On the first question, I’d argue (not surprisingly) in favor of the proposed platform and offer my original post to summarize the reasons. I believe that too often, as Democrats we don’t explicitly state the values that that are the foundation of what we believe. George Lakoff and others have written extensively on how we concede too much to the other side when we let them define the terms of the debate. I believe the platform is the correct place to do just that. The overall goal is to produce a document that is not put on the shelf for four years. To achieve that, we’ll need to understand that while in the past, the convention vote has been the end of the process; we need to be ready to make it only the end of the first step.
What’s next? We need a continuing effort to encourage people to engage on the platform’s goals and their preferred next steps to achieve them. I’d suggest we do so in two ways. First, in my original post, I outlined a suggestion for a blog similar to the one we used during the hearing process. In response to that suggestion, BMGer Jim Caralis responded in the comments with great ideas to improve the initial effort and (bless him) offered to help make it happen. I spoke with Jim a couple of weeks ago and he remains willing to pitch in and has some very good ideas. Once the platform is adopted at the convention, we’ll get on it. In addition to a blog to talk about and “build the case” for what they believe is the next step to achieve our goals, Democrats need to commit to organizing to make it happen. At the convention, the party will be announcing The Community Organizers’ Initiative, a program that puts the tools of organizing into the hands of community organizers around the Commonwealth. I’ll have more to say about TCOI as we move forward, but if Democrats commit to building a case and organizing in their communities to achieve our goals, I believe we’ll be in a much stronger place.
There is more to talk about and I look forward to participating in the discussion leading up to and at the convention. What do you think?
John Walsh, Chair
Massachusetts Democratic Party
…to the critics who say that some of the value statements are so generic that either party could have written them? I realize we don’t need to write legal minutia into a platform, but I think many (myself included to some extent) at least want some idea as to how we achieve our goals and how more specifically we interpret and implement our values. Is your hope that we redefine what a “platform” even is and leave the specifics to separate resoultions? There may be merit to that approach, but it might have been wise to be clearer up front if that was indeed the intent. Thank you, by the way, for weighing in; I for one was very much hoping that you would.
http://qontheshore.blogspot.co…
<
p>I think that is a great place to start the discussion. I took the quiz and flunked it and went “whoops”.
<
p>Also, frankly, the “tough on crime” with no commitment to access to justice seemed to me to be more Republican than Democrat.
Only got 3 out of 7 correct – ouch!
Forty-four people have taken the quiz, and of a possible score of 7, the mean score is 4.27. Forty-four people answering each question randomly would generate a higher mean score.
<
p>In other words, the highly informed sample that makes up these quiz-takers is more likely to view the 2006 Republican platform as a better expression of Democratic values than the draft platform.
<
p>Well-informed activists have a better chance telling the platforms apart if you don’t read them. What do you think would be the case among voters?
<
p>Source data and other analysis.
Maybe I’m missing something, but hear me out. There are seven questions, so you could get the following number right:
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
<
p>And they’re not equally likely (if we’re talking coin-flip 50/50). In fact,
<
p>More important to this discussion, the mean of the binomial distribution is np. Seven questions, 50-50 chance, the mean is 3.5. You’ll note that 3.5 < 4.27.
<
p>So while the overall point stands — people taking that test aren’t particularly good at guessing the correct answer — the claim that
<
p>
<
p>is incorrect from a probability standpoint.
This is why we don’t do division, oh
This is why we don’t do division,
This is why we don’t do division,
‘Cuz I suck at math (hey!)
you took the analysis from the blog, which is also incorrect.
er, here’s the dirty secret…it’s my blog. I’ll correct and update it later today.
but I’d already read the platform.
The question is what role the platform should play in getting to the best “how”? My point is if the document is focused on the values and goals, it is much more likely to be used. The best way to advance any Democrat’s top priority is to build a case for their position, and organize their community in support of it. To your first question, there are areas where the difference between Democrats and Republicans is in the values and goals – see Jim Caralis’ comment below for a couple of clear examples. On the other hand, there are areas where the difference between us is in the the “how we acheive those goals.” In those instances, too often they clearly state the values and we do not. I do not think that making the platform focused on the values means we do not take the additional steps to achieve the the goals through specific solutions.
Not only could Mitt run on this platform, he could do it before or after each and every flip-flop.
