Rewiring Politics

Presidential Nominating Conventions in the Media Age

Costas Panagopoulos

• Publisher: LSU Press
• Year: 2007
• ISBN:
  9780807148990
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

A century ago, national political parties' nominating conventions for U.S. presidential candidates often resembled wide-open brawls, filled with front-stage conflicts and back-room deals. Today, leagues of advisors precisely plan and carefully script these events even though their outcomes are largely preordained. Rewiring Politics offers the first in-depth exploration of the profound changes in the nominating process to focus on the role of the media. Fourteen luminaries from the worlds of media and politics examine how the technology of "coverage" has transformed conventions over time. As the contributors demonstrate, the story of the evolution of the nominating process cannot be told without the concomitant story of the revolution in mass media.
The impact of the media on political conventions has received surprisingly little scholarly attention. Yet few aspects of the American political process have faced such radical alterations in such a short period of time. From the first live television broadcast from a national convention on June 21, 1948, during the Republican convention in Philadelphia, through the advent of cable networks and the Internet, both the presentation and the content of the nominating process has been transformed. Today, because the party's nominee is selected before the event, candidates use their conventions-and convention coverage-as a form of advertising. They design mega-media events to electrify the party faithful and to woo undecided voters by dazzling them.
Without a doubt, the contributors conclude, conventions still matter, though their role has changed over the past decades. Rewiring Politics helps readers assess the evolution of conventions in contemporary politics and addresses the implications of these changes on our parties, politics, and society.

1

INTRODUCTION

Presidential Nominating Conventions in the Media Age

Costas Panagopoulos

Viewed as deliberative bodies, the national party conventions are an abomination—huge and disorderly assemblies of often inexperienced strangers faced with difficult and important decisions to make in a few days. But usually national conventions are not called upon to make decisions; most of the time they meet to legitimize and celebrate a decision that has already been made.

DONALD MATTHEWS, Presidential Nominations: Process and Outcomes (1974)

IT WAS ABOUT 6 A.M. on September 1, 2004, and I was on the tenth floor of Madison Square Garden in New York City—the epicenter of the American media universe for the week—waiting to begin an interview with a morning network news program about the Republican National Convention (RNC) that had convened its proceedings there the previous evening. The glass booth, one of dozens similarly transformed into mini television broadcast studios for the occasion, overlooked thousands of empty red, white, and blue chairs neatly arranged before a stage draped in patriotic colors. Outside, groggy—but still angry—anti-Bush protesters had started to assemble for what turned out to be another full day of anticlimactic demonstrations, while denizens of the 15,000-member press legion gathered inside to reflect on the convention activities. The usual suspects, experts and talking heads besides academic observers, were all there ready to do their part of the spin. (I passed former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, the previous evening’s highly anticipated and highly energizing convention kick-off speaker, as I entered the booth.)

The reporter came in as I gazed at the ceiling where thousands of red, white, and blue balloons were being held captive by netting until their scheduled release on the final night of the convention following President Bush’s acceptance speech. “You know they raised the whole floor of Madison Square Garden by six inches to make the hall look more intimate on TV,” the reporter told me. “No, I didn’t know,” I answered, wondering how great the difference in viewers’ perceptions must need to be to offset the expense incurred by the RNC to create a more familial setting. “Yup, well, these little details seem to be all that counts at these things these days,” he continued. Surely, he couldn’t be right, I hoped, but I said, “It does seem that way, doesn’t it?” The social scientist in me wondered how much truth there was in his statement. But when he asked me on the air whether conventions still matter, I emphatically, almost impulsively, rattled off a half dozen reasons why I believed conventions remain an important part of the process of presidential selection in America.

To argue convincingly that national conventions matter in American politics today and to understand fully their relationship to contemporary presidential campaigns, it is necessary to trace the evolution of these quadrennial events and to dissect the developments that have essentially transformed the nature and role of conventions in modern campaigns. To be sure, national nominating conventions have undergone significant changes over the past few decades, developments influenced in large part by the growth in mass media. In a sense, changes in mass media created an impetus—or a stimulus—to which convention organizers have responded. Some of these changes have provided parties unprecedented opportunities to capitalize on conventions while others have presented considerable challenges. Faced with both opportunities and challenges over the past few decades, political parties have adapted conventions in an effort to maximize their goals, indicating at the very least that conventions must serve some meaningful purpose and offer parties even modest benefits. Perhaps the best evidence that conventions continue to matter is that they continue to exist, even in altered form. After all, why would rational political parties invest so heavily in events that are entirely useless and ineffectual? Nevertheless, the manner in which conventions have evolved within the context of new (and sometimes hostile) media environments, has generated important questions for political observers. The selections included in this volume describe and analyze many of these developments and aim to provide readers with a comprehensive understanding of the complexities, realities, and implications associated with national nominating conventions in the media age. The discussion we advance is rooted in the following broad themes (or claims).

