Meaning: The quote by Susan Estrich, a prominent journalist and political commentator, reflects a sentiment that has been echoed by many individuals within the realm of political conventions. Over the past two decades, there has been a noticeable shift in the nature of these events, with a focus on speeches and presentations rather than substantive debates and discussions on critical issues. Estrich's observation highlights a broader trend in the evolution of political conventions and raises questions about their effectiveness and relevance in shaping political discourse and decision-making.

The tradition of political conventions in the United States dates back to the 19th century, serving as a platform for political parties to nominate their candidates for the presidency and vice presidency, as well as to establish their party platforms. These events were often characterized by lively debates, negotiations, and impassioned speeches as delegates from various states came together to deliberate and make decisions that would shape the future of their party and the nation.

However, as Susan Estrich points out, the contemporary landscape of political conventions has shifted away from the spirited exchanges and substantive discussions that once defined these gatherings. Instead, they have become highly choreographed and scripted affairs, with a primary emphasis on delivering polished speeches and rallying party supporters. This shift has led to concerns about the diminishing role of conventions as forums for genuine deliberation and decision-making.

One factor contributing to this change is the evolution of media and communication technologies. With the rise of 24-hour news cycles, social media, and digital platforms, political parties and candidates have increasingly relied on these channels to disseminate their messages and engage with the public. As a result, the traditional function of conventions as a means of reaching and persuading voters has been overshadowed by the omnipresence of media coverage and online campaigning.

Furthermore, the process of nominating presidential candidates has become more predictable and predetermined, diminishing the need for intense debates and negotiations at conventions. In many cases, the outcome of the nomination is already apparent before the convention begins, leading to a sense of inevitability that can dampen the urgency for robust discussions and decision-making.

In addition, the highly partisan nature of contemporary politics has contributed to the decline of substantive debates at conventions. With deep ideological divisions and entrenched party loyalties, there is often little room for genuine dialogue and compromise, as the focus shifts towards energizing the party base and appealing to specific constituencies.

While the shift towards more scripted and speech-centric conventions may reflect the evolving dynamics of modern politics and media, it also raises important questions about the role and impact of these events. As Susan Estrich suggests, the lack of substantive debates and meaningful exchanges at conventions can be seen as a missed opportunity to address pressing issues and engage in constructive dialogue that can resonate with the broader public.

In conclusion, Susan Estrich's observation about the lack of substantive debates and meaningful discussions at political conventions reflects a broader trend in the evolution of these events. While the changing media landscape, predetermined nominations, and heightened partisanship have contributed to this shift, it also raises important questions about the role and relevance of conventions in shaping political discourse and decision-making. As the political landscape continues to evolve, it is essential to critically examine the purpose and potential of conventions as forums for genuine deliberation and meaningful engagement with the issues that affect us all.