Convention season is upon us. There
will be clichés, giant flags, funny
hats--and much, much whining about how these party-themed infomercials aren't
worth our time. But are there ways in which we could genuinely improve the
content of the conventions? We asked a few friends of the magazine to offer
their suggestions. Up first is William Galston, former
policy advisor to Bill Clinton and current senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution.
Since the creation of the primary and caucus-based presidential
nominating process, national party conventions have lost much of their point.
Occasionally, as in the 1976 battle for the Republican nomination, the
primaries and caucuses leave the candidates separated by a narrow and possibly
fluid margin, giving weight to the thrust and parry of convention tactics. Of
course, the presidential nominee could choose to throw open the vice presidential
choice. This last happened in 1956, adding meaning and drama to what would
otherwise have been a routine renominating exercise while providing an early
demonstration of John F. Kennedy's potential appeal as a national
candidate. Absent one of these scenarios, national conventions are largely
reduced to exercises in stagecraft, consigning experts to ponder the
significance of Senator X rather than Governor Y as keynote speaker.
This is not to say that modern conventions are entirely useless. The
winning team can use prized speaking slots to bind up lingering wounds from the
primaries and to showcase rising stars. Informal encounters, planned and
spontaneous, can help build intra-party social capital. A substantial audience
will watch the nominee's nationally televised acceptance speech, which
typically forces him to think through, and reveal, the contours of his general
election campaign.
Quite possibly this is the best we can do, given the rules of the
modern party system. Still, it's worthwhile to think about possible
improvements, even at the margins. Here's one: The public always claims
to be hungry for user-friendly information about what candidates and parties
stand for ... so, why don't we allocate primetime slots at each
convention to a reasonably detailed presentation of the party platform? Immediately
afterward, the networks would feature panels of experts discussing the basis,
significance, and feasibility of its principal proposals. Not only could this
proposal help create a somewhat better informed electorate, but it would also
force the parties to take their platforms more seriously. Concessions to
organized interests now made in coded language that few notice or understand
could be exposed to national scrutiny, and historically informed commentators
could highlight subtle but significant shifts in long-held positions.
No doubt the audience would be modest by the standards of national
television, and the short-term effects would be hard to measure. Nonetheless,
this kind of discussion could help boost public trust in our national politics,
now near historic lows. We could do worse, and probably will.
--William Galston