Developments in mass media have provided powerful stimuli for convention change. Not unlike the effects of the proliferation of newspapers and radio, the growth of television (and more recently, the Internet) has altered the environment in which conventions operate. On the one hand, parties benefit from the promise of widespread access to convention proceedings facilitated by television. On the other hand, broad access to conventions means parties must adjust convention content to balance appealing to moderate voters without turning off partisans. Moreover, competition for ratings in a climate of declining interest in politics has presented parties with new challenges to broaden the appeal of convention content. These conditions have altered party leaders’ considerations in planning and executing conventions.

Conventions have changed in response to stimuli exerted by changes in mass media. Presidential nominating conventions have undergone significant change over the past five decades, and major adaptations have occurred largely in response to changes in the media. Television has probably influenced party leaders to adapt conventions more directly than any other singular cause, but more recent developments in media—cable and the Internet—have also had an effect on the way conventions are organized and executed. This is especially true of major party conventions, which attract the lion’s share of media attention. Changes to minor party conventions, however, which are traditionally ignored by the media, have been modest at best.

Conventions still matter. Despite many of the changes we observe, conventions continue to contribute meaningfully to the presidential selection process and to the dynamics of presidential campaigns. Conventions influence levels of support for candidates, for example, and affect the amount of political information available to the electorate. Indeed, sizable segments of the electorate report making up their minds about which candidate to vote for during conventions.

Conventions continue to evolve but not necessarily towards irrelevance. Television was the driving force behind many of the developments in conventions that we observed over the post–World War II period. Stimuli created by new developments in mass media exert powerful influence over conventions, and conventions will continue to evolve in response to these new stimuli, including cable television and the Internet. Even as aspects of conventions continue to evolve, conventions are likely to serve useful purposes in the future and to remain institutionalized features of presidential politics. The role of conventions in the process of presidential selection may have changed over the past few decades, but new and important roles for conventions continue to surface.

CONVENTIONS IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Every four years, at least since September 1831 when the Anti-Masonic Party held the first presidential nominating convention, Democrats and Republicans from each state formally convene to nominate a presidential candidate to represent the party in the general election race that follows. The establishment of national conventions for the purpose of nominating presidential candidates marked the formalization of political parties in the United States, enabling parties to gather partisans from all geographic areas and to weld them together as a cohesive unit in pursuit of the quadrennial effort to elect a president.

For over a century, nominating conventions were typically lively and animated events, settings for intense candidate and policy debates that frequently erupted in volatility and excitement. At the 1912 Democratic national convention in Baltimore, Maryland, for example, it took forty-six ballots for Woodrow Wilson’s supporters to break a deadlock and to wrestle the nomination away from fellow contenders U.S. House Speaker Champ Clarke of Missouri, Representative Oscar Underwood of Alabama, and Governor Judson Harmon of Ohio. Twelve years later, after nine days of stalemate, delegates at the Democratic convention in New York voted 103 times before Wall Street lawyer John W. Davis clinched the nomination as a compromise candidate between New York governor Alfred E. Smith and Wilson’s Treasury secretary William G. McAdoo. That was back in the heyday of nominating conventions, when fat cats in smoke-filled rooms did battle over contenders and the nomination was not a foregone conclusion before the convention even began.

THE GROWTH OF TELEVISION AND THE RISE OF STAGED CONVENTIONS

For over a century, national conventions remained the purview of the select few who attended the meetings and reveled in the enthusiasm. With the growth of mass media technologies, political conventions became important national events. Indeed a special relationship exists between conventions and media technology. David Shedden writes, “Every four years, journalists experiment with new inventions at presidential conventions. Some historical periods offer more innovation than others do, but the conventions serve as interesting markers about the evolution of news technology.” In 1844, news of convention proceedings was transmitted by telegraph for the first time. By 1880, convention reporters used a “new gadget,” the telephone, and, on June 10, 1924, the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, was the first to be broadcast on radio. Indeed, radio coverage of conventions was so desirable initially that manufacturers used conventions to boost radio sales. RCA ran print ads to promote its Radiola product:

Cheer with the galleries when the delegates march in! No “influence” needed this year for a gallery seat at the big political conventions! Get it all with a Radiola Super-Heterodyne. When the delegates march in—their banners screaming; when the bands play and the galleries cheer—be there with a “Super-Het.” Hear the pros and cons as they fight their way to a “platform” for you. Hear the speeches for the “favorite son.” The sudden stillness when the voice of a great speaker rings out. The stamps and whistles and shrill of competitive cheering. Hear the actual nomination of a president. It used to be all for the delegates’ wives and the “big” folks of politics. Now it’s for everybody. Listen in. Get it all! With the newest Radiola.¹

Television coverage of conventions quickly followed. In June 1940, NBC’s experimental station W2XBS became the first television station to broadcast from a presidential convention when it aired reports from the Republican convention in Philadelphia, and the first live convention reports arrived on June 21, 1948, during the Republican convention.² Television promised unprecedented access to convention proceedings, and networks initially provided Americans with nearly gavel-to-gavel coverage. The public tuned in to watch. As recently as 1976, the typical household watched eleven hours of convention coverage on television.³ Conventions were exciting—and newsworthy—because nominations were undecided and convention proceedings were consequential and, relatively speaking, interesting. Few states held primaries to bind delegate decisions, and conventions were gatherings of party chieftains and activists from across the nation who had no legal obligations or commitments to designated candidates. In the heyday of nominating conventions, freewheeling and dealing delegates routinely offered and withdrew their support in exchange for concessions on platform planks or promises of future political payoffs, appointments, and patronage.

