Party animals in Denver

The Nation magazine is doing excellent "unconventional" coverage of the Convention on their website including blog posts, videos, and articles. On this video, festivitas-expert and Nation writer, Ari Berman, explains that lots of the action outside the convention happens outside the main events, and that lobbyists and big companies abound. In this regard, a political Convention in the United States is not dissimilar to the Olympics, as somthing with a higher purpose that is irrisistably good for business.

In the clip, Ari introduces The Most Powerful Man in Denver (You've Never Heard Of), a man named Steve Farber who is a lobbyist and chief fundraiser for the Democratic Convention. Obama says he is opposed to special interest funding, but he obviously hasn't been able to change how the entire political machine works overnight. The total budget of the Convention must be astronomical.

 

The Convention itself is totally scripted, and the predictability is partly what makes it more of a ceremony than a real political conversation. I met one of the speech writers, who says they have a team of writers who will be sitting behind the stage in "the pit" editing and writing politicians' submitted speeches before they go on stage. There are strict time limits they must adhere to, and they must submit their speeches in writing for editing first. I imagine it will be somewhat like the Oscar's except the people coming up to give the speeches won't be as drunk.

However, the Convention is making strong 'gestures' towards democracy and inclusion of the American people, which is nice. Unfortunately it seems less a matter of principal, than something that seems good for publicity, given how Obama is currently on the up and up. House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, says in one of the introductory webcasts, that this year's convention is "almost without walls" given how much they will be interacting with the public in Denver and on the internet.

I hope once I'm there, my faith in the US political process may be restored, but national politics here generally seem to be more about saying the right thing than doing it. With 5000 delegates and 15,000 members of the press, clearly this whole show is about publicity more than anything. There are so many gross imperfections in the political system that voters simply seem to have come to terms with and lost hope of changing. It's doesn't make it easier that those who could change it, stand to gain by allowing the status quo to persist.

But I suppose that is the case mostly everywhere, in all countries.

This article is published by , and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it without needing further permission, with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. These rules apply to one-off or infrequent use. For all re-print, syndication and educational use please see read our republishing guidelines or contact us. Some articles on this site are published under different terms. No images on the site or in articles may be re-used without permission unless specifically licensed under Creative Commons.

Comments

Kanishk Tharoor
27 August 2008 - 10:50am
Interesting about the scripted nature of the "spectacle". Todd Gitlin has a good post on the Harpers' blog about how the convention used to be of far greater importance in the past: "Politics everywhere involves pageantry, then. But the United States threw open the gates to special, gaudy adventures in pageantry. It aspired from its inception to democratize the spectacle of power." Those were the conventions of the 19th century and much of the 20th. Now the "spectacle of power" is being commercialised, as you've already noted.

Post new comment

  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <h2> <h3> <div> <span> <blockquote> <!--break--> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <hr> <table> <td> <tr> <img> <map>
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.

More information about formatting options