The COMPLETE Democratic Platform

[AmericanErrorist]

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf


I believe some introductory words are in order.

"...Despite our most concerted efforts in Miami to persuade the Democratic Platform Committee to take bold and principled positions on the most crucial issues of our time, we were overwhelmingly outnumbered by those who preferred to play it safe. We could have fought "to the death," as some critics have urged, and still never garnered enough votes to even force a public debate on the floor. Instead, we succeeded in getting the Party leadership to acknowledge the legitimacy and importance of our issues, offer compromise language they hoped would be acceptable, and eventually agreed to an amendment calling for a reduction in U.S. military presence in Iraq – rather than an increase.

Was it enough? No. Yet it was a significant step in a direction that would not have even been otherwise considered. Leaders of the Party and the members of the Platform Committee came away with an unanticipated appreciation and respect for the depth of national concern about these issues and the intensity with which these battles will continue to be waged."
-Dot Maver, Dennis Kucinich campaign manager, in one of the Kucinich's campaigns last e-mails

[freetobegay]

1. Thanks for posting.

[Old and In the Way]

2. Interesting Green banner, but is that strategy very smart?

Voting for Kerry in swing states only? Shouldn't all progressives be working to get Kerry elected by the largest possible mandate to repudiate the current Republican agenda? Getting Kerry elected by the slimmest of margins is a recipe to produce 4 more years of stalemate/status quo.

As GrannyD wisely points out, Greens are 80 years away from being a progressive alternative to the Republicans. In the meantime, splitting the Left will allow Republicans to maintain control of the national institutions. In 80 years, there won't anything Green to worry about....

[AmericanErrorist]

5. Here's the thing...

Symbolically, Kerry getting a win and Cobb get a lot of votes would be a better show for progressive America that Kerry alone. It also shows many people may only support the Kerry administration when it is right.

[Old and In the Way]

7. Disagree.

A year from now, the 3-5% that Greens might get in the November election will be meaningless to the general public. But the added 3-5% could well make a powerful argument for change with Kerry's election. Voting Green will mean nothing in terms of a progressive agenda being implemented in 2005.

It's coalition politics, my friend. Republicans get it, we don't.

[cprise]

9. Stop lecturing us on the need to imitate Republicans

We've seen enough of that with the Democrats already.

[Old and In the Way]

11. Want some cheese with that whine?

Next time, how about commenting on what I said and not some fictious quote that is non-existent in my post.

[cprise]

12. I'm sorry... Who was whining?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

16. Sorry but you are the ones with the take no prisoners approach

If you can't get you entire agenda attended to within months of the hardest right turn the country has taken you are going to pick up your jacks and leave...and it's been that wary for a while.>THEN YOU WONDER WHY THE DEMS LOOK TO THE MIDDLE FOR THE VOTES!!!! It's simple...it's easier to split the middle with emotions than to appeal to the intellectual reason of those so high up on their horse that they hold you hostage every fucking election since 92.

[Classical_Liberal]

22. Since when is strategic voting "take no prisoners"?

Kerrybotts rarely if ever listen to those they lecture to.

[Classical_Liberal]

19. It will show Kerry that their is a growing movement of people who

can fuck up the dems. So yes it means everything. I don't want a mandate for mushymiddleness, and I'll bet Kerry doesn't just run to the middle in the campaign. He will govern this way.

[sangh0]

36. A "growing movement of people"???

Is that why Nadir can't get on ballots without the assistance of the RNC?

[Classical_Liberal]

40. I am a Cobb supporter

I believe if it weren't for the electoral college and for Nader rejection of strategic voting he probably would have gotten half the liberals in the safe states.

You rarely if ever talk to me, so why the fuck bother? You and I are not in the same camp and shouldn't be forced in one so lets work on building another party, and killing the two party system.

[Classical_Liberal]

21. Strategic voting is coalition politics at its finest

It allows us to sack Bush without giving Kerry's republican light agenda a fucking mandate it doesn't deserve. Besides this platform is to the right of any platform the democrats have ever had. We are not moving toward progressivism, but away from it.

[sangh0]

37. So how has joining the Repuke coalition worked out for Ralphie?

.

[Classical_Liberal]

38. I don't know

I am not a supporter of Nader, who irresponsibly rejected strategic voting. I support Cobb.

I have no intention of electing Bush but you and I don't belong together.

WE need Instant Runoff Voting and strategic voting till that is accomplished, but the two party system must die.

You have more repuke beliefs than me. So you don't have any right to insinuate that I am a repuke, just because I advocate strategic voting. Your precious repuke light candidate will still be President, but Progressivism will get the mandate.

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. We've known for years that third party and indy candidates risk spoiling

elestions.

When are we actually going to get around to putting preferential voting into practice? Because I am not looking forward to a lifetime of "You gotta vote Dem _this time_".

[Old and In the Way]

8. When the Republican Party fragments-

then I'll be happy to support the Greens. Till then, it's coalition politics, my friend. Republicans get it, we don't.

[cprise]

10. Not likely

They fragmented in 1992 (Reform Party). In addition to the small showing the Libertarians usually get.

But the Dems lurched Rightward anyway.

Been there, done that.

[Old and In the Way]

13. My advice?

Keep your ideals intact, keep your binders and earplugs firmly in place, and continue your principled march down the road to oblivion.

[cprise]

14. Actually, I'm not sure who to vote for

...but this arrogance isn't helping.

I do know that Greens are the fastest growing party in the US, and have been for some time. What do Democrats plan to do about that?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

17. yeah but soon those kids are going to graduate college

and when they get a real job they'll turn into Republicans too...their self centered idealism will turn into self centered consumerism.

Take a look at where the Greens have grown...college towns with impressionable kids and a few dinosaurs at the top who have not produced a result in 30 years seducing them into believing...I've yet to hear a Green tell America how they intend to keep 300 million people emplyed...it's real easy to defend your principles when you have no record to match them up to.

[Classical_Liberal]

23. I am way past college

and if Kerry governs this way I will definately leave. I voted for Al Gore by the way. Strategic voting still get's Kerry elected, without giving him a mandate to move right.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

25. Yes and the Greens have been so strategic thus far

first in fla with Nader then with Camejo getting people to sign the recall petition in California...the Republicans appreciate the Greens "strategery."

[Classical_Liberal]

34. They nominated Cobb this time

so what's your point. Nader doesn't represent the Greens this year, and if I lived in a safe state Cobb would get my vote. I am not responsible for those who refuse to vote strategically. I have never advised such nonsense, not even last time around.

[GreenArrow]

24. "...how they intend to keep 300 million people employed"

well, fortunately for America, both major parties have a solution to that problem--increased privatization and militiarism.

* Army! Navy! Air Force! Marines! Office of Homeland Security! It's a great place to start. Overseas adventures in exotic lands! Danger! Excitement! Romance! Pride! Maintaining a Pax Americana (TM) is a full-time job, and in a never ending War(t) on Terra (TM) will provide millions of jobs for years to come; in fact, we wont see the end of it in our lifetimes.

* Military lifestyle not your thing? How about an administrative or service position in one of America's fastest growing industries, privatized Prisons! No experience required, only a desire to see hardened career criminals and other reprobates piss their pants as you wield virtually unlimited power over them! And don't forget, should you be unfortunate enough to end up on the wrong side of the bars, there is work for YOU too!

[cprise]

29. I'm in my mid-30s and have never held a teaching job

...but thanks for the anti-intellectual rant anyway. It's the same "self-centered hippie" argument often used against liberals to justify conservative/objectivist greed. Self-centeredness permeates this country and crosses party lines; projecting the motives of cynical Democrats onto others is a very good demonstration of that.

There is a lot of conservative rhetoric already floating around in this thread, and its being served-up by Democrats to Greens.

[no name no slogan]

33. (Straw man stands up)

That's quite funny to hear such an "anti-hippie" sentiment on a board that professes to be "Democratic Underground".

FYI: I'm in my mid-30s, married for 8 years, homeowner and professionally employed. My wife and I earn comfortable middle-class salaries, but we're by no means rich. We live in a 70-year-old house in need of $10k in repairs and drive 8-year-old cars with high mileage on them.

And both of us are more liberal now than we've ever been before.

