Click here for info on the Print Journal (and to purchase your copy)!

Just 97 Days Left: Convention Blues

By Mark Grueter

Everybody knows that political conventions these days aren’t nearly as interesting or as relevant as they once were (or as they damn well ought to be). Originally, they served to actually elect presidential candidates, and the speeches weren’t so tightly scripted - nor did the speakers rely exclusively on vague, unprovocative language to make their point, assuming they had one. Today’s party-fixers are now determined to put on cheesy, dumbed-down infomercials instead of debates, to take total, freakish control of the event, and to make sure all who address the delegates keep things “positive” and as showy and phony as possible.

Colorful, controversial, vivid and divisive speeches came to an end after Pat Buchanan’s address to the Republican convention in 1992, in which he argued that there was a “cultural war going on for the soul of this country” – a statement that is in many ways true. But by pointing out a division, Buchanan erred, and by cracking jokes (the Democratic convention delegates were “cross-dressers” and Bill Clinton’s experience in foreign policy “amounted to having once had breakfast at the International House of Pancakes”), Buchanan committed the ultimate sin of potentially alienating voters.

The only exciting speaker on Tuesday night was Barack Obama - something every other jerk covering this event is sure to mention. But he wasn’t exactly daring or fascinating, hitting home on the redundant themes of optimism, positivism, and unity like a pro.

So here’s the question: If party organizers believe they’re making conventions more user-friendly, then why are less and less people bothering to pay attention to them? Despite the supposed increased interest in this year’s election, network ratings have plummeted from what they were in 2000 – that election being, until November 2nd anyway, one of the most dreadfully boring campaigns ever. Growing competition from cable networks certainly contributes to this, but it’s not as if the cable shows are doing well with their convention coverage either.

People used to pay attention to conventions because real stories were actually unfolding. The element of unpredictability always generated public interest and enthusiasm. Party delegates went to conventions specifically to fight with each other over their differences. That’s what politics is supposed to be about and it can be engaging and thought-provoking when it is. Conventions could be spontaneous, and these elements helped engage the public imagination. The now dominant trend of ignoring our differences, glossing them over in favor of scripting everything, is disturbing and probably self-defeating, especially if one believes as I do in the absolute necessity of removing Bush. The collision of ideas will strengthen, not weaken, a political party. So I was glad to hear that Ralph Nader may actually attempt to get into the Fleet Center tomorrow.

I did find it somewhat interesting that Ron Reagan’s speech promoting embryonic stem-cell research on Tuesday night neglected to make reference to Alzheimer’s disease (not to mention to his dad), the very plague that obviously got him interested in his subject matter in the first place. There was, however, much discussion of diabetes, Parkinson’s, lymphoma, spinal cord injuries, “and much more” that might be cured with this new science. So was he trying to avoid any associations to the former president for (needlessly self-censoring) PR reasons, or did he leave it off the list because the science on curing that particular disease isn’t quite as promising as it is with the others? Or is it something else?

In the press tents they release the transcripts of speeches a few hours before they’re delivered. After first reading Ron’s, it was unsettling to listen to him actually act it out. It was as if he was trying to make it seem like an improvisation, while knowing full well that many in the television audience often forget that he’s merely reading from a teleprompter. I don’t believe anyone has intentionally gone off script at all, which only of course adds to the mindless boredom that defines this thing.

At this point I’m not sure there’s any reason to attend the convention at all. One gets a better view on TV than from the balcony and inside the hall there’s no comfortable place to just hang out, watch the show and write. And there’s very little in the way of free shit; the prices for food and refreshment are a crime of themselves. And everything is so goddamned dysfunctional anyway. Because the subway line is shut down, the convention wizards claim to be operating shuttle buses to the various locations holding events related to the convention throughout the town. We waited for one for about 30 minutes before giving up. It was as if the planners sat around and asked themselves, ‘Okay, how can we make this experience as inconvenient and as unpleasant as possible for the working press?’ With all the security and multiple forms of exclusion, it’s just an all-around bad vibe. Brushing shoulders with relatively famous people gets old after about 3 minutes.

The only entertainment and interest comes from these events surrounding the event, accompanied by the resulting interaction of different factions of people within the city. I attended a protest event on the Boston Common Tuesday afternoon that featured the usual cast of leftist malcontents. I was shown a demonstration of how a car can be run via vegetable oil and later I listened to a half-educated debate between a “Marxist” and an “anarchist” – these discussions are always very satisfying, nothing quite like them. It’s more fun and informative to mix it up with the delegates, reporters and activists outside the scene than it is to bother with the Convention itself.

Mark Grueter is a writer living in New York City. He can be contacted here.

© 2004 Me Three