Mcgovern-fraser Commission Definition Ap Gov

Understanding the McGovern-Fraser Commission: Reshaping the Democratic Party

The McGovern-Fraser Commission, formally known as the Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection, holds a significant place in the history of the Democratic Party and American political processes. Its impact continues to resonate today, shaping how candidates are nominated and how the party functions. This in-depth exploration delves into the commission's definition, its origins, its recommendations, their impact, and lasting legacies, providing a comprehensive overview relevant to AP Government students and anyone interested in American political reform.

Introduction: A Party in Crisis

The 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago stands as a stark reminder of the deep divisions within the Democratic Party. The tumultuous events—violent clashes between protestors and police, a contested nomination process favoring the establishment candidate Hubert Humphrey over anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy—exposed significant flaws within the party's structure. The party's image was tarnished, and its internal democratic processes were widely criticized as undemocratic and unresponsive to the desires of its base. This crisis led directly to the creation of the McGovern-Fraser Commission. Understanding its mandate and recommendations requires understanding the political context of the late 1960s, a period marked by significant social and political upheaval, including the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement.

The Mandate: Reform and Representation

Established in 1969 by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the McGovern-Fraser Commission had a clear mandate: to reform the party's nominating process to make it more open, democratic, and representative of the diverse viewpoints within the party. Chaired by Senator George McGovern and Representative Donald Fraser, the commission embarked on a comprehensive review of the party's procedures. Its goal was to move away from a system dominated by party bosses and powerful elites towards one that gave greater voice to ordinary party members. This was a crucial step in addressing the concerns of activists and younger generations who felt excluded from the decision-making process. The commission’s work directly responded to calls for greater participation and internal democracy within the party.

Key Recommendations: Empowering the Grassroots

The McGovern-Fraser Commission's report, released in 1970, contained a series of sweeping recommendations designed to fundamentally change how the Democratic Party nominated its presidential candidates. These recommendations included:

• Increased Representation of Minorities and Women: The commission emphasized the need for proportional representation of minority groups and women within the party's delegate selection process. This was a crucial step toward ensuring that the party's leadership reflected the diversity of the American population.

• Open Primaries and Caucuses: The commission recommended a shift towards open primaries and caucuses, allowing more individuals to participate in the selection of delegates. This move significantly broadened the base of the nominating process, moving away from a system controlled by party insiders. Open primaries and caucuses, in theory, provided a more democratic way for voters to express their preferences for presidential candidates.

• Proportional Representation: The commission advocated for proportional representation of candidates' supporters in the delegate selection process. This meant that candidates would receive delegates in proportion to the votes they received in primaries and caucuses. This addressed the issue of “winner-take-all” systems, which often disadvantaged candidates with broad but not necessarily majority support.

• Clear and Accessible Rules: The commission worked to create clear, accessible, and understandable rules governing the delegate selection process. This transparency aimed to reduce confusion and prevent manipulation, enhancing the overall fairness and credibility of the process.

• Strengthening State Party Organizations: Recognizing the crucial role of state party organizations, the commission's recommendations aimed at strengthening these entities and empowering them to manage their own delegate selection processes, fostering greater local autonomy.

Impact and Legacy: A More Democratic Process?

The adoption of the McGovern-Fraser Commission's recommendations had a profound and lasting impact on the Democratic Party and American politics:

• Rise of Presidential Primaries: The reforms significantly increased the importance of presidential primaries as the primary mechanism for selecting delegates to the national convention. This shifted power away from party elites and towards the voters themselves.

• Increased Political Participation: The more open and accessible nomination process led to increased political participation, particularly among previously marginalized groups like women and minorities. The commission's work spurred greater involvement of ordinary citizens in the political process, broadening the party’s base.

• Increased Importance of Campaign Organization: The changes incentivized candidates to build strong grassroots organizations capable of mobilizing voters in primaries and caucuses. Successful campaigns required strong local networks and robust voter engagement strategies, making campaign organization a crucial element of political success.

• Increased Political Polarization: While intended to democratize the process, some argue that the McGovern-Fraser reforms contributed to increased political polarization. By giving more power to the party's ideological wings, the reforms may have exacerbated internal divisions, making it harder for the party to unite around a single candidate. This aspect of the commission's legacy remains a point of ongoing debate among political scientists.

• Superdelegates: A Point of Contention: Ironically, despite promoting greater grassroots participation, the Democratic Party introduced “superdelegates” – unpledged delegates who are free to vote for any candidate at the national convention. While intended to provide a degree of balance and experience, superdelegates have become a point of contention, criticized by some as undermining the democratic principles the commission sought to uphold.

The McGovern-Fraser Commission and the 1972 Election:

The 1972 Democratic National Convention, the first held under the new rules, showcased the impact of the McGovern-Fraser reforms. George McGovern, a candidate who benefited greatly from the new system, secured the nomination, though he ultimately lost the general election to Richard Nixon by a landslide. This outcome prompted debate about whether the reforms had made the party more electable. While the reforms undoubtedly opened up the party to new voices and broadened participation, the 1972 results highlighted the challenges of balancing internal democracy with electoral success.

Criticisms of the McGovern-Fraser Commission:

While broadly seen as a positive step towards greater internal democracy, the McGovern-Fraser Commission's work wasn't without criticism. Some argue that:

• The reforms made the party less electable: The focus on appealing to the party's progressive base arguably alienated moderate voters and ultimately hurt the party's chances in general elections. This criticism centers on the idea that the new system prioritized ideological purity over broader appeal.

• The process became overly complex: The new rules were sometimes cumbersome and difficult to understand, leading to confusion and potential for manipulation. This complexity made participation challenging for some voters and increased the importance of well-organized campaigns.

• The rise of “professional” politics: The emphasis on grassroots mobilization and campaign organization led to a greater reliance on professional campaign managers and strategists, raising concerns about the potential for the commodification of politics.

FAQ: Addressing Common Questions

• What were the main goals of the McGovern-Fraser Commission? The commission aimed to reform the Democratic Party's nominating process to make it more open, democratic, and representative of the party's diverse constituencies. It sought to reduce the influence of party bosses and increase the voice of ordinary party members.

• How did the McGovern-Fraser Commission change the Democratic Party? The commission's recommendations led to a significant increase in the importance of presidential primaries, greater participation from minority groups and women, and a more transparent and accessible delegate selection process.

• Were the reforms successful? The success of the McGovern-Fraser reforms is a matter of ongoing debate. While they undeniably increased participation and made the nomination process more democratic, they also led to increased political polarization and raised questions about the party's electability.

• What is the lasting legacy of the McGovern-Fraser Commission? The commission's legacy is its profound impact on the Democratic Party's internal structure and the broader American political landscape. Its reforms continue to shape how political parties function and how presidential candidates are nominated.

Conclusion: A Pivotal Moment in American Political History

The McGovern-Fraser Commission represents a pivotal moment in American political history. Its work significantly reshaped the Democratic Party, leading to a more participatory and representative nominating process. While its reforms were not without their criticisms, they undeniably increased the power of ordinary party members and broadened participation in the presidential nominating process. Understanding the McGovern-Fraser Commission's definition, recommendations, and impact remains crucial for comprehending the evolution of American political parties and the dynamics of the presidential nomination process. The legacy of the commission continues to be debated and analyzed, highlighting the ongoing tension between internal party democracy and electoral success. Its work serves as a case study in the challenges of balancing internal party reform with the practical demands of winning elections.