Michael Barone argues against the possibility of a brokered political party conventions on historical grounds. For Barone, brokered conventions like the Democratic convention that nominated segregationist John Davis in 1924 are relics of a pre-electronic era in which political operatives had to meet personally at conventions in order to iron out agreements.
Like a lot of these kinds of historical arguments, Barone's take on brokered conventions falls well short of being convincing. The problem concerns the failures of particular political systems. In 1924, the Democrats couldn't come to agreement between the urban machines and the Southern segregationists. That's why the convention needed 123 ballots to come up with a nominee.
In general, the American political system is not functioning very well at present. The hijacking of the Republican Party by the extreme right wing has introduced a destabilizing rigidity into every American political institution. Because the conservative movement has succeeded in making refusal to compromise or accommodate into a test of political manhood, everybody else has had to follow suit. As a result, getting anything done through the American political system has become a tremendous ordeal for everyone involved.
In this context, it's easy to see a day when a number of still viable candidates emerge from the primary electoral seasons of one or both parties. Such an outcome would result in a brokered convention of one kind of another. In fact, it might happen to the Republicans in 2008.
Of course, it's not written into stone that a brokered convention would come to agreement either.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
If history is any kind of guide, I see no reason to return to the "smoke-filled rooms" of brokered conventions. I have read about those kind of conventions and I think they were always a mistake.
Our Presidential campaigns come down to three things:Money;Unity;and Time
Money: Given the amounts of money required to sustain campaigns in the 21st century, it is my opinion that brokered convention would be archaic, erratic, and very disorganized.
Unity: I feel strongly that we Democrats should have our presumptive nominee well in advance of convention time. No later that the end of February or the first week of March.
I say that first because of the money as I mentioned above. The obscene amounts of money that these candidates have to throw into a Presidential campaign create an imperative to achieve consensus as soon as possible.
Time: Going into the convention with a nominee who has already chosen a running-mate sends a strong signle of unity and gives the nominee the neccessary time to fully articulate his/her (I'm hoping her) positions on the issues and it gives the public to become familiar with the candidate in a positive way if his/HER staff is "on their toes", so to speak.
I suppose it would seem more fair to go into convention without a nominee but it's bad politics and would make whichever party who chooses to go that route look amateurish, petty, and disorganized.
So I am on the record as opposing brokered conventions. At least in the Democratic party.
Because the conservative movement has succeeded in making refusal to compromise or accommodate into a test of political manhood, everybody else has had to follow suit.
Do you write this stuff with a straight face? If not, your ability to cast aside observations which contradict your conclusions is truly outstanding. I suppose one could also chalk it up to excusing Dem obstructionism as "DEFENDING AMERICA!" from itself.
Unlike Todd, Professor, I see the difference in the Press. The Press is dying to stop covering 8 guys and start covering one. The pine for it.
Whomever emerges from Iowa and NH (and, yes, Mitt, I'm looking at you) will have a leg up. Thompson or Guiliani will collapse in SC/Michigan and it will be a two man race by the time all the big states show up in February.
Geez, the sorry state of that Party has me rooting for that clown Romney....weird
It is interesting that you use the word hijack to describe the religious right's elevation in the Republican Party. By whatever standard you are using to evaluation this elevation as "hijacking," you can also use that standard to describe the far left wing's elevation in the Democratic Party. Neither party is what it once was. A Democrat was president during World WAr I, World War II, The Korean War, and the Vietnam war. now they have become more of a pacifist party. The Democrats also were some of the leaders behind prohibition. So really i don't think either party has been hijacked because they have both changed so much from what they used to be.
Brandon, you are mistaken if you think the Dem Party is full of "pacifists." It's a common mistake right-wingers make. But, there wasn't and still isn't an important Democratic voice opposing US involvement in Afghanistan. In fact, all three top Dem candidates support strengthening US forces in Afghanistan. Further, the Democrats, over partisan opposition, supported and master-minded the brillant war in the Balkans, which saved so many lives and drove a kook from power. Hell, we've been there ten years and no one is shooting at us!
The Democrats oppose the President on his war in Iraq, because it was and is a folly. That hardly makes them pacifists (or Christ-like, ironically, given the side the "Christian" Right represents); it makes them right.
timb - How many of your Democrats supported the war when it was time to vote for or against it, prior to the outset?
This supports Brandon's notion of "Democrat pacifism" in what way.
Jd, seriously, leave the point making to Dan and B Moe and Jeff and, even Pablo. You are helping me prove to young Brandon how silly his point was and I know you don't believe there are brave Dems in the world. Your entire foreign policy worldview is dominated by your fear of "feckless Democrats," who aren't afraid of Muslims enough.
Thanks, though, unwitting help is the best kind: Brandon, in 2002, the majority of Democratic Congressfolks voted for the war in Iraq. The fact that so many have abandoned that vote now, proves they can either a) learn from their mistakes, or b) are a helluva lot smarter than Republicans.
I guess that "pacifist" argument is gone now?
timmy - You said "The Democrats oppose the President on his war in Iraq, because it was and is a folly." This is contraindicated by the positions taken by Kerry, Edwards, and Clinton.
What you know about me and my worldview would not fill up a thimble, timmy.
There are plenty of brave Dems. Plenty.
Your gave false choices in your assessment above. How about c) abandoned their principles at the first sign of difficulty? or d) placed politics ahead of security?
Brandon Powell--Good to hear from you. Send me some e-mail to let me know how you're doing.
Jd, I thought we were talking about Dems. When did you switch to Republicans?
timmy - Since you fail to address any of the points, shall I assume that you concede them?
Were you arguing seriously? 'Cause to me, you sounded like the crying kid in the back of the wedding ceremony. Everyone hears him, but no one thought he was trying to contribute to the ceremony.
If your point is that, for instance, John Edwards is secretly a blood-thristy warmonger, who repudiated his war vote only in the face of public opposition, then that STILL shows Brandon's assertion that Dems are pacifists is incorrect.
Since I was attempting dialogue with the fine Mr. Powell, I was ignoring your constant crusade against the Democrats. That happens on every thread (here, at PW, at Michelle's place, etc): I get it, you don't like Democrats.
Congratulations. Neither does Michael Savage.
So, were all of the Dems just dumb back then, or have they abandoned their position because of political expediency? Hillary was one of the better supporters on your side of the aisle, at least until she had to bow to the Left in the primaries. Edwards has had about 15 positions, and will have a new one in the next couple of days, so he is meaningless. Obama is so naive to think that he will continue to get away with being utterly unprepared for the position he is in.
timmy - I would prefer them to be pacifists, at least that is a position based on a belief. So far, the only underlying belief of the Dem candidates is that Bush is evil, a cancer, or a disease.
Michael Savage was railing on diversity tonight. Sound familiar?
Post a Comment