<
p>Perhaps the problem is that we are trying to become a center-left-right party. We’re not going to find our soul until the DINOs are primaried out.
This Very Vanilla Platform does support a Woman’s Right to Choose [but wait – Wasn’t Mitt for it before he was against it?] So maybe Pablo is 100% right.
Democrat is just a name. We’re all DINOs, since apparently the Democratic party embraces any value across the full spectrum of beliefs.
A “Call to Arms” does the following:
<
p>1. Makes the reason for existence of a party clear.
<
p>2. Makes the immediate priorities of a party clear.
<
p>3. Differentiates the party from all other parties.
<
p>4. Contains one or more immediate calls to action to rally the faithful.
<
p>5. Is sufficiently aspirational to be used to evaluate potential candidates.
<
p>My .02 is that this Draft does not do any of these things.
But the realization in this case fell short.
<
p>I’d point to this plank alone, from the preamble:
<
p>which appears to leave open that the Democratic party may embrace any value that anyone may choose to hold.
<
p>This may come near to the truth sometimes in Massachusetts, where the Democratic party has quite a range. But presumably while we respect and welcome people across the spectrum of beliefs, don’t we as a party nevertheless hold some values dearer than others?
<
p>This platform has sections that do a decent job of articulating those values and principles (the section on Voting and Democracy seems pretty sound to me, for example), and others that strike me as troublingly compromising. Whose idea was it, for example, to have the section on Justic and Civil Rights disavow discrimination on the basis of “sexuality” rather than “sexual orientation”? Most of us in the glbt community have struggled or still struggle with being visible in all walks of our lives. A party platform that only winks at our presence feels disturbingly like being asked to stay in the closet at a family party. Or the section on “Ethics and Government”, which states support for “Comprehensive ethics and campaign reform” – does that mean we really support reforms, or just that the Senate will pass a bill called “ethics reform” that will actually weaken ethics rules, and hope the public, and the Governor, won’t call them out on it?
<
p>I very much appreciate your time posting on this blog and making yourself available on Saturday to discuss the platform and the amendment process. I’ll reiterate that there’s nothing wrong with the concept of a values-based document and the open hearing process followed to solicit input to it. There simply needed to be time built in for a first draft to be made available and circulated publicly for comments, and for the platform committee to take those comments into consideration in producing a final draft for the convention.
<
p>As it stands, delegates are in a difficult position – do we accept a new document with many deficiencies, perhaps attempting to amend those that seem most glaring or are of the most concern to us, or do we revert to the old platform, with its out-dated planks and wordy, laundry-list style?
<
p>
<
p>This plank in the preamble serves to emphasize that the Massachusetts Democratic Party is home to people of many faiths. It also indicates that there are certain values shared by these communities that are respected and embraced by the Party. By emphasizing the “spectrum of beliefs,” this plank reinforces–as President Obama did in his Inaugural Address–that both people of faith and people with a more humanist bent have values that are deserving of respect. Such values contribute toward the striving of many Democrats in public life who act on them by pursuing the common good.
<
p>The new Faith Communities Awareness Committee of the MDP envisioned this plank as a means of making people from many religious traditions feel as welcome as ever in the Party. We hope to begin a rich dialogue among faith communities, and within the Party, about the myriad ways that faith and politics meet in the work of our state government.
<
p>Patrick Whelan
Co-Chair
Faith Communities Awareness Committee
Along with Nazda Alam and Steve Fradkin, Patrick leads this new effort within the Mass Democratic Party to reach out to faith communities across the Commonwealth. Engaging with people of faith is an area that was successfully pioneered by Governor Dean at the national level (and Patrick was part of that national effort). By adopting it locally, we state clearly that we do not intend to concede these votes – or this message – to the Republicans.
<
p>This year in addition to the Faith Communities Committee, I have appointed new outreach committees focused on Veterans & Military Families; Seniors; Women and the disabled and GLBT communities. If you are interested, we’d love to have you plug in.
<
p>John Walsh
I hope one group you reach out to is the United Church of Christ. We are the largest Protestant denomination in the state and arguably the founding denomination of Massachusetts. The UCC takes many progressive and inclusive stances on public policy and seems to be like the Democratic Party in many ways. I would, however, discourