When party platforms cease to matter
It became something of a running joke in 1996, when Bob Dole publicly conceded, many times, that he hadn’t even read the Republican Party’s platform. ”I have due respect for the platform,” Dole said at one point after his convention. ”I read a lot of parts that I thought were essential.”
Twelve years later, we’ve reached the point at which a presidential candidate not only won’t read his platform, but doesn’t much care what’s in it.
Jean from Ferrisburgh, Vt., wants the Republican Party to get off “the global-warming bus.” Paul from Carrollton, Texas, wants it to “reject fetal stem-cell research.” And Larry from Waynesboro, Pa., wants the party to promise to “deport those who are here illegally.”
Republicans are inviting suggestions for their party platform this year, and thousands have responded online. But when a committee meets to draft the document in Minneapolis next week, one voice will be largely absent: John McCain’s.... Instead of fighting with party activists to form the platform around his own ideas, Sen. McCain has taken a hands-off approach.
McCain and his party’s base disagree on a few hot-button issues, and GOP activists are intent on making sure their platform reflects their priorities. McCain’s response is to ignore the platform altogether.
This certainly certainly seems like a reminder of the relevance of platforms in modern politics. Ostensibly, the Republican Party’s platform and the Republican Party’s presidential nominee would be on the same page. Indeed, from a historical perspective, voters who sought to learn more about a presidential candidate’s policy agenda would turn to the candidate’s party platform and read all about his priorities. And yet now, McCain won’t write, read, or care a whit about the platform that comes out of his own convention.
I remember working on a project in grad school that led me to read a lot of old party platforms, and it was a pretty fascinating way to watch the transitions of major parties over the decades. But at this point, they’re antiquated, meaningless documents. It’s probably time to scrap them altogether.
Thank god for George W. Bush.
If he can ignore the U.S. Constitution, ignoring one's party platform seems OK.
Frist!
George W. Gump @ 2:
or not...
McSame will be busy counting his houses.....'One.....three..a...aaaa..two...honey what comes after 3?????'.
McCain's Wrong On Timeline Regarding ABBA(Probably more exploitation to use POW again)
McCain laughs off his love of ABBA, the Swedish pop band, with the excuse that his musical tastes stopped evolving once he was shot down in Viet Namand became a POW. "Dancing Queen", one of ABBA's hits, is McCain's personal favorite. It's a great way to deflect ridicule for his taste in music and immediately remind listeners that McCain was a POW. However, McCain was shot down in 1967 and held prisoner until 1973. ABBA began recording their first album in 1972 and did not even refer to themselves as ABBA until 1973.
The funniest thing:
"Dancing Queen" was recorded in 1975 and released as a single in 1976.
Not quite in synch with McCain's story.
Platform? We don't need no steenking platform. my friends.
Party platforms are virtually meaningless because specific policies have virtually no predictive power in voting behavior once feelings towards a party and towards a candidate are taken into account. People by and large don't care about the minutiae of policy and go for whomever they think most shares their values.
Republicans figured that out decades ago, which is why their campaigns are all about character and have nothing to do with substantive policy ideas. Democrats, on the other hand, are still trying to win by selling their platform.
Democrats need to wake the f*!k up and quickly.
Also, we need to remember that we are not a European parliamentary system, so in this country the Party really has few mechanisms by which either (a) its members control it, or (b) it controls the candidates.
It's more of a networking & fundraising feature.
I've had lots of friends work very hard in pushing through resolutions through various local & state conventions, say, regarding health care or foreign policy.
And even if they pass those resolutions, the actual politicians just ignore them, or at best recognize those efforts as admirable and not really worth their time.
Party platforms mean nothing in the general election.
Democratic Party Platform input? Here's mine, keep it simple: Don't lie to us and don't violate our constitutional rights!
"It’s probably time to scrap them altogether."
=====================
It probably is. Policiticians say anything to get elected, and then do as they like once they're in. Just look at your country. It's all about money and power, naught else.
I'd partied with platforms.
http://www.twelvetwelve.com/img/plats/e_kera15.jpg
If you read the report about Bush and his signing statements you realize it doesn’t matter what a well thought document says, you can do whatever you want. Platform, legislation, constitution it’s only paper.
ysbaddaden @ 12:
Couldn't reach the countertop, huh?
The fact that everyone is just agreeing that platforms aren't necessary is just another indicator that we need more parties. At least every Green candidate stands for their 10 Key Values. It's sure better than this garbage.
McLame will change his stand on any issue again by next week anyway, so he doesn't want to be nailed down to any 'platform'.
We've watched Cheney and Bush and Rove attempt to castrate the constitution as an antiquated and "an inconvenient business impediment". We watch the justice department dismiss the framework of human rights and ethics as "quaint and antiquated". So, why stop there? Let's do away with it all. Why even bother voting? Its just a quaint relic of the past.
Without a party platform or some basic written expression of the core values and priorities, there would be no way to distinguish organized political objectives. But that seems to be what we want in the USA. Like Russia and China we are moving to a one party system. Let's be honest folks - has Obama really distinguished himself from McCain in anything other than rhetoric and age? The differences are smaller and smaller each year. Democrats should have impeached Bush and started war crimes trials. Apparently both parties agree that starting a war based on lies that killed 100,000 people is just not as bad as having sex in the oval office.