Back in 1988 I was solidly behind Dukakis, starting with the primaries. Why? Because he was a non-controversial technocrat who was best at going with the flow, rather than asking "why does the flow go this way"? If the college-age me were around today, I would have probably backed Kerry all the way. But the older (and wiser) me knows that just "going along" is NOT the answer anymore, and we have to question WHY we are doing something, and who will benefit the most. Hence, I supported Kucinich this year, and will do so in the future if he runs for president again.

Don't "assume" you go Republican when you get a real job. If anything, my experience in corporate America has done more to radicalize my politics than any Marxist professor at a University could EVER do.

[democratreformed]

28. Apparently, they plan to push more people toward it.

I'm looking that way myself. Can you post a link to where I can study it more? Thanks.

[cprise]

30. This is the best place to start

http://www.gpus.org/

The left column has a link to the party platform, and the right column has a link to their key values.

[democratreformed]

31. Thank you

I will be reading there.

[Classical_Liberal]

20. Granny D didn't argue against strategic voting though

Strategic voting makes the day the Progressives can tell the dlc to stick it come sooner, not later.

[Lefty Pragmatist]

3. Link goes nowhere

for me, at least. (Yes, I have the PDF reader.)

[AmericanErrorist]

4. It works for me

Try this link:

http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

[IndianaGreen]

15. Parts of the platform reek of crass imperialism

Failed and failing states like Somalia or countries with large areas of limited government control like the Philippines and Indonesia need international help to close down terrorist havens.

Yeah, let's talk about the Philippines for a bit. A country in which 99% of the wealth is in the hands of 200 some families while everyone else struggles to make a living. A country led by an authoritarian ruler that came to power by toppling her democratically elected predecessor. A country in which the reins of power lie in the evil axis of the oligarchs, the military, and a reactionary Catholic hierarchy.

I remember when moving words such as JFK's "pay any price, and bear any burden" led this country into the Vietnam quagmire.

The fact is that many of those oligarchs we support, and that many American elites are comfortable with, are despised by their populations. The war on terror is nothing more than a pretext to fight off native insurgencies against the elites in countries we support. The war on terror is a sham and a fraud, just like the failed war on drugs.

This platform seems to endorse Oceania's endless war!

[Classical_Liberal]

18. If they are maintaining the same committment to a just peace between

the Israelis and the Palestinians, as Bill Clinton, why are the advocating and undivided Jerusalem. Bill Clinton advocated no such thing since half of it is on the West Bank.

Our party has been taken over by neocon pod people who will probably vote for Bush.

I hate it, and if I don't see some movement away from this in the next couple of years, I will leave for sure, and definately work to elect greens. Fuck the DLC and their republican moles!

[no name no slogan]

35. Actually, the platform is more pro-Palestinian than Clinton

For the first time in history, the Democrats are actually advocating for an independent Palestinian state. In many ways, this is a pretty bold step for the Democrats, who have received a lot of money from pro-Zionist organizations in the past.

[Classical_Liberal]

39. ARe you saying Clinton didn't advocate an independent state

What was Oslo about? What were the camp david talks about.

In fact Clinton not only advocated an independent state, he left the status of Jerusalem up to the negotiators, unlike this platform, and John Kerry.

[democratreformed]

26. Thanks for this information.

It really does help.

[Kevin Spidel]

27. progressives are falling from the dem club

Its frustrating ... the progressive rallying around Miami is seen as a failier to many of the grassroots. If you head over to http://blog.progressivevote.org/ and see some of the comments about the platform... its heartbreaking. The progressive voters don't get the "long fight" within the party.

[welshTerrier2]

42. exactly

welcome to DU, Kevin ...

there have been endless battles on DU between centrist dems and the left ... maybe that's why they are called the left ... because many, unfortunately, have left the democratic party ...

the lack of unity and even the lack of an appreciation for the importance of unity is staggering around here ... I have been writing for some time now about my plan to join the Green party after the November elections ... for now, i'm 100% behind Kerry ...

I'll be checking out the Progressive Democrats of America ... if the left can't find a voice in the Democratic Party, perhaps they can find some influence from the outside ... I hope PDA gains in strength before the mid-term elections ...

bush has got to go but the Dem agenda has become a bit frustrating ...

