Read the op-ed article. How are conventions different than they used to be? Why did they change? What are the pros&cons to change? What is the irony of the convention in terms of courting voters? To what extent to modern conventions undermine democracy? How do you see conventions evolving in the future?
21 Comments
Evan Eberhardt
9/4/2012 10:00:50 am
Joe Nocera argues in his article, “They’re Not What They Used to Be,” that National Conventions have changed greatly from what they were before the 1960s. Back then, they were “essentially a huge fight, with cajoling and horse-trading and balloting that could go on into the wee hours” instead of an “exercise in public relations.” National Conventions are now the opposite of what they used to be. They have changed because the Democrats changed the rules in response to a debacle in 1968 in which the nominee was chosen despite not entering any primaries. Now the conventions have ceased to have a sense of being a decision-making body. The pros to this are that the flaws have been removed from conventions and that we have been given several good presidents from this new system. The cons, however, are that the compromise of old-style conventions has been removed and current conventions only enforce the views of the hard-liners. Ironically the conventions that are meant to convince people to support a nominee don’t do their job because the hard-liners already have their minds made up and the undecided people probably aren’t watching the convention. This undermines democracy in a way because compromise, a necessary element to governing, has been removed, and the previously decisive conventions no longer do their old job of convincing people to support a nominee as a candidate for president. In the future, these conventions will probably stagnate in the state they are in now, because people don’t see a reason to change it and not enough people remember how it used to be to know the difference.
Reply
Wendy Maxson
9/4/2012 11:21:02 am
In his article "They're Not What They Used to Be", Joe Nocera expresses his belief that political conventions have dramatically changed. “Up until 1960” the conventions were a competition between the Republican and Democrat candidates. Right then and there, the nominees would be decided on by the audience. The conventions that are viewed on television today no longer decide anything, but are more of a glamorous hype for the already decided nominees. Conventions took a dramatic turn when Vice President Hubert Humphrey was nominated at a convention without one entrance into the primaries. This was seen as unfair to the Eugene McCarthy who was succeeding in the primaries. The Democrats then “established a special commission” which in effect made primaries the major way to become nominated. The irony of the newly formulated conventions is that the only people who intently watch the conventions are firmly decided Republicans and Democrats. The candidates are essentially spending billions to grasp the votes of the people who don’t actually watch the conventions. In the future I think that the nominees will have less hardships to speak of in their speeches because the sufferings and economic struggles of today are not like they used to be. I also think that the conventions will become more advertised and forced onto even the “undecideds” to watch with the rapid advancement of technology.
Reply
Tim Krausz
9/4/2012 11:59:33 am
According to Joe Nocera in the article "They're Not What They Used to Be," both the form and the function of the presidential nominating convention have changed. Today, conventions are scripted rallies with the purpose of nominating the all too obvious Presidential candidates and their running mates. Fifty years past, however, saw the convention as a critical tool in the nominating process, where nominees would be decided through tense hours of voting. The shift in the convention policy occurred after Hubert Humphrey was chosen as the V.P. candidate in 1968 regardless of the fact that he did not participate in the primary elections. A commission of Democrats then took it upon themselves to change the rules to favor the primaries as the method to establish a nominee. With this change came a more direct process of selecting nominees, where the deciding power was given to the citizens. Nonetheless, the conventions of the past forced candidates to run on a platform of compromise. Now, potential candidates can appeal directly to the voters on as far left or right a platform as they desire, while not inclined to give any ground in order to score support. Due to the changes, the modern convention has, furthermore, lost its function of rallying voters behind their candidate (a piece of irony that costs nearly $68 million in government funds). Moreover, the new conventions undermine democracy in their elimination of the need for compromise. When the extremes are given control, the other side will always suffer. Compromise allows both sides to suffer while benefiting at the same time, which is key. I predict the future of conventions will not be long. Soon, enough powerful people will realize that the waste of conventions outweighs the benefits, and the convention system of today will wither and die.
Reply
Nicole LeMieux
9/4/2012 02:13:55 pm
In Joe Nacera's article, "They're Not What They Used To Be", he argues that political conventions have shifted from what they once were. Nacera comments on the presence of more journalists than delegates at the Republican National Convention. This is just an example of how greatly conventions have evolved, as Nacera suggests, for the worse. Conventions used to be a crucial part of the election of the Presidential candidate and their running mate, and today they have become public spectacles, in which people with no political background, i.e. Clint Eastwood, are welcome to come and preach to the attendees about why they consider the candidate worthy of the Presidency. Upon the date of the convention, it is a well-known fact who the candidates will be, declaring such a candidate has become a mere formality. Conventions changed over the years as society changed, and as the general public became more involved in the democratic process, the nature of conventions became less crucial to the election of a candidate. Now, conventions are used to pull a few electoral votes that could potentially make a difference in the outcome of the upcoming election. This could be viewed as a positive change, as it allows candidates to make a strong stance and sway voters, but it can also be seen negatively, because candidates are scrutinized so closely and every discrepancy in their performance is blown up to infinite proportions. Modern day conventions have become an event rather than a political gathering. People tune in on their televisions, and casually watch the flurry of speeches and arguments, and these viewers are significantly less impacted by the electoral fervor than they once were. This could be a statement on the evolution of society, but it can also stand as an example of the conventions' failure to have any real purpose. Modern conventions undermine democracy because rather than including the opinions of the general population, they showcase the biased opinions of those directly involved with that particular party. They present a point of view that is highly subjective, and can border on the absurd. Delving back to Clint Eastwood's self-written monologue at the 2012 Republican National Convention; can something like that really be considered fodder for intellectual thought? I do not think so. Conventions will continue to evolve in the future, hopefully regaining some of their original authenticity and purpose. If electoral conventions continue on being as pointless as they are now, they will dissolve into history as yet another political process that is no longer in use.
Reply
Catalina Jacobo
9/5/2012 08:20:54 am
In this article "They're not what they use to be" By Joe Nocera talks about how things have changed in the political world. Things are now different because for people who are running they get more fame rather than us paying attention to their motives for getting elected. For example now a days its about getting people excited on who's running or who they've chosen to run. In 1960 they were huge fights on who was running and the parites would have conversations on the subject. in 1972 George McGovern started to use the new rules to win his party. I perstonaly can't say I have a strong opinion on this article because I haven't been putting much attention to politicla things. I can say that I do notice it is more about getting us excited, but isn't that the point? We get excited so that we know who we will vote for.
Reply
Alexa Frankel
9/5/2012 12:43:15 pm
Joe Nocera of the New York Times writes an interesting editorial discussing how national political conventions have changed. Forty years or more ago, the function of conventions was to actually determine the candidate to represent their political party. Nowadays, conventions serve to formally introduce a candidate who has already been determined by its' parties' primaries. The delegates 'casting of votes' is purely a formality today. A disadvantage to the previous system of electing the candidates at the actual site of the convention was that debates could get very contentious and heated. However this method also encouraged a lot more compromise, which prevented candidates with extreme or fringe views from securing the nomination. These days the conventions are highly scripted and the nominations are pre-determined by the primaries. So the conventions themselves have become extraordinarily expensive and tediously long. An advantage of the way conventions are held currently is in the way they provide opportunities to hear from multiple national figures. There was an especially memorable convention, which was in 1968 when Vice President Hubert Humphrey urged the Democratic party to put new rules into place. I believe in the future, conventions will become even larger "parties" than they have today. Huge celebrations to celebrate the USA : )
Reply
Sarah Gamble
9/6/2012 09:41:04 am
In Joe Nocera's article, "They're Not What They Used to Be," Nocera reminisces about a time when party conventions were not merely a guise of nominating candidates. Today, party conventions have become "pep rallies" held simply to invoke within society a passion and excitement for their candidates that will carry them into the “voting box” in firm support of their candidate. In the past however, conventions were not a guise, but were rather the actual time when the true process of selecting a candidate began. According to Nocera, conventions were once not critically scripted but rather entailed a "huge fight." However, this changed when Vice President Hubert Humphrey was nominated in 1968, even though he hadn’t entered any of the primaries. This cataclysm upset some members and a commission was set up to discuss the issue. The rules changed so that primaries became the way to select delegates. The “huge fights” of the convention disappeared along with it the compromise the system demanded. With the old style conventions, “party bosses” were also not willing to solidly support candidates when the scale could so easily be tipped either way. Today, as the Democrats begin their convention, the sad irony is that as millions of dollars are spent putting on the “pep rally” in hopes of capturing the “undecided” voters, most of them will not be watching. I don’t see conventions evolving in the near future unless there is a catastrophic disaster involving the nomination of the candidates. At the present, society seems content to watch South Park and be kept up to date by reading headlines about Clint Eastwood and his now infamous chair. Until there is a demand from society, I do not see conventions changing in the near future.
Reply
Richard Hoppe
9/6/2012 01:17:35 pm
In Joe Nacera's article, "They're Not What They Used To Be", he states that conventions are no where near where they used to be. Conventions before the 1960 used to be a "huge fight", now they are looked at as a public relation activity. Conventions started to change as society started to change aswell, as the human population got more interested into the debates and primary talks. There are positive and negative looks on the 2000's conventions due to the fact of overwhelming technology and a line full of journalists. Was the Solo interview with Clint Eastwood a good move? Time will tell us if that was a negative or a positive for Romney. The conventions also changed when Hubert Humphrey was chosen as the V.P. candidate in 1968 regardless of the fact that he did not participate in the primary elections. The democrats later changed the rules to favor the primaries. Modern conventions are not so much like a democracy, the two sides will never agree on anything and one side will make a mistake which leads to another argument. Its a never ending cycle of disagreeing and not getting along. Where a democracy is hard to run and it takes time, but eventually people learn to mold together and get along so a country works out. I have to disagree with Tim K on the fact that he thinks people will realize how much money we waste on conventions and they will die out. I believe conventions will continue to grow and become more popular for journalist and not die down in the near future. Maybe one day in the far future, conventions can have a true meaning like they did in the 1960's to past.
Reply
Nancy Hernandez
9/6/2012 02:47:16 pm
In the article, "They're Not What They Used to Be," Joe Nocera expresses his opinion on how the National conventions have shifted in purpose since the 1960's. About fifty years ago, parties would select their nominees for the president and vice president at the conventions where there was still a sense of a "decision making body. Nocera says the were essentially a "huge fight" and "balloting" that lasted hours rather than "an exercise in public relations." Back then, Americans tunned in to the national convention to see who would become the next candidate for their party, where as now they evoke tension and accelerate the viewers to vote. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, only it does contradict the idea of not spending any more of the tax payers money on things we don't entirely need. Of course every side has its pros and cons. In this case, the positive side of having national conventions is so that undecided individuals can get enlightened by the candidates ideas and hopefully get make a decision on who they are going to vote for. The last time conventions had a meaningful purpose, according to Nocera, was in 1968. That convention chose Vice President Hubert Humphrey as its nominee, even though he hadn't even entered the primaries. As a result, the Democrats changed the rules so that the primaries became the ideal way to nominate candidates. The irony of this is that the people who are watching the conventions usually already have a their mind set on who they are going to vote for, while the people who don't know are doing something. The purpose is to sway voters but how are they supposed to enlighten them with their ideas I'd the undecided Americans aren't even watching? These present day conventions undermine democracy because we have eliminated the need to compromise. I think conventions in a way mirror how our society has evolved and what it is that we are trying to accomplish. It is hard to say with all the technogy advancements;however one thing is for certain, candidates will keep trying to sway voters and will keep spending tax-payers money to gain the votes of people at whatever cost. All the candidates want is to see who is supporting them and how they can convince the remaining to remember them on Election day.
Reply
Hugo Hernandez
9/6/2012 02:19:19 pm
In the article "They're not what they used to be", by New York Times columnist Joe Nocera, Nocera expresses his concerned thoughts over the superficiality of modern day political conventions and their underlying purpose. He states that they have changed for the worse, and recalls a time when conventions weren't just merely scripted rallies for hype, but rather a meaningful essential part of the presidential nominating process. Nocera takes us back to 1968 when one may argue was the turning point for political conventions, when vice president Hubert humphreys was nominated at a convention without first being admitted into the primaries. This was viewed as unjust for Eugene McCarthy who had done fairly well In the primaries, forcing the delegates to "establish a special comission" which shapes political conventions today. This however, has not been totally bad, as it has granted us with great presidents before, it's just that maybe the approximated $68 million spent may not be worth it. If what nominees are trying to do are reach the un-decided voters, a convention might not be the best place for it, because most likely don't even bother enough to watch it anyways.
Reply
Emily O'Kelly
9/6/2012 03:42:06 pm
In the NY Times article, “They’re Not What They Used to Be”, Joe Nocera compares the modern political conventions to those of the past. Nocera states that the conventions used to have a solid purpose, to determine which candidates would be selected from the nominees. Now, Nocera believes, the conventions are just an opportunity for the previously chosen candidates to put on their best smile and tell the world how great they are. Nocera comically adds that the political gatherings “aren’t worth our tax money”, and concludes that they have simply lost their appeal. Nocera notes that in 1960, political gatherings were a chance for the world to have a front-row seat at the heated debates delivered from both parties. Republican and Democratic nominees would go at it in front of journalists and viewers alike, and after these discussions were settled, the viewers would help choose the reigning candidate. Conventions nowadays, Nocera believes, simply aren’t “what they used to be.” Nocera’s comical tone allows the article to achieve a sense of sarcasm, and his point that the conventions are turning into nothing but glamorous, money-wasting parties is quite obvious. I can see how these conventions are used to establish certainty among voters, however I don’t think they are worth the amount of money taxpayers are shelling out. Unfortunately, I see these political meetings leaning further towards the “glamorous party” side of the spectrum rather than the “purposeful debate” end. We’ll see what the USA has in store; you never know what can happen in politics. ☺
Reply
Viridiana Delgado
9/6/2012 04:01:41 pm
In the article "They're Not What They Used to Be," by Joe Nocera argues conventions have changed over the years, and aren't what they used to be. According to Nocera in the 1960's political conventions used to be "huge fights" other than now that they are "an exercise in public relations." There are both pros and cons in this situation, what is so great about this is that people will be able to hopefully pay attention to the candidates and get an idea on who they want to vote for. The irony of this, is that the people that don't know whats really going on with the candidates and convention aren't really paying attention to whats going on. While the people who have their mind set, are the ones more involved and are watching. I truly believe people should be more involved rather than not. In the future, conventions will only continue to change, for better or for worse, still to find out. One thing is for certain conventions will grow, but hopefully people will be able to get more meaning out of it like they used to in the 60's.
Reply
Martha Lopez
9/6/2012 04:29:24 pm
In the article "They're Not What They Used to Be," by Joe Nocera expresses that politcal conventions are different than they used to be because you could be nominated for president or vice-president you have to wait hours and it was a huge fight with democrants and republicans on choose their candidate. Today the parties work to eliminate any evidence of debate within their part, and it is full of marketing and speeches. They change because it was to give more power, and stop debates to know who it will be the candidate. Today the primary system has allowed the two parties to be captured by their more extreme elements.
Reply
Knute Meyer
9/6/2012 04:38:35 pm
In Joe Nacera's article, "They're Not What They Used To Be", Nacera discusses how conventions have changed over the years. Since the 1960s conventions have become “an exercise of public relations” rather than a “huge fight” of which they used to consist of. Society since then has become more of intrigued with speeches and debates which is why this drastic change has occurred. There are many pros and cons between the old system and the new. The old system demanded compromise which is essential for governing, and parties weren’t willing to invest in candidates who weren’t mainstream. The two parties will never see eye to eye and will disagree with everything each proposes. Conventions now a days show the views of the “hard-liners.” It is basically an ongoing issue of arguing which just waste time and money and nothing gets done. The irony of the convention in terms of courting voters is that the candidates are virtually wasting their time trying to convince people who have already made up their minds. In the future I think conventions will be based more on personality and charisma, rather than the actual content the party members are presenting.
Reply
Daniel Gonzalez
9/6/2012 04:54:21 pm
In the New York Times article, “They’re Not What They Used to Be”, Joe Nocera, states a difference in the conventions on how they were before, because back in the 1960's the candidates were fighting for their place in the elections, while in todays world, all that the candidates do is talk bad about each other and really not say what they will do that makes them a better candidate than their opponent. I'm guessing they changed ways, because It's always easier to be talking bad about someone else, than trying to promote something that you want to show to the people. Some pros of the change would be that now the candidates are really stepping in to really show who they really are and what makes them different form their opponent, but the cons are that they aren't really being themselves. There mostly just selling propaganda to the people so that they'll be voting for them when the elections arrive. The ironic part about the convention, like the writer said is that people that already made up their mind wont pay attention to the convention because they know what they want, but then the people who really don't know would just watch something else like the MTV Music Video Awards. I think on how modern democracy works in conventions is that they will try their best to get their candidate nominated, by doing anything they can. That they will talk bad about the other group, or how they will look down at what all the good things the other group did and wont mention it so the viewers wouldn't know, especially the uneducated voters, but it wouldn't matter because they would be watching the VMA's right now. I think that conventions aren't going to get better in the future. It's really just going to be two people going faec to face and just dissing each other until the people choose who is the victor and the loser.
Reply
Jose Armando Hernandez
9/6/2012 04:58:39 pm
I don't know much about the Democratic/ Republican National Conventions, but I too believe presidential nomination conventions have dramatically changed over the half decade. According to Joe Nocera in his New York Times article, "They're Not What They Used to Be", he believes the purposes of conventions have downgraded since 1968. The year Hubert Humphrey, a democratic nominee, was chosen as the vice president candidate although he never actually participated in the primary elections. But before 1968, the nominees were elected by the people, the audiences. In the present era, the people no longer decide, but just watch and listen to the "already" decided nominees. Ironically this convention has cost the tax payer's about $68 million on a convention people would probably miss to watch a football game. One day i believe the conventions will return to its more functional purpose.
Reply
Daniel Gonzalez
9/6/2012 05:05:40 pm
I WANTED TO BE LAST!
Reply
Lola Behrens
9/7/2012 09:49:40 am
In his article, "They're Not What They Used to Be," Joe Nocera compares modern political conventions to the conventions of the our nation's past. Currently, conventions cost millions upon millions of dollars and stream live to the internet, to television, and are heard on the radio. The in-your-face conventions of today, like the Republican National Convention of last week and this week's Democratic National Convention, are nothing at all like the conventions from the 30's, 40's, or 50's. They were substantially more private and were the process by which a party would choose its presidential and vice presidential candidates. However, with societal changes, presumably the changes induced by social media (i.e. the internet, television... etc.), the people became more involved in the conventions, making them a public affair. On one hand, this allows an opportunity for more people to become involved in the campaign process by tuning in via TV, internet, or radio. However, this has also changed the conventions into less of a decision-making process, and into a heated rally where one party spends too much time belittling their opposers, and not enough time full addressing what they can do for the country. Nocera addresses another important issue with the conventions: the voters they attract. He points out that the conventions no longer attract the proactive, serious voters who could actually make an impact on the polls, because those same voters aren't interested in watching a convention that caters to mudslinging instead of addressing serious topics. To a certain extent, the modern day conventions do very little for democracy, because democracy, as we know, revolves around the people. In order to have a thriving democracy, a nation must have educated voters who are aware of the implications of their vote. Because of this, conventions that center around "the views of the hard-liners" (Nocera), aren't effective in informing the masses. Hopefully, the future will restore conventions to what they once were: a decision making process, versus multimillion dollar "three-day party" (Nocera). However, at this point in our society, it doesn't seem incredibly likely that our nation will see that change any time soon.
