The platform of a political party has become almost an afterthought these days, something drawn up by anonymous people in a smoke-free room that nobody reads and most of those running under it disregard routinely. Perhaps an indication of the meaninglessness of recent platforms is that even the attack ad people rarely refer to them.
I have often wondered if one of the so-called Presidential “debates” could be structured around the party platforms. Start out by asking if the candidates know what is in it. Then when they hedge their answers take them through the details, proposal by proposal, page by page. My guess is that at some point both candidates will try to run as fast as possible away from some of the points in their party platforms.
So if platforms represent ponderous documents that most people ignore, why should we pay attention to them? One reason is that they represent significant symbolic documents that help tell which way the wind is blowing in each party. The Republican Counterrevolution, for example, signaled its existence and its core beliefs in a series of platforms.
For the Democratic Party, this year’s platform holds as much symbolic significance as it has any time since 1992, when Bill Clinton’s candidacy and the rise of the Democratic Leadership Council were reflected the platform. Since then the DLC has appeared to call the tune when it comes to platforms, even tuning out John Edwards’ “two Americas” theme in 2004.
This year the battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and the intra-party struggle between Howard Dean and the DLC promise to make the platform a key event in this year’s election. For progressives it may prove more important then the primaries in determining whether the “Republican Lite” of the DLC still holds sway or whether Democrats are ready for a new direction.
The history of platform committees tells the story of the changes in American politics. Once a select group actually did draft the platform in the equivalent of a smoke-filled room as the membership of the platform committee was fought over with a zeal only slightly less than that of the major offices. Years ago they televised platform committee hearings, but then they faded from view.
Along with the committee membership came the coveted slots for testimony, which have been as carefully scripted as the conventions have become. Those chosen for this honor provide some clue to the leanings of the committee and the party.
Most of us expected yet another replay of 2004, but again Barack Obama has confounded the experts by announcing a dramatic new change in how the Democratic Party will draw up its platform. Last week the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee unveiled a sweeping change in how the platform is developed.
Here is how the press release described it:
Members of the public will be invited to host and attend Platform Meetings in their communities as an opportunity to exchange ideas and share perspectives on the challenges we face. To facilitate the process, the Obama campaign and the DNC will send policy experts and DNC Platform Committee members to as many meetings as possible to serve as facilitators. Each Platform Meeting will produce a written summary that will be reviewed and considered by the Platform Committee.
Howard Dean gave the requisite soundbite:
From the beginning, we said we were going bring down the traditional walls of the Democratic Convention and make this event more accessible and include as many people as possible.
In analyzing this gesture let’s start with the behind the scenes, power struggle issues. The tactic of involving the people in the platform is an absolutely brilliant strategy for end-running the Democratic Leadership Council. It signals that their role is and will be significantly diminished in an upcoming Obama Administration. It is also noteworthy that once again Howard Dean has arisen from first anonymity and then from the battle over the seating of the Florida and Michigan delegations, stronger than ever. In the long-running feud between Dean and the Clintons, Obama has decided to side with Dean.
This is not merely an empty gesture, but rather a very calculated move to signal where Obama’s sympathies lie. Those progressives who have been hedging their bets about Obama’s candidacy should feel a bit more optimistic now, for by putting Howard Dean back on center stage, Obama has given hope that maybe the party is finally turning from the rightward tilt that has dominated Democratic politics for far too long.
Of course, the devil we be in the details. If you read the fine print in the Obama announcement, it states:
To facilitate the process, the Obama campaign and the DNC will send policy experts and DNC Platform Committee members to as many meetings as possible to serve as facilitators. Each Platform Meeting will produce a written summary that will be reviewed and considered by the Platform Committee.
First, note the use of “policy experts” and DNC members as “facilitators.” Having facilitated a goodly number of meetings over the years, I’m not sure that just because you are a member of the DNC or a “policy expert” that qualifies you to facilitate a meeting, so my guess is that these meetings will have a very set structure in which what “facilitation” that does occur will be of the taking testimony or gathering votes variety. There are facilitation techniques that the process could have used such as one called Open Space Technology, which has nothing to do with technology or the arguments about open space that pervade many a suburban community and everything to do with a radical style of conducting a meeting that lets participants choose and run the agenda.
So the facilitation “format” will be a key issue to watch. Who will be allowed to speak? What will their role be (i.e. delivering testimony or actually engaging in a dialogue)? How much time will be devoted to these sessions? In short, will these be run like your typical regional or state congressional hearing in which every speaker has to apply to get on the agenda and then told how much time they will have.
So the first thing to watch for in the platform meetings is the format. That will tell you whether this truly is an open process or merely a very clever campaign gesture. Pay attention to whether there is time for genuine dialogue and how the meetings are structured.
What I fear is that this process could degenerate into an “interest group merry-go-round” in which various national groups from labor unions to the National Organization for Woman and the Sierra Club monopolize the agenda making points most of us–and certainly most of the so-called “facilitators” already know. So the second thing to watch for is who is allowed to participate.
These could have the flavor or Dean’s famous “meet-ups” or they could by the political version of American Idol. As the Obama campaign showed two things are clear about the current American political scene: people are eager to get involved and they want politics-as-usual to change. Genuine change means not following the usual Beltway policy experts (some of whom no doubt will be “facilitating” these meetings and listening to policy writers who have true innovations and, most of all, listening to the people.
This leads to the third thing to watch, which is what role will these sessions play in the actual platforms. The Democratic Party already has in place a mechanism for involvement in writing the platform through the state parties, but will the ideas that come from these sessions be given a fair hearing? Notice the key sentence in the press release:
Each Platform Meeting will produce a written summary that will be reviewed and considered by the Platform Committee.
Who will produce this “summary?” What will be included in it? Notice especially the words “reviewed and considered.” In other words, the Platform Committee is under no obligation to include anything from these meetings. They still get to decide. So anyone involving themselves in the meetings is doing so under no illusions that their involvement will amount to anything.
Over the past generation the American people have become very cynical about their ability to have an impact on the two parties, which is why the largest party is made up of nonvoters and independents. We have heard candidate after candidate, whether for dog catcher or President, swear they will bring about greater public involvement only to be disappointed when it doesn’t happen. That is why so many people have turned off to politics, because, in short the connection between politics and the American people has become a very thin and frayed thread.
The centerpiece for this, of course, is Iraq where we rushed off into a war that the American people had no say in, then have suffered through years of bungling, coverups, war profiteering and changes in direction that have all been made without the input of the American people. No one asked if National Guard units should be required to serve as many as four deployments in Iraq. In fact no one asked if the National Guard should even be used in Iraq in large part because our political leaders never had the guts to flat out ask for a declaration of war and a draft to support it.
Obama’s platform meetings will be fighting this cynicism. He could do well to spell out in more detail some of the answers to the above questions, especially pledging that the results of these meetings will be in the platform. Otherwise they are meaningless PR gestures.
Yet I end this on an optimistic note. Obama has taken a significant step in proposing this new method of writing the Democratic Party platform and he is to be commended for it. No one has ever proposed anything like it before. So, although I raise the questions, I also am an optimist and hope he is able to pull this off.
Since my disability will probably prevent me from being part of these sessions, I will devote the next few essays in this blog to issues that should be in the platform. I invite readers to submit comments and ideas for these discussions. Perhaps someone at Obama headquarters will hear us.
Print Posted by: liberalamerican
