National Party Conventions

                The National Party Convention is a curious mix of a glorified television broadcast and a serious political gathering. Held once every four years, it is a time when party activists come together in order to promote the party’s image and the presidential candidate. All parties hold a convention, even the third parties. Delegates from each state are sent to the convention in order to officially nominate the party’s ticket. However, the name of those on the ticket is usually known well in advance by the public and the media.

In 2012, the two main parties held their conventions in swing states. As is tradition, the challengers for the White House went first. The Republican convention was marred by two damaging events. Firstly, there were allegations that a reporter had been racially abused by some delegates. Secondly, the actor Clint Eastwood delivered a bizarre rambling speech to an empty chair where an ‘invisible’ Obama was supposedly sitting. For his part, Romney offered a robotic and predictable speech that did little to whip up a post-convention bounce. As for the Democrats, there were no embarrassing gaffes in evidence. The best speech however was not Obama’s but that of Bill Clinton. Still very much a star performer, Clinton energized the party faithful and presented a unified picture for the wider public after long-standing rumors of tension between him and the President. However, the Democrats also failed to create a meaningful bounce in the polls (although they did gain a slightly higher figure than the GOP). Given the expensive nature of the campaign, the DNC and RNC may well re-evaluate their conventions given the limited impact they had upon voting behavior. At the very least, the length and sheer cost of the convention may well have to be reconsidered. There are surely better ways of promoting a candidate that a lengthy and (for many Americans!) boring convention.

The importance of National Party Conventions to a presidential campaign is on the wane. Once a key event in the political calendar, they have been reduced to bland corporate affairs with the sole intention of upholding that party’s brand. They are carefully choreographed (as in 2008 when Hillary Clinton demanded that the convention nominate Barack Obama … a man she had earlier heaped “shame” on during the primary season!) and devoid of any genuine debate within the party. Unity is prized above all else by party managers; and a vigorous exchange of ideas between the leadership and rank-and-file is now a relic of the past. There seems little or no chance that the drama of the 1968 Democrat convention will ever be repeated, when the television cameras presented a party at war with itself. The thousands of journalists who descend upon conventions rarely gain much of a story, and seem unlikely to ever capture a genuine scoop.

                Once again, the last election in which National Party Conventions really made a difference was back in 1992. The Republicans appeared divided after a bruising campaign for their party’s nomination, where Pat Buchanan (who began as a possible contender but ultimately became a spoiler) led a "pitchfork rebellion" against the patrician figure of George Bush senior. The key dividing line centered upon abortion. Buchanan energized the floor with his opening night speech on the culture wars, touching upon issues that in retrospect were a sign of things to come for the GOP. Bush senior had also reneged on his commitment not to levy any new taxes, which greatly angered fiscal conservatives within the party. In contrast, the Democrats convention was a real success. After the wilderness years of the 1980s, they finally presented a credible presidential candidate. Clinton’s persona came across well, with his upbeat message resonating with a country mired in recession. Clinton also managed to present himself as tough on crime in contrast to the ill-fated Dukakis campaign.