Over the last few days, we’ve had a real discussion over the platform committee and how important, or not important it is to the party. There are some assumptions about how important or not important a platform is, though, that don’t really get at the purpose of a party platform, so I thought I’d take that up in a pretty short diary.
Yesterday, in a diary by Kos, he made this assertion about a platform:
www.dailykos.com/...
Heck, I’d give him all the seats, since no one except Sanders ever cares about the platform. If people want to fight over a document that no one will ever read or reference after the convention, all the power to them!
Looking at this comment, there is a bit of truth, some hyperbole, and a little bit of fiction to it — though maybe not necessarily intended.
A party platform is not often the focus of major discussions at a convention, but it remains one of the most important documents of a party. The reason for this isn’t because Democratic party members spend all of their time reading it — it is important because Republican party members will. It is also important because it determines what a party is, and defines what a party is not. A platform also exists as the dividing line between a serious political effort, and a 3rd party that has no unifying principles.
So, I just thought I’d spend a brief amount of time explaining why Sanders efforts on the platform committee are serious, and what they actually mean.
Party Platforms Have Historically Changed the Party.
Doubt it? Let’s go back in time. In 1972, the Democratic party became the first to debate a pro-choice oriented platform, before the supreme court ruling on Roe V. Wade. At the time, the party was almost evenly split between anti-choice supporters and pro-choice advocates.
In 1980, Carter also viewed the platform as needing tweaks in response to some action. Now, in 2016, we’re 4 decades and 4 years past the inclusion in the party platform. The end result? Well, let’s let conservatives tell it:
spectator.org/...
In fact, large parts of the traditional Republican base were pro-choice and an even larger group of Democratic voters was pro-life. That’s why no less a liberal than George McGovern opposed adding a strong pro-choice plank to the Democratic platform in 1972; both men he picked as running mates were pro-life. Though pro-choice, Carter objected to the Democratic platform’s 1980 endorsement of taxpayer funding of abortion. Back then, there were upwards of 100 pro-life Democrats in Congress.
Today, are there any left? That’s the question many pro-lifers find themselves asking after Rep. Bart Stupak’s (D-MI) deal with the White House over abortion funding in the health care bill. After months of haggling, Stupak settled for an executive order that virtually no knowledgeable pro-lifer believes will be an effective ban on taxpayer funding of abortion.
What happened? Well, now we move to who DOES read a platform, and why it matters.
Who Reads A Platform? The Other Party.
We sometimes get focused on the fact that if a Democratic member writes something that is meant to cover Democratic races and leadership, it would be obvious that only Democratic party members would care. Actually, the exact opposite is the reality.
Democratic party members will spend more time debating and discussing the Republican platform — how it is anti-gay, anti-women, etc. than we will discussing the Democratic platform. And Republicans will spend a lot of their time discussing the Democratic platform.
This is why you write a platform, and a progressive one. Candidates who are coming into the party will in part be shaped by what the platform is.. if they are uninterested in dealing with Republican questions over gay rights or gun control, they might say: well, I’m not interested in running as a Democrat because Republicans will say XYZ about me.
What other Democratic members say can influence a party, but nothing influences a party to shave off potential members in down ballot races like those who are opposed to the party platform saying: I can’t run with this document.
Before we say: lots of Democratic party members buck the trend and run against the party.. statistics tell us that generally doesn’t work out. In 1980, there were more than 100+ anti-choice Democratic members serving in federal government. Now?
Platform issues provide the opposing party the ability to blanket define their counterpart, and that is why we appreciate a progressive platform. A progressive platform can force debate over issues that Democratic members on their own might avoid; but once it is in the platform, at least one Republican will call out a Democratic party member on it, and the debate over the issue begins.
Party Platforms Are Why Third Parties Fail.
One of other important elements to a party platform is that they are an agreed to set of principles that define and govern a body. Not everyone will be happy. There can be some compromises, but in a major party almost all issues are discussed, given weight, and the party takes an official stance.
This is a big dividing line between a major party and a 3rd party. Third parties rarely have wide scale policy positions, platforms and structure to them. As a result, a 3rd party doesn’t have the element above: the other party.
Why does that matter? Because without a cohesive platform, anyone can run as a party and say “my values line up with the party.. as I see it”.
One of the emails sent to me, when I pointed out that 3rd party Bernie efforts were a bad idea, basically said: we’ll only run progressives against slimy D or Republicans. I responded: you have no control, NONE, over who declares to run for office under your party banner. More importantly, if you have no defined party platform, anyone can run under your party banner and declare themselves as in line with your party.
This means third party challengers could just throw themselves into any race, anywhere, claim themselves progressive but oppose numerous issues.
About two years ago, I attended a meeting with purported progressive organizers who were VERY against public school. They agreed on almost everything else, but they were completely opposed to public schools, which they thought promoted racist attitudes, used books that were conservative oriented and were too often used to promote faith.
I could listen to their point but say: yeah, I disagree.. still, if that candidate ran as a “progressive” on a 3rd party banner, they could contend that they were “more” progressive because of their belief... and without a party platform to stand on for a third party, they would in effect define what their third party stood for by running.
Remember: once a platform is set, Democratic party members are also able to clearly define primary and general election Democratic candidates as “they support our issues” or “not” and decide, based on how many issues we may agree or disagree on whether or not to support.
Without a well defined party platform, numerous issues are just left up to debate or you can wing it.
Some third parties establish platforms. They rarely have state level platforms. Again, it makes it easy to run and contend you are X without any risk of someone saying you are running for or against the platform of your own party.
Make No Mistake.
Bernie’s placement on the platform committee of several members isn’t about what defines a US presidential race now. It is what starts the discussion for the next few decades. Just as the 1980 Democratic party slowly eased into stances that are now solidified through argument and debate, positions that can be taken now start the debate between Republicans and Democrats and shape the argument of tomorrow.