Four-Day Conventions: Relics of the Past?

By Ronald D. Elving

This might have been the year when someone finally got sensible about shortening the national conventions. But neither party did, and a comparable opportunity will probably not come along for at least eight years.

The responsible party here is the party in the White House. The Democrats should have stepped up boldly and said they did not need four days to conduct a news-free ceremony.

It is less fair to blame the Republicans for failing to compress their convention, because they passed the winter with a full field of active candidates. There was even a heady hour in February when it seemed as if they might have a live convention - the first true convention since Dwight D. Eisenhower snatched the garland from Robert A. Taft in Chicago in July 1952.

In March, of course, the Republicans settled down and once again anointed their hierarchical front-runner. But by the time Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas was in charge, it was too late to talk about changing the convention.

Don't look for much pressure to shorten the conventions in 2000. The Democrats will be looking for a new nominee, no matter who wins this year, and the Republicans may be also (even if there is a President Dole, he may not want to start a second term at 77).

So this was the year to act, and the onus was on the Democrats. They have known for months that their August convention in Chicago looked likely to set new records for suspenselessness. President Clinton has no intraparty rival to oppose his renomination, not even a frustrated protest figure waiting to see whether he gets a speaking slot in prime time.

Chicago in 1996 may be largely about the elevation of Vice President Al Gore,who will use the occasion to romance prospective delegates to the convention of 2000. This was how vice presidents such as Dan Quayle and George Bush and Walter Mondale bestirred themselves in 1992, 1984 and 1980, respectively. If that strikes you as a good reason to set aside four summer nights to watch TV, you may want to consider getting out more often.

To their credit, the Democrats did discuss moving to a low- fat convention. People in positions of power were on the record saying encouraging things. White House Chief of Staff Leon E. Panetta, for example, had said in 1992 that the New York convention's business that year could have been accomplished in 48 hours or less.

As recently as this spring, Bill Daley, brother of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, talked of clipping the fourth night off this year's convention.

The proposition was so refreshing that it had to be doomed.

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, harrumphed about needing at least four days to conduct the important business of the party.

"It's just four nights every four years," said Don Foley, the gener al manager of the 1996 convention, borrowing an argument from Bob Cratchit's bid for Christmas Day off.

Foley also noted that the party had already signed about 60 hotel contracts in Chicago that assumed a four-day convention with the climax on Aug. 29.

Media consultants, of course, were swift to point out the incalculable value of four full nights of free network TV.

But viewers have been voting with their remotes and deserting the convention telecast. In response, the networks have reduced their coverage to look-ins and late-night reviews of highlights on tape.

In 1992, the audience for the Democratic convention on the three major networks averaged 23.5 million a night. That was nearly 20 percent lower than the previous record-low audiences of 1988. The intense consumers of politics now watch on PBS, CNN or C-SPAN, which together draw just a few million viewers total.

Russell Baker of The New York Times once wrote that America had suffered for supporting too many foreign leaders called "generalissimo" who were short on the "general" part and long on the "issimo."

The problem with our conventions is that they decide little and feature endless hours of issimo. Four nights of speechmaking and hoopla seem hopelessly indulgent to viewers, especially when they learn that tax dollars ($12.36 million for each convention this year) are involved.

As more people have become aware that federal matching funds underwrite the conventions, the number of filers willing to earmark $3 of their federal tax for the presidential campaigns has declined.

What the Democrats have lost here is an opportunity to demonstrate new thinking. If, as we have been told, the era of big government is over, and if the Democrats are once again the party of the little guy, why not offer some evidence? Why not cut back the stage show and turn back some of the public money that pays for it?

Copyright @ 1996, Congressional Quarterly Inc. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 1996 AllPolitics
All Rights Reserved

Terms under which this information is provided to you