on for diminished public interest was not hard to discern. As Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. put it: "Who wants to see a political convention methodically drained of all suspense, tension and drama?" (A17).
Since the inception of the Republic, American politics and political campaigns have had a raucous, raw quality, befitting life in a fledgling colony full of immigrants on the edge of the wilderness. Alexis de Tocqueville said in 1840 "no sooner do you set foot on American soil than you find yourself in a sort of tumult; a confused clamor arises on every side, and a thousand voices are heard at once, each expressing some social requirements" (Mayer 242). The first national political conventions were held in 1831 and were rather tame affairs as candidates pre-selected by party leaders in smoked filled rooms made brief appearances before the party faithful. Lexington in the Economist says that "from the civil war until the 1950s, conventions were riotously unpredictable" (30). On the whole, Democratic Party conventions tended to be noisier and more fractious than their Republican counterparts because, as Finley Peter Dunne's fictional crackerbarrel commentator, Mr. Dooley, said at the turn of the century: "th' dimmycratic party ain't on speaking terms with itself" (Filler 165). Examples of such events include William Jennings Bryan populist 'man shall not be crucified on a cross of gold speech' at the 1896 convention, the 103 ballots it took to nominate John W. Davis at the 1924 convention, the floor fight over the civil rights plank at the 1948 convention and the rioting and police brutality outside the 1968 convention in Chicago. The Republicans have produced their share of excitement, such as Theodore Roosevelt's bolt from the party at the 1912 convention, the packing of the galleries with supporters of Wendell Willkie at the 1940 convention and the floor fight over the seating of rival state delegations at the 1952 convention. Since...