THOUGHTS ON AMERICAN POLITICAL CONVENTIONS FOR THE YEAR 2000
The 1992 Party Conventions are over. And thank goodness. Half Academy Awards glitz: singers, lights, costumes, balloons -- and baloney; and half Nineteenth Century tradition: useless and time-consuming nominating speeches (everyone's known the viable party candidate(s) for months), hours of time-wasting votes by state (everyone's known the delegate count since the primaries/caucuses).
The Conventions are now so boring that none of the major networks could even be interested in giving them full coverage during the last Presidential election. And this because the American viewing public was known not to be interested in watching.
Ross Perot stepped out of the arena (and back in) before he'd really had time to affect the future of electoral operations, especially his notion of getting candidates to pay attention to important issues instead of personalities and fluff -- though his notion of the electronic town meeting (not to mention electronic voting in both House and Senate) suggest some time-saving methods which could help modify the Conventions of the Twenty-First Century.
And the pre-nomination speeches, at least on the Republican side, show promise of a way the public might be given some focus on intra (and inter) party differences over important issues.
If either, or both, parties are serious about raising the public's interest in the political process (and with less than half of eligible voters bothering either to register or to vote, if registered, there can be little of greater importance if the world's greatest democracy is to endure), Party leadership should devote some serious thought to re-ordering and reinvigorating the only thing the Parties do which brings them formally before the voters at national level -- and then only once every four years.
That the public can be interested in public affairs is shown by the numbers who regularly watch C-Span, the Capital Gang, Cross-Fire. the McNeil-Lehrer New Hour, and other panel and call-in programs.
And when the candidates do debate, TV attention ratings are indeed high.
Of course, one can understand why a sitting President may find it of questionable wisdom to participate in a public debate with a challenger -- if he can gracefully avoid being cornered. But wouldn't it be an entirely different proposition for the candidate to face a panel of friendly public faces before Convention Delegates (political talk show hosts or professors or political analysts/writers of national reputation and of known inclination, Cabinet members (or past Cabinet members in the case of a challenger?), feeding him carefully prepared questions on domestic, foreign, and economic policy, with the Candidate responding with his own carefully prepared statements. This was the format of the regular DeGaulle press conference. And despite the fact that everyone realized they were staged, De Gaulle's press conferences were always popular and looked forward to by the domestic and international media. DeGaulle was a master of political theater. And, especially if incorporated into Party Conventions, such theater (aren't the Conventions already more theater than anything?) would become a popular feature of American politics as the quadrennial November election approached.
The normal talk show lasts an hour. An hour during prime time with the Candidate on each of three days of the Convention, giving a dozen or so Delegates an opportunity to ask (presumably friendly) questions from the floor, would go a long way towards educating the public on the issues and giving the candidates an opportunity to put their program before the voters in the best possible light and conditions.
With TV as willing as it showed itself this year to air candidates on virtually every talk show around, one might assume that at least these vital three hours of each Convention would be aired, giving candidates a precious three hours of valuable exposure, the cost of which would not even have to come out of Party coffers. And with polling by state timed for just before the Acceptance Speech, state delegate votes could light up on the large electronic screen, as on election eve. Sort of a pre-Acceptance Speech Fourth of July fireworks to heighten and prepare emotions to hear from the Big Man.
Of course, the Parties needn't abandon the National Anthem sung by a Country and Western star. Nor the presentation of the Flag by a color guard of AmVets. Nor half a dozen pre-event speeches by leading politicians on one or another of the major issues of the day. Nor the normal one minute, paid, political adverts, as always, between the Convention and election day to maintain momentum and undercut post-Convention points made by the opponent. But neither the Twenty-First Century voter, nor 21st C. TV, is going to put up with the slightly Hollywoodized version of 19th C. Party politics-as-it-used-to-be that we've allowed to emerge without much thought or direction.
Need it be said that a similar approach might be adopted by both national political parties with regard to debates among their pre-Convention candidates -- giving party members a less postured and more substantial appreciation of the positions and strengths of the various candidates.
AmEmbassy - Bucharest
APO AE 09213-1315
March 3, 1995
The Honorable Richard Lugar
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Lugar:
Saw your announcement on the Larry King Show that you would be running for President in 1996/
I enclose a paper written after the 1992 Presidential which I think is applicable to the pre Convention runoff period, but would perhaps be of greatest importance in the contest between the final two party candidates. I hope you'll approach Senators Gramm, Dole, and Governor Alexander to see if they'd be willing jointly to implement this approach during the New Hampshire and Iowa Primaries. But if you are successful in the Primary I would especially hope you'd try to get your Democrat rival to adopt the suggested method of campaigning during the Presidential campaign. The concept is essentially a variation based on what I observed through attendance at several press conferences I was assigned to attend while serving as a member of the U.S. Mission to NATO in Paris during the DeGaulle era. I believe the notion would notably reduce the cost of campaigning, while elevating the level of dialogue among candidates, thereby contributing to a deeper understanding of the issues on the part of the electorate.
With all best wishes, Sincerely,
David B. Timmins, PhD (Harvard)
FSO (ret.), Professor of Political Economy & Government (ret.)
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |