29
Jul
Democracy, Not Quite Down to a Science
Externalities.
That’s what the media pros in the political big leagues call events and forces beyond their control.
And for all the careful scripting, prepackaging, word-smithing, image-shaping, and gesture choreography apparent here at the DNC — exerted in a rigidly disciplined manner over every speaker, every delegate, every sign, every ‘message’ and literally every aspect of the confab — that’s what will determine the forthcoming election.
Despite the record-setting amounts of money both parties have already raised and spent, mostly on television and radio advertising (a combined total of about two million dollars a week was recently being shoveled out the door to local broadcasters and cable networks) and despite the near-maniacal exercises in control being exerted by the Kerry camp here in Boston (and soon to be exerted by the Bush forces in Manhattan), nasty and rude “externalities” are about to intrude.
But first comes tonight’s coronation.
To no one’s surprise, the conventional run up has thus far been without surprises. Modern campaigning has become so much less of an art and more of a science over the past few decades that it’s now been reduced to formula.
Think paint-by-numbers, connect-the dots . . . one reason the networks have decided largely to skip the proceedings, despite millions of viewers who are seeking coverage — and finding it on PBS and cable.
Think, in the poet Ed Dorn’s phrase, of the “kiwanis enthusiasm” emanating from the convention floor.
Think, as Republican Senator Mitch McConnell complained, of the disguised attacks on Bush that are “vile with a smile,” or, as Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter spun it, think instead if you prefer of the art of “drawing contrasts without drawing blood.”
Think, if only for a moment, of the of the Al Jazeera skybox sign that threatened to spoil the Party’s party and ‘mysteriously’ disappeared…
Think, finally, of the simple fact that the entire text of the Pledge of Allegiance is carefully displayed on the teleprompter so as to ensure that no Democrat will choke at the podium, forget the words, and throw a lifesaver to the flagging Bush campaign!
So John Edwards — a wonderfully fervent stump speaker whose seeming spontaneity on the primary campaign trail allowed him to connect on a visceral level with crowds of voters, and almost led to his snatching the nomination from John Kerry — instead gave a flat, hollowed-out version of his stump speech last night. Not that Edwards was bad — the speech, while not a home run, was still a solid double or triple — but his overriding concern was simply not to make a mistake.
Think damage control. Think how even the ‘red meat’ speeches that preceded Edwards on earlier days, from the likes of Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean, “wrapped invective in a veil of misdirection,” as Todd Purdum put it in the Times today.
So it was left to Al Sharpton, who is probably constitutionally incapable of speaking from a written text, to jazz up the audience by throwing out his script and riffing and rapping like a master.
But even an ‘out of control’ and ‘unscripted’ Sharpton was no doubt part of the overall script, and the Kerry Camp was happy enough to posit Al as the exception that merely proves the rule.
Tonight there will be more of the same. Every step John Kerry takes, every move he makes, every image in the Spielberg-assisted film biography/hagiography that will tell the story of his life in nine-and-a-half moving minutes, all will be carefully staged until the coronation is complete.
Then, after the Packaging Police in the Convention Control Room can no longer shape our every perception, those events and forces beyond the humid confines of the fetid Fleet Center will start to kick in.
Instead of Obama, think Osama . . . Iraq . . . terror on the trains . . . the economy, stupid . . . airplanes that might pierce a crystal blue sky to shatter our buildings and lives at virtually any moment and betray our illusions — our mass hallucination — that we, that anyone, is really in control.
Externalities.

















Well, I think you’re wrong. Conventions are rituals which are by are deliberately ordered and designed to breakdown boundaries between individuals and create an experience communal mergence in a transcendent reality. Thinking of this only as sheep-hearding mind control is evidence of your own submission to the idealogy of extreme individuality. I don’t think those covering this convention can understand it, do it justice or evaluate its potential for creative renewal (the aim of all ritual)only by
July 29th, 2004 at 1:32 pmanalyzing the onvention’s script and production values. It’s important to join the audience, surrender to the experience, in order to reflect and write usefully on effect.
An intriguing piece. Why, I wonder, did you not inlcude in the externalities that will bedevil us the fiscal train wreck that both parties have historically & accretively made damned near inevitable?
July 29th, 2004 at 1:40 pmGreat piece. I wonder why spend millions on conventions when only a few in America want to be part of them.
The comment by “cs” is as good of a verbal diarrhea as I ever read.
July 29th, 2004 at 2:25 pmAnother George — Hmmm. Verbal diarrhea, interesting metaphor. Especially when O’Connor’s theme is illusory control. Let me put it in terms you might more readily understand — a clenched sphincter doesn’t help. Loosen up.
July 29th, 2004 at 2:46 pmI think both CS and Another George have a point. As a communal re-invigoration of the party, it would make sense that no media coverage nor skeptical attendance at the event can grok whatever it is the faithful participants are taking away from what looks from the outside like fully-scripted, lock-step overenthusiasm. But at the same time, it would be so refreshing to see the party truly break from some traditions to acknowledge change in the country and the world over the years that conventions have been held. There must be methods of “creative renewal” that would invigorate more of the party’s supporters outside that room.
In addition, this seems a waste of an opportunity to provide something new, refreshing, an event that hints that the election — and the day after the election — will not be political business as usual.
July 29th, 2004 at 3:02 pmThanks, Adam S. Your point is interesting. I’ve been watching conventions since 1952 (my parents bought our first tv for the first convention broadcast), so I have a residual experience to draw upon that helps me enter into the ritual experience, I guess. I wonder if the delegates or viewing audience could take a retrospective on the parties’ pasts just now. Republicans would have to deal with their bouts of extremism — something they’re trying mightily to disguise just now; Democrats would have to deal the floor fight over seating Fannie Lou Hamer and the Mississippi Democratic Freedom delegation, Mayor Dailey’s Chigago in 1968. And they’d both have to address the growing artifice that has marked the conventions since those years. I kind of doubt we’re there yet. But it’s hopeful to think we might be down the road . . .
July 29th, 2004 at 4:08 pmOne quick note from Rory here–I love the feedback and the interactivity, but I’m not a fan of namecalling or vituperation — even if it’s not directed at me. Bottom line: it’s okay to ‘accuse’ one another of a transgression like ‘extreme individuality,” as cs put itinitially, but I’m not so sure about ‘verbal diarrhea.”
July 29th, 2004 at 4:52 pmRory — My apologies. I’m usually more diplomatic than that, and upon re-reading can see that my tone may have contributed to that of Another George.
July 29th, 2004 at 6:29 pm