A brief history of open nominating conventions
They once tossed aside presidents who seemed unlikely to win again.
For about 140 years, major parties chose their presidential candidates at nominating conventions. These events were the center of the action from the time they developed in the 1830’s until they were fully supplanted by primaries in the 1970’s. Delegates and power brokers made a real choice, rather than the current practice of formally endorsing the winner of the primaries.
Conventions chose a few great presidents (Lincoln, FDR), a few important ones (Polk, McKinley, Wilson, Eisenhower), some vice presidents who ascended to the top job (such as LBJ), and many one-term presidents who went down in history as relative nonentities.
A few were very bad. James Buchanan used to be historians’ consensus choice as the worst of all presidents. Vice President Andrew Johnson was chosen at the 1864 convention without enough thought, and disastrously ascended to the top job. In 1884 Republicans nominated James G. Blaine, whose corruption was so evident that a young Republican politico, Theodore Roosevelt, nearly bolted his party. (In the end TR choked down his doubts, endorsed Blaine, and saved his own career within the party. Blaine lost anyway, and TR eventually became a Republican president).
Occasionally, a great speaker like William Jennings Bryan stampeded a convention. (Democrats nominated him three times, and each time he lost in the fall.) Occasionally the stampede produced a selection that history regarded as wise. In 1940, Republicans surprisingly nominated Wendell Willkie, who unlike other Republicans was internationalist, not isolationist; he lost, but became a leader of the loyal opposition, supporting U.S. involvement in World War Two.
In the early years, delegates were seen as almost magically working the will of the people at large. In later years, they were recast as politicos in smoke-filled rooms making backroom deals, and reformers finally stripped their power in favor of direct primaries.
But by and large, the power brokers simply made safe choices. They wanted to win. They didn’t want to rock the boat. They picked centrist candidates. Sometimes even colorless candidates. They changed candidates, too. The two-term limit was a norm, not the law, but that hardly mattered when the party conventions repeatedly cut off presidents at one. If they didn’t like their own party’s president, or didn’t feel he could win again, delegates felt comfortable tossing him aside rather than giving an automatic pass to re-election.
Having nominated a candidate just a few months before election day—someone who was often a surprise, and sometimes little known—the parties then flew into action, staging mass parades and rallies and activating thousands of precinct captains to round up the votes to win.
It might have been better, and certainly more exciting, if conventions had chosen presidents who were more interesting than the likes of Benjamin Harrison or Warren Harding. But it is more in keeping with a republic that the selection of a president was about a system rather than this or that great man. The man more plainly served at the pleasure of the people, or at least of a large party.
Today, the conventions are the functional equivalent of the counting of electoral votes by Congress after each election: a ceremony rather a decisive event. When the conventions come this summer, much already will have happened—a Republican primary campaign dominated by the former president; a Democratic campaign that was a walk for the incumbent; and an early presidential debate that reminded many voters just why they find their choices so troubling.
At this writing, many Democrats are asking whether there might still be time to revert to the old model after what they saw as Biden’s disastrous debate. Others seem determined to press on. Most Republicans seem comfortable with their choice, despite his effort to overturn his 2020 election defeat. In another era, this might have been the time of year when party leaders might have been marshaling their forces to ensure a safe choice.
I fear we might be in a Humphrey Vs. Nixon moment, and I think we can blame this squarely on Joe Biden. The man has been running for President since the 80s and his damn desperate hubris and pride is keeping him on the ballot, instead of using good common sense to find the best candidate for the job.
Some implications here.
Maybe we'll see the return of the "smoke filled room" at the DNC. If they're going to change horses it needs to happen soon.