions and even who wins. Keech and Matthews note that: “Formal rules and procedures are never neutral; depending on the situation, they tend to favour some groups within the party, and hence some candidates, more than others.”# Apart from the well-publicised McGovern-Fraser reforms, rules are not generally brought to the forefront of media or public attention, and are generally kept to intra-party discussions. Conventions have formed an important part of the American political landscape. It is not really questionable that their primary functions have changed in step with the shift from party- to candidate-centred politics that characterised the middle decades of the twentieth-century. The selection of a presidential nominee, still ostensibly the most important function of a convention, has largely been reduced to an endorsement of the decision of party members made in primaries and caucuses. Part of the reason for this is the increased size of the delegations and the convention as a whole. As Judith Parris has noted: “Certainly the size of conventions and their constituent units is too large to be conducive to serious deliberation.”# However, the influence of a candidate already assured of being nominated has changed the primary function of the convention to being an advertisement for the candidate, his platform and his campaign, with party consideration relegated in importance. The candidate has effective control over the choice of a running mate, and this choice is revealed with much media attention at the convention. The party platform is effectively that which the candidate accepts, and is followed by others in the party also running for election. The television schedule is managed by the candidate to offer maximum exposure to his ideas and his campaign, while offering the party a chance of healing any rifts that may have been opened in the primary season. Ultimately, as Baumgartner succinctly describes, conventions are “an ill-concealed ‘infomercial’ for the party nominee.”# Offering a prime time chance to appeal to the public at large, the candidate-centred politics of America today mean that conventions primarily function as four-day advertisements for the presidential nominee. Bibliography Baumgartner, Jody C., Modern Presidential Electioneering: An Organisational and Comparative Approach, (Westport, Connecticut, 2000). Buell, Emmett H. and Lee Sigelman (eds.), Nominating the President, (Knoxville, Tennessee. 1991). Ceaser, James W. and Andrew E. Busch, The Perfect Tie: The True Story of the 2000 Presidential Election, (Lanham, Maryland, 2001). Denton, Robert E. (ed.), The 2000 Presidential Election: A Communication Perspective, (Westport, Connecticut, 2002). Just, Marion R. (et al), Crosstalk: Citizens, Candidates, and the Media in a Presidential Campaign, (Chicago, 1996). Keech, William, R. and Donald R. Matthews, The Party’s Choice, (Washington, 1976). Maisel, L. Sandy (ed.), The Parties Respond: Changes in the American Party System, (Boulder, Colorado, 1990). McSweeney, Dean and John Zvesper, American Political Parties: The formation, decline and reform of the American party system, (London, 1991). Ogden, David M. and Arthur L. Peterson, Electing the President, revised edition, (San Francisco, 1968). Parris, Judith H., The Convention Problem: Issues in Reform of Presidential Nominating Procedures, (Washington, 1972). Polsby, Nelson W. and Aaron Wildavsky, Presidential Elections: Strategies and Structures of American Politics, (New York, 2000). Pomper, Gerald M. (ed.), The Election of 2000: Reports and Interpretations, (New York, 2001). Popkin, Samuel L., The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns, (Chicago, 1996). Wattenberg, Martin P., The Rise of Candidate-Centred Politics – Presidential Elections of the 1980s, (Cambridge, Mass. 1991). Wayne, Stephen J., The Road to the White House 1996 – The Politics of Presidential Elections, Post-election edition, (New York, 1997). Wayne, Stephen J. and Clyde Wilcox, The Quest for National Office: Readings on Elections, (New York, 1992). Congressional Quarterly, Presidential Elections 1789-1996, (Washington, 1997). |
|||||||||||||
| Non-fiction |
|||||||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |