The political economy of political conventions
In the comments to a previous post, and also in a lengthier post on his own blog, Mark Daniels notes the dullness of the modern political party nominating convention:
Now, the conventions are set pieces, pep rallies with sound bites, occasions when everybody smiles for the cameras and tries to appear united for the fall campaign. The slovenly appearances of delegates to the early-television era conventions have been replaced by people who appear to have bathed, changed their clothing within the previous forty-eight hours, and seem not to be hungover and all that is good. But media consultants have thrown the baby---democracy in action---out with the bath water.
The parties would do well to get rid of the conventions altogether, along with the expenses associated with them. After all, the free TV exposure isn't really worth it. A shrinking audience, composed of political junkies and partisan devotees are the only ones tuning in. Instead, they could purchase a series of live broadcasts in which the candidates interact with voters and answer their questions. Although I abhor living in this era of reality TV, such a format change might very well reach today's disillusioned voter.
Doesn't a "series of live broadcasts in which the candidates interact with voters and answer their questions" sound a lot like the "townhall" format presidential debate? Well, except for the "series" part. It seems they've done one debate in that format in recent years. Did they do that in 2000? I only watched the first debate and a few minutes of the second. Couldn't stand any more.
Anyway, this is a good point at which to make my pitch for privatizing the funding of partisan political activity. The fact that the federal government gives each party several million dollars to spend on a "convention" (and only on a "convention") probably goes a long way toward explaining the persistence of presidential nominating "conventions" -- no matter how irrelevant they are to the actual process of selecting a candidate. In 2000, the Dems and GOP got more than $13 million a piece.
If the parties were spending their own money, they would no doubt find something more useful to spend it on. Something more useful to the party might even turn out to be more useful to the voter.
Posted by Chip on July 25, 2004 at 05:18 AMFirst of all, thanks for including links to my blog in this post and for your kind email to me. I appreciate both kindnesses.
Secondly, when I suggested a series of townhall meetings, I really didn't have joint candidate appearances in mind. I thought more in terms of the appearances that Richard Nixon made by himself made during the 1968 campaign. Those programs were produced by his campaign. In lifting up that possibility, I was just trying to suggest an alternative to the conventions...just in case the parties wanted to find more effective, meaningful ways of spending all their cash. I certainly don't want to add any more debates or joint appearances to the presidential campaign process. Right now, I feel that we have too many debates and that they amount to nothing more than a competition for setting off the most flippant sound bite. We need more light, less heat.
Finally, to what I take to be your main point, I absolutely agree in doing away with public campaign financing. This post-Watergate "reform" was wrong at the beginning and no amount of tinkering makes it any better, in my estimation.
Thanks for your thought-provoking web site!
Posted by: Mark at July 26, 2004 12:28 AM
Note: Comments are open for only 10 days after the original post.