Founding Fathers Would Be Amazed

When Bill Clinton and Bob Dole accept their party conventions’ presidential nominations, they will be adhering to tradition that is almost as old as the republic - but not quite.

If George Washington suddenly reappeared on Earth and witnessed the tumultuous political proceedings in San Diego and Chicago this month, he undoubtedly would disapprove of the way Americans have ignored his admonition against “the baneful effects of the spirit of party.”

In the public mind, Washington’s Farewell Address, which first appeared in print 200 years ago next month, is known for its warning against “permanent alliances” with foreign nations. But that impressive document contained an equally strong argument against the perils of the “spirit of party.”

“It serves always to distract public councils and enfeeble the public administration,” said Washington. “It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection.”

Unlike Washington, Thomas Jefferson might be understanding of the public’s adherence to the “spirit of party.” He, after all, was the founder of the Republican-Democratic Party, which is considered the forerunner of our current Democratic Party.

A strong advocate of states’ rights, he also would look with favor on the efforts of some of today’s politicians to shift responsibilities from the federal government to the states.

He probably would be impressed by the fact that Bob Dole carries with him a copy of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which decrees that the states retain those powers not specifically delegated to the federal government.

But none of the Founding Fathers ever went to a party convention. Most would be shocked by the carnival atmosphere and exaggerated rhetoric that typify political gatherings whose serious task is to choose a presidential candidate.

In their day, presidential nominees were chosen by members of Congress meeting in caucus.

It wasn’t until the election of 1832 that candidates were selected in convention. It was then that the Democrats met in Baltimore to nominate Andrew Jackson for a second term.

That same year, an emerging political group called Whigs met, also in Baltimore, to adopt 10 resolutions that are considered the first party platform.

From then on, the concept of convention flourished.

Conventions have chosen some great candidates and even more not-so-great candidates.

By 1860, the Whig Party, like the Federalists, had faded into history, and the issue of slavery had cleaved a deep division within the republic.

It was then that the newly created Republican Party staged a convention that changed the course of the nation. Meeting in Chicago, delegates named Abraham Lincoln as their presidential nominee.

A foe of slavery, Lincoln opposed its spread into the North and West but did not advocate its abolition in the South. Still, Southerners were so agitated by his election that seven states seceded from the Union even before Lincoln was inaugurated.

The 1912 conventions of both parties had an important impact on American history. When the GOP rejected Theodore Roosevelt’s bid to wrest the nomination from the incumbent president, William Howard Taft, it set the stage for Roosevelt’s run as the Progressive Party candidate.

That in turn split the Republican Party and assured the election of the Democratic nominee, the visionary Woodrow Wilson, whose concept of a strongly internationalist foreign policy still guides us.

In 1924, the Democrats were so divided that they could not nominate a candidate until the 103rd ballot, when they chose an obscure former solicitor general named John W. Davis.

In 1964, the Republican Party was torn asunder by the nomination of conservative Barry Goldwater. A similar consequence befell the Democrats in 1968 when pro- and-anti-Vietnam forces took their dispute into the streets of Chicago.

“A national convention,” wrote H.L. Mencken, “is as fascinating as a revival or a hanging.”

The 1932 Democratic convention in Chicago selected Franklin D. Roosevelt to infuse new life and hope into a nation that had been dealt devastating blows by the Great Depression.

Since the 1950s, however, the primaries have determined the selection of presidential nominees.

Conventions, therefore, have become festivals in which politicians blather endlessly about the virtues of their party and the sins of the opposition. They then ratify the nomination of a candidate who already has won the nomination in the primaries.