Illegal search and seizure, wire tapping, torture, religious tests for judicial appointees? Sorry folks, the USA is really starting to suck. Just like Russia and China. But we Americans are still good at religion, television watching, guns and getting fat while we watch the Government destroy us.
Odd jump from "McCain ignores GOP platform" to "let's scrap platforms".
The really sad thing about all these stories is, I think, McCain believes them!! He thinks they are all true. I am sure he does.
Platforms are -- and have been for a very long time -- but the wish list of hard core, insider activists. They do not come to fruition, and the people in office do what they want according to a combination of their own philosophies and political realities and deal-making.
More to the point, though, we have meaningless party platforms in the U.S. because we don't have any real political parties. (No viable political parties, that is.) I think it better describes the Democrats and the Republicans as broad coalitions. The subgroups within them could be political parties if we had a better electoral system, but for the most part, our two major parties are just loose (and constantly re-aligning) umbrellas of groups whose interests are often at odds with one another. It's part of what makes U.S. national politics so bizarre.
George W. Gump @ 3:
Were you having a McSame moment?
McCain laid out his platform perfectly in a speech on 6/3/2008: "Job loss, failing schools, prohibitively expensive healthcare, pensions at risk, entitlement programs approaching bankruptcy, rising gas an food prices, to name a few."
Look, McStain doesn't care about the party platform because he's going to do whatever the hell he feels like at the time he feels like doing it.
I think McStain has DiStain for the GOP because of the past eight years that he felt should have been his presidency. That he panders to the cause du jour means nothing because, as stated, he's going to go with the latest thought in his head at the moment action is required.
Be afraid, be very afraid...
PEACE
USA One Party Like Chinese? @ 17:
I agree with what you're saying, though I'm not sure what the point is of having formal party platforms if everyone knows that they're meaningless.
What we really need is comprehensive electoral reform so that we're not working within this nonsensical, unrepresentative duopoly of Democrats and Republicans.
"Oh, did you say party platforms? When I was so adamant about their importance, I'd thought you meant off-shore oil rig platforms," said John McCain, according to top Republican officials.
It is really no surprise. McCain rivals, and in many ways exceeds, Bush's complete lack of intellectual curiosity. They are kindred souls in that regard, and it is very clear when you look at how both of them prefer to approach every issue with simplistic, unwavering proclamations. In lieu of thoroughly reasoned platforms and policy statements, they rely on shallow soundbite thinking. Their intellectual laziness leads them to distill every issue down into a series of instinctual absolutes expressed in asinine catch phrases that do nothing to capture the subtle nuances that exist in reality. Sadly, this tends to work with voters because the soundbites are easily consumed, but, in the end, tends to have a disastrous affect on national policy because there is little substance behind that kind of thinking. The best example of this is the way in which thinking in absolutes and soundbites has led to seriously misguided strategies in Iraq. Phrases like "greeted as liberators", "mission accomplished", "stay the course", "planning our own defeat", resonate so well with the American people, at first, because they appeal to people's desire for a simpler world free of complex nuances, but it always eventually becomes apparent that it is those ignored complexities and nuances which end up proving the lack of reason and substance in this way of thinking. Regardless, McCain, as does Bush, fully embraces this lazy, dangerous way of approaching issues.
Instead of fighting with party activists to form the platform around his own ideas, Sen. McCain has taken a hands-off approach.
Basically, McCain wants to be told what to do. What a good soldier.
Saint Augustine @ 21:
I can't remember. I'll have my staff get back to you on that...
The Republican platform states that all abortion should be illegal with no exceptions for rape, incest or threat to life or health of the mother.
This begs the question: if a 14 year girl who was raped by her father is told by her doctor that continuing the resulting pregnancy is certain to cause her death, how long should she go to jail for if she has an abortion?
tyke @ 29:
If they are true to their convictions (which they're not), people who oppose abortion in all circumstances because it is murder should answer that she should receive life in prison or the death penalty, as long as she is tried as a culpable adult.
Great, a platform of ignorance. How lovely.
Jean from Ferrisburgh, Vt., wants the Republican Party to get off “the global-warming bus.”
Got news for you Jean. Ask any scientist: The global warming bus has left the station and nature is driving.
In my platforms, I hit the floor
and fell face down, it didn't help my brain out.
Well, then my baby came before I'd found
the magic how to keep her happy.
I never was the fantasy
of what you wanted me to be.
Tori Amos ~ Playboy Mommy
They should have the lobbyists write the platform, hell, they write all the bills.
tyke @ 29:
Trick question. She should get the death penalty.
I dare someone to ask McCain about if an Iraqi woman or girl was raped by an al Qaeda/insurgent, then brought to America, shouldn't she should be allowed an abortion?
If he makes an exception for her, then say "so you're telling me that you'd give Muslim women from Iraq more rights than American women already living here?"
Comments are closed on this entry