Print This Post Print This Post

Jan

12

How to build a political party platform, 2008


I cross-posted this post about experience and entrenchment at RedBlueAmerica. A commenter there wrote this:

I chuckled at this: “[. . .] goals shared by the Democratic front-runners (getting out of Iraq, re-establishing a positive global reputation for the US, keeping social security safe, reforming health care, improving education, addressing illegal immigration)”

Goals 1 and 2 can be read as “not being GW Bush”, which, really, as a platform, is pretty sorry. These are goals that cannot have existed pre-GWB, and as goals, demonstrate a general weakness of the Democratic platform except as one of opposition. The remainder amount to “doing stuff about stuff” because they lack any sense of specificity or direction. They are goals shared not just by the Dem front-runners, but by, um, everyone.

That comment caused me to respond with a question back: Why would someone characterize goals related to situations that we’re in because of the current President as goals that weaken the platform and that indicate that the Dems are only interested in opposing Bush (not that that’s a bad thing, frankly, but, okay)?

I interpreted the comment to mean that the commenter wishes that political party platforms stick to a static list of topics and come out one way or the other on it and give a plan for achieving that. Period.

If that’s the case, then there’s really no problem in just plopping any stated goal into the plank topic. It’s semantics.

But I believe that a party’s platform must be more flexible and more reality-based – not just a list of “we stand for this – we will do this to show that we stand for this.” That’s very caveman to me, and, I suppose, very conservative in the sense of “conserving” or keeping the same. In a changing world – which we are in, I fail to see how that approach to improving our lives as Americans, not to mention all the other lives into which we’ve inserted ourselves, matches reality. (Don’t go to that “we don’t need improvement” place – not buying it.)

Here’s how I explain my approach to a platform:

In the mental health profession, one of the cardinal rules of engagement is to “be where the client/patient is.” If you can’t do that, you can’t help them, and they can’t benefit from your skills. They just won’t be able to access you and you won’t be able to access them.

Whomever is elected president is going to have “be where the client is” – in this case, the clients are the American public and this country. Where are we right now?

We’re in costly (on many levels) military battles.
We’re disliked throughout much of the globe.
Our economy is volatile.
Generational differences, desires and needs threaten the likelihood of finding long-term solutions to economic
Tens of millions of people can’t afford or access health care coverage.
The demand on our resources by and the perception that illegal immigrants detract from our society (not to mention just isn’t a good thing – as citizens, we want to have a say over who and how many can immigrate to the USA) need to be addressed with concrete actions.

I won’t blather on – and I imagine this list will change, depending on whether you think there’s nothing wrong with any of these conditions but instead have a different set of conditions that you see a president walking into.

But whomever walks in in 1/09? Will be walking into what GWB walked out of and left.

So to say that the Dem platform amounts to only one of opposition is a canned critique. I don’t know how you can build a platform that has meaning if it doesn’t connect with the reality of what the incoming CIC will be facing. A platform devoid of that understanding is just a list of assertions disconnected from my life and yours. Maybe that’s what some people prefer. Not me.

You?

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 11:33 am January 12th, 2008 in Campaigning, Elections, Politics, WH2008 

Comments

Leave a Reply




"));