Reply
Helena Fontana
9/13/2012 03:52:49 am
The New York Times published an article called "They're Not What They Used to Be", the article was written by Joe Nocera. He is comparing and contrasting the differences between political conventions in present times and conventions that date back to presidents like Frankiln Roosevelt in the 1930's. Nocera points out to the reader that each convention that takes place is costing our government over eight million dollars. Along with costing us taxpayers over fifty million dollars. He states that "Conventions, not primaries, were the process by which the parties selected there nominees for president and vice president." Where as in present day candidates can choose their nominees without entering primaries. Which in his opinoin I believe he finds some what disturbing. A man named Henry Brady a dean at University of California, Berkely said "There was still little sense that the convention was a decision-making body." Joe Nocera explains that after Hurbet Humphrey was elected a nominee without accomplishing the primaries, the democrats changed the rules some so that primaries were the legit way to become a nominee.
Reply
9/14/2012 07:05:16 am
In his article it shows that the convention went from nominating the president and vice president all at once deciding who will take their place and making arguments, now you will know who the president and vice president will be before hand. Instead of everyone going to the conventions they are now making it easier to determine the nomanies. By the voters going to the convention it doesnt make a difference when theirs more than half the percentage sitting at home not voting therefore it is pointless to half a conventions.
Reply
Austin Hechler
9/18/2012 04:04:28 pm
According to Joe Nocera in the article "They're Not What They Used to Be," both the form and the function of the presidential nominating convention have changed. The original function of the Presidential nominating convention dates back to the 1800s where the candidates were to be elected by delegates elected by the people. Soon the democratization of presidential elections took the nominating function away from the people and the presidential primaries came into use. The shift in the convention policy happend after Huber Humphrey was picked as the V.P. candidate in 1968 even though he did not participate in the primary elections. The Democrats then took it upon themselves to change the rules. So that the primaries elect the nominee.Now conventions aren't even used to elect the presidential nominee. Rather the conventions are just a way for separate partys to trash talk one another while reading off a script. This is beneficial to those who base their vote off what they hear on the convention because there is no margin for failure. Everything is scripted and authors are paid big bucks to make sure each candidate looks like the absolute best leader for the United States. This new system however, rewards the candidate with the best author not the best plan for the country. The new system completely takes away from the actual candidate and so that the country can hear what it wants, so that the voters base their decision off some key points the nominee has and the sweet talk of their author. Nocera points out that the conventions waste much of the tax payers money because they dont attract the voters the candidate needs. Many views see the mudslinging and trash talking as time wasted, viewers would rather see each candidate address importent topics. To a certain extent the conventions do no justice to democracy because although the people are involved they are sweet talked and bamboozled into choosing their nominee. I believe that the conventions shouldn't be scripted because people eat the garbage the politicians feed us and cant see through to the true message each nominee carries. Unfortunately I do not see the system of the national conventions changing soon. There is way to much money and hype involved. In a way its each partys pep rally for what the basis of the party believes in. Like a pep rally everyone gets excited but all those watching dont know what the outcome will be or how their team or nominee will preform. You can only watch and hope for the best when its actually time to preform
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Mr. LPart teacher/part entertainer/ part coach/ part task master Archives
November 2014
Categories |