[Zorra]

32. A practical platform which recognizes the insidious negative effect that

RW corporate media has had on the general consciousness of the American people over the past 24 years.

As a flaming liberal, I'm not completely happy with the platform. As a pragmatist, I see the wisdom behind it.

There are many important steps in the right direction in the platform. There are also some critical issues which are not addressed. But you can only do so much when you are trying to repair the extensive damages caused by our current comprehensively destructive fascist administration.

One problem I had with the platform was the "One China Policy". I'm not clear on what that means exactly, because it is ambiguous. Taiwan is the "Republic of China", a democratic state. Mainland China is the "People's Republic of China", a totalitarian communist state which will never progress beyond a transitional stage of state progression that Marx described as "the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat". What were they thinking when they included this in the platform? It is unnecessary and, IMO, should be struck from the platform. Although this is supposedly primarily a diplomatic formality, it is disingenuous for our government to recognize a "One China Policy".

The Bu$h administration currently recognizes a "One China Policy", which, IMO, is basically typical communist bullshit. Personally, I don't believe in kow-towing to the unreasonable and petty diplomatic demands of a totalitarianist regime, no matter how economically powerful that regime is:

The "One China" Policy is also a requirement for any political entity (this includes the Vatican) to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. Countries that have diplomatic relations with Beijing recognize that "the People's Republic of China Government is the sole legal government of all of China, and that Taiwan is an inseparable part of China." Most countries "take note" of that position in their joint communiques, but do not explicitly support it. Most countries that recognize Beijing get around the diplomatic language by establishing "Trade Offices" that represents its interests on Taiwanese soil, while the the ROC government represents in interests abroad with TECO, or Taipei Economic and Cultural Office. The name "Chinese Taipei" is the only acceptable name in most international arenas since "Taiwan" suggests that Taiwan is a separate country and "Republic of China" suggests that there are two Chinas, and thus both violate the "One China" Policy.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/One-China-policy

A powerful and united Democratic grassroots progressive bloc will need to be formed after John Kerry is elected. The combined leadership of Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, John Conyers, and Barbara Boxer could unite progressives into a powerful body of activists that can pressure a Democratic administration and hopefully a Democratic Congress into addressing critical issues that were not included in the Democratic Party platform:

"Was it enough? No. Yet it was a significant step in a direction that would not have even been otherwise considered. Leaders of the Party and the members of the Platform Committee came away with an unanticipated appreciation and respect for the depth of national concern about these issues and the intensity with which these battles will continue to be waged."
-Dot Maver, Dennis Kucinich campaign manager, in one of the Kucinich's campaigns last e-mails

[mzmolly]

41. This looks like very good compromise!

:toast:

"No difference" my ass! ;)

[IA_Seth]

43. War on Drugs

There is no mention of the failed War on Drugs, decriminalization of Marijuana, or lessening the penalties for minor drug offenses?

I admittedly haven't read the whole thing, but I did a quick ctrl+f and couldnt find any key words.

There was reasonable support of these ideas here in Iowa, and I would have thought they would be mentioned?

[mzmolly]

44. Not if we want to win the election.

:shrug:

Nader is making these promises, but he isn't trying to win, he's simply trying to assist Bush.

[IA_Seth]

45. Aaargh

I am not a Nader supporter and I guess from my experiences here in Iowa (pretty freakin rural) there was a lot of DEMOCRATIC support for this. It passed in my county and my district, but alas it didn't when it came down to the state convention.

The funny thing about this is the plank came up for vote and seemed to pass on the voice vote, but then there was a call from the floor for a vote by division that was honored by the chair. This required everyone in favor of this to stand and all the sudden the numbers were FAR smaller than they were during the voice vote.

I felt like the biggest pothead when I stood up, but damn, I honestly think this War on Drugs, especially in regards to marijuana, is ridiculous!

[mzmolly]

46. I agree 100%

But this country is too blinded to realize that. ;)

I do think that drugs are destructive though, as is alcohol, but one is legal and the other is not?

I honestly wouldn't want all drugs legalized (especially anything addictive) but marijuana would be just fine by me.