Television almost instantly revolutionized conventions. After watching the first fully televised Republican convention in 1952, Democratic Party officials made changes in the appearance and layout of their own conventions to better suit their new audiences.⁴ By 1956, both parties further amended their convention programs to better fit the demands of television coverage. Officials altered the length of the conventions, dropped daytime sessions, created uniform campaign themes for each party, limited welcoming speeches and parliamentary organization procedures, scheduled sessions for prime time so as to reach a maximum audience, and worked hard to conceal any intraparty battling.⁵

Contemporary conventions are staged primarily as mega–media events designed to electrify the party faithful and to woo undecided voters by dazzling them. Scholars have demonstrated that support for the party’s nominee is boosted immediately after the convention, and the prevailing nostrum seems to be: the bigger and better the convention, the bigger the boost. Party leaders now spend elaborate effort and resources to orchestrate, anticipate, plan, schedule, rehearse, time, and script every detail of every minute of conventions—especially those proceedings that will air during primetime television coverage.

The design and execution of conventions as massive media events has required party organizations to solicit the expertise of media and communications professionals and specialists. Increasingly, parties turn to political consultants, image specialists, strategists, and television production experts to put on the best show possible to reinforce key party messages. “It’s very simple,” claims Republican convention veteran Bill Greener (who has worked on every convention since 1984). “If it’s good TV, people will watch it. If not, they won’t.” Greener suggests the sea change occurred in 1972 when RNC manager Bill Timmons organized with extraordinary precision the convention to re-nominate incumbent Richard Nixon. “We hadn’t seen anything like it before. Since then, the move toward planning conventions as TV events continues. There is a greater need for specialists,” Greener claims. Don Fowler, CEO of the 1998 Democratic National Convention and Democratic National Committee chairman in 1995–1996, describes how critical he felt it was to find talent with expertise in producing live events for television. “Politicians are good at many things,” says Fowler, “but not necessarily TV production … In 1988,” he recalls, “I went to Hollywood and hired Gary Smith and Dwight Hemion to help produce the convention. They understood the techniques of live TV production. This had never been done before.” Smith and Hemion went on to help orchestrate the Democratic conventions in 1992, 1996, and 2000.⁶

Tom C. Korologos, a Republican operative who was involved in planning every convention between 1972 and 2000, agrees. “There is more and more consultation with public affairs professionals,” he claims. “We are increasingly preoccupied with the overarching question: ‘How’s this going to look on television?’ We turn to the media and entertainment guys more and more,” he adds.⁷ Strategists work closely with media and communications consultants to present the right messages in the most compelling ways. Professional convention managers are careful to prevent boring lulls in the action and to keep potentially divisive rules or platform fights out of primetime viewing hours. They orchestrate “spontaneous” demonstrations and telegenic events such as the release of hundreds of colorful balloons on the convention floor. Consultants coach speakers on makeup, wardrobe, and how to read the TelePrompTer. Eric Lieber, a television consultant for the Democrats in 1976, said that...

Table of contents

• COVER
• TITLE PAGE
• COPYRIGHT PAGE
• DEDICATION
• CONTENTS
• 1. INTRODUCTION: Presidential Nominating Conventions in the Media Age
• 2. FOLLOW THE BOUNCING BALL: Assessing Convention Bumps, 1964–2004
• 3. CONVENTIONS AND CAMPAIGN DYNAMICS
• 4. PARTY PROFILES: National Convention Delegates
• 5. THE UTILITY OF PARTY CONVENTIONS IN AN ERA OF LOW VISIBILITY AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
• 6. NOMINATING CONVENTIONS, CAMPAIGN EVENTS, AND POLITICAL INFORMATION
• 7. CONVENTIONS FOR THE UNCONVENTIONAL: Minor Party Conventions, 1992–2004
• 8. LIGHTS, CAMERA, CHAOS? THE EVOLUTION OF CONVENTION “CRISES”
• 9. REWIRING THE CONVENTIONS (AGAIN): The Internet and Innovation in Politics and Media
• 10. LOSING CONTROL?: The Rise of Cable News and Its Effect on Party Convention Coverage
• 11. MASS MEDIA AND THE DEMOCRATIZATION OF PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATING CONVENTIONS
• 12. THE NEW ROLE OF THE CONVENTIONS AS POLITICAL RITUALS
• CONTRIBUTORS