As Day 3 kicked off, that evening marked a critical moment in the Democratic National Convention (DNC), as speakers and delegates gather to share their vision for the future of the nation. Speeches and performances are expected to reach millions of voters all across the nation, and the stakes are undeniably high. Are they though?In the 21st century, political conventions seem to have transformed into much more symbolic than functional events, and it is on this basis that I can't help but question the broader implications of shifts in political mechanisms such as this. Nothing better encapsulates the core of this issue than voter engagement: only delegates, designated guests, and several mainstream media outlets are allowed to physically attend in the first place. Of course, the digital and multimedia evolution has allowed practically every registered voter to access the contents of national conventions in some shape or form– CNN or TikTok should do it. But while lying on your couch to admire Obama-style rhetoric on a Tuesday night can be quite entertaining, a deeper look is required into the true substance of these events.
Beyond a mere celebration meant to rally members of a party together, how closely do modern day political conventions adhere to their original purpose when founded? It certainly seems as though conventions today are largely symbolic. Unlike its predecessors early on in the American political scene, today's primary process essentially determines the nominee long before the convention is held. A major chunk of the convention is typically spent by politicians and personalities delivering powerful speeches meant to rally together and unite the party, and setting crucial tones and goals for the upcoming election. However, by no means does this make the DNC/RNC null in purpose; I wouldn't suggest America completely abolish this practice or even see it in a negative light. It's a powerful tool that can be used by both sides to show excitement, spur people of a party to spread some central message or vote, and establish a clear campaign message that brings together every member of said party.
Returning to my original point, however, are voters truly involved in the process, at least concerning these conventions in and of themselves? While the idea of a good political spectacle isn't inherently harmful to the democratic process, does its precedence over political substance chip away at the authenticity of the American voter's engagement? While these are questions that can be addressed in a variety of ways moving forward without having to remove the national conventions entirely, it's important to be able to notice the stark contrast between what would typically be expected from a national process meant to "nominate" through rigorous processes unique to the several nights of discourse.
Who knew Kamala Harris and Donald Trump would be nominated by the Democratic and Republican party, respectively, before the conventions? Everyone. Guarantees like these didn't happen much in the earlier days of national conventions. Fierce debates and spontaneous, unscripted argumentation had significant weighing power on the outcome by the end of the convention. This is pretty much diametrically opposite the staged concert-like celebrations we see today.
I don't think this is a problem unique to these conventions per se, but rather a broader political trend in the U.S. Beginning with radios and the first televised presidential debates and making its way all the way over to the AI-generated false political videos we see on Instagram Reels or X (formerlyTwitter) frequently today, politics is increasingly being packaged for media mass consumption– and it's more than just not being able to attend the national conventions. The way conventions today are more of a media event than an unplanned decision-making process tells of a larger issue in our political culture, at least in the way it is being presented to a majority of the voting population: the preference for appearance over substance.
Most of the real work– the heated debates, the research, delegate vote counts, the background communication –that goes into selecting a nominee has been done behind the scenes, and it feels as if the convention is left as a mere performance for speeches and some outdated relic or mannerism of a bygone era in American democracy, not yet fully adjusted to the new technological and social landscape of the 21st century. On a broader lens, this makes me question the inclusivity of our political system. American politics is systematically becoming a virtual and uninvolved activity, which I wouldn't attribute to any singular cause, but rather a tricky combination of Covid side effects, rapid tech innovations, easier access to mail-in votes, and the 33% of our voter population that don't bother to show up whether due to uncommitted political beliefs or for lack of interest.
It's important to note that a greater inclusion of voters into the internal workings of the nomination process and the scripted celebrations that certainly don't feel as impromptu as their origins aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. What's also not either-or is the unity of the individual parties and constructive dialogue surrounding key issues that need to be addressed more publicly. While most would disagree with this notion on the mere basis of potential detriments to the public judgment of the cooperation within a party, I would argue for having a substantial level of healthy debate at these events. At the end of the day, perspectives on a variety of topics vary wildly from one member to another even within a party, and it's important to address them rather than sweeping them under the rug for four days of (to some degree) staged celebrations.
No comments:
Post a Comment