‘Smoky Room’ Could Be a Boon for Democrats

The Democratic Party is in the throes of a panic attack.

Democrats rightly fear that President Biden is headed for certain defeat in November if he remains on the ticket, as doubts about his age and declining mental faculties have flared among the electorate.

But even if he agrees to step down, panic shifts to the dilemma that Vice President Kamala Harris is seen as an equally weak candidate — and replacing Biden and Harris with a new ticket risks chaos and perhaps even greater disaster for Democrats.

Certainly, Democrats have good reason to fear chaos and divisions within the party.

Although former President Barack Obama is known to privately favor an “open convention” to choose a new presidential nominee, there is no clear process in place for a major party to replace a candidate this late in the election cycle: the rules would have to be made up on the fly.

But Democrats may be wrong.

Instead of fearing the risks of the unknown, they should view an open convention as a unique opportunity to change American politics for the better.

This requires a new retrospective on their own history.

Democrats’ apprehension comes from memories of the last time a sitting president stepped down — Lyndon Johnson in 1968 — and was replaced by a candidate chosen by party leaders.

Infighting within the party at that year’s Chicago convention (as well as riots outside) is thought to have doomed the chosen candidate, then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey, who narrowly lost to Richard Nixon that fall.

As Democrats reconvene in Chicago next month, party elders have a sense of déjà vu, fearing a repeat of that disaster.

However, if Democrats look further into their history, they might see a way to correct some of their modern mistakes.

Very few Democrats alive today have any direct memory of the last time a Democratic convention selected a nominee from scratch, in 1952, when Illinois Gov. Adlai Stevenson was chosen on the third ballot after much behind-the-scenes maneuvering in the legendary “smoke-filled rooms.”

Stevenson had been effectively “drafted” after party leaders rejected the candidate who had won several of that year’s few primaries, Tennessee Senator Estes Kefauver.

Despite his successes, leading Democrats viewed Kefauver as a certain loser, lacking the experience and clout to become president.

In 1952, the Republicans had done the same thing by choosing Dwight Eisenhower over “Mr. Conservative” Robert Taft, also after much behind-the-scenes bargaining.

In the decades since, the old method of selecting presidential candidates — in meetings of party insiders and in smoke-filled rooms at national conventions — has come to be seen as corrupt and undemocratic.

But this method has brought us strong candidates and distinguished presidents like Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, not to mention Ike.

Under the old, discredited method, party leaders selected candidates they believed would have the greatest electoral appeal and be able to serve effectively in the presidency.

Of course, this involved compromises and a balancing of geographic and political interests, but the result was that both parties had long since chosen eminent men between whom the nation could choose.

A return to the smoke-filled room method of selecting candidates would help address one of the main causes of the dysfunction, polarization and impasse in our current politics: the weakness of national parties.

The post-1968 nominating reforms, which relied on popular-suffrage primaries, adopted by Democrats and quickly copied by Republicans, brought us to the political scene we know today, with a majority of Americans who do not like both party candidates, cycle after cycle.

The “reform” empowered narrower partisan bases and elevated special interest groups above the voting public.

George McGovern, the first Democratic candidate selected under the new process, who went on to lose 49 states, later lamented that his campaign had been dominated by insurgent special interests.

Democrats have an opportunity to reverse that slow decline in one fell swoop, while building enthusiasm for a new face in November.

Even if smoking is banned in today’s “smoky room,” Democrats—as Harris herself might say—should imagine what could be, regardless of past mistakes.

Steven F. Hayward is the Edward Gaylord Visiting Professor in the School of Public Policy at Pepperdine University.