Clinton Supporters Want To Lose Again For Catharsis
 |
Chris Lawrence | Thursday, August 14, 2008 |
Marc Ambinder dutifully reports that the ordinary kabuki theater of the Democratic convention will now include an extra layer of double-secret kabuki theater so Clinton supporters will feel better about themselves.
Jeff Jarvis is right: journalists and their employers must end the farce now. The conventions now only exist to feed the fantasies of political reporters who dream of a “brokered convention” that just simply won’t exist in today’s political environment. If only the four major networks jointly refused to cover the conventions at all, they’d effectively be gone and out of our collective misery, saving national, state, and local taxpayers millions of dollars in the process.
About the Author: Chris is an assistant professor of political science at Texas A&M International University in Laredo, Texas. He has a Ph.D. in American politics and political methodology from the University of Mississippi.
- Column on the Conventions
- Brokered Convention?
- More of Why the Paulson Plan is Bad
- Panasonic 150-Inch Plasma TV
- Ron Paul’s GOP Convention Revolt
- No New Taxes - Or Old Ones, For That Matter
- Press Not Doing Its Job?
- Obama’s Convention Bounce
- Race Still Tied After Conventions
- Katie Couric Major Announcement on ‘Today’
- Caption Contest Winners
- The Political Economy of the U.S. Mortgage Default Crisis
- The Democrats and the Shock Doctrine
- Obama and Europe
- Supreme Court to Decide on Obama Citizenship
- International Implications of the Drop in Oil Prices (Updated)
- Obama’s Bipartisan Cabinet
- More Votes Found - Franken Hurt
- Caption Contest
- OTB Latenight - Paul Simon
True conventions don't exist, just as true primaries don't exist, but you can be sure the power brokers do!
Those weren't really debates either![lol]
So your saying, is our elections are rigged and the whole world should know it, and you think the American people will be happily complacent in the squashing of democracy?
The convention is there for a reason. I think there should be more accountability and review of our election processes.
No, what I'm saying is that there's nothing about the conventions as currently constituted that merits weeks of breathless media coverage by 15k journalists. Basically, the RNC and DNC have no more merit as media events than the annual meetings of various national professional and civic organizations.
As a political scientist I recognize that the conventions have some value as the jumping-off point for the hyping of the fall campaign. But spending hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money (through the federal subsidies to the conventions, state and local money used for security and infrastructure etc.) on two self-congratulatory infomercials that the press inexplicably treats as something other than a spectacle designed for their consumption is simply a farce. If Al and Tipper want to make out on a stage in front of thousands of people, they (or the Democratic Party, if that's how they swing) should pay for it themselves.
Conventions were once there for a reason: to nominate the candidates. That purpose has been overtaken by the primary process. By the time conventions roll around, the candidates are firmly decided, as has been the case since at least 1968.
Do you think that Obama and McCain are not the candidates of their parties? Is there a real chance that they will not receive the nominations pro forma?
If there is such a chance, then a convention might play a useful role. Without such a chance, they represent expensive political theater that is tedious, boring, and filling air time that could better be spent broadcasting almost anything else.
Comments are Closed
