7-21-88 Thursday. The Democratic National Convention is over. Like Jeff Greenfield, a lawyer and journalist who covered the convention for ABC news, I’m a political junkie. I absorb the imagery, controversy, and personalities of political life. But to many Americans, apparently, the convention was a grand bore. Everyone knew in advance that the nominees would be Michael Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen [1921-2006], and even the anticipated tension between Dukakis and Jesse Jackson did not transpire. They announced early Monday, before the convention began, that they had patched up their differences and that Jackson would be a “member of the team”. This signalled [sic; should be “signaled”] to Jackson’s delegates that they should not be obstinate or divisive. The Democrats wanted to appear unified and strong going into the fall campaign against George [Herbert Walker] Bush. That they do. It was a well-orchestrated spectacle. There were few demonstrations, inside or outside the center; glossy signs were meticulously prepared and distributed; and the candidates and speakers did their best to stay on schedule so that the main speeches would appear during television’s “prime time”. Whoever organized this convention did a good job. It was like watching a four-day advertisement for the Democratic party.

What rankles me is the oft-repeated claim that the convention was boring. Early television ratings show that viewership was low. Anyone who reads this journal knows that I am critical of the popular intelligence. This supports my claim. When you think about it, politics—especially national politics—is the most important thing in our lives. It is the process by which we define and shape our collective destiny. It determines who gets what, when, and where. It establishes our relationship to other nations. It sets forth a vision of who we are, where we’ve been, and where we are going. Politics is the sum and substance of our social life, and our lives are nothing without society. But does this matter to most Americans? No. They would rather watch the Cosby Show or go to a movie. We live in a complacent age, an age in which people do not care about the laws under which they live, the leaders they have, or the policies that guide us. I’m ashamed to be a member of this society. [I would have been more at home in ancient Athens.]

I’m also rankled by the attitude of television executives. This evening, on Nightline, there was a discussion of the role of television at a political convention. Roone Arledge [1931-2002], the president of ABC news, said that the major political parties are in danger of losing television coverage because of the way they smooth over controversy and hide decisions from the viewing audience. During this discussion, it became clear what Arledge wants. He wants controversy, infighting, name-calling—the sort of thing that viewers get on afternoon talk shows like Donahue, Oprah Winfrey, and Geraldo. He wanted Jesse Jackson’s delegates to storm out of the convention center until they got their platform planks. He wanted boycotts, demonstrations, stalemates, booing, and filibusters. In short, he wanted action. This, as I said the other day, is the prevailing conception of news. News is controversy, dispute, emotion. It is not calm deliberation or compromise. I fear for this republic when there is not only viewer apathy but a combat mentality among our television executives. They put a premium on differences rather than on education and participation.

Lloyd Bentsen’s acceptance speech was pro forma, but I thought Michael Dukakis did a masterful job with his. He touched upon old Democratic themes, such as justice, equal opportunity, and family. He painted a vivid picture of the United States during a Dukakis-Bentsen administration. And he reached out to all of the traditional Democratic constituencies: organized labor, teachers, homosexuals, Hispanics, Native Americans, the handicapped, small-business owners, the young, and the elderly. This is dangerous, because the Democrats are known as the party of special interests, but Dukakis managed to emphasize community and family, both of which are unifying themes. The best part of the speech, strategically, was to portray the Republicans as the party of selfish individualism. The Republican ideal is single individuals, making it on their own, without assistance of or interference by government. In contrast, the Democratic ideal is a partnership between the individual and the state. This may not sell well in some quarters, but I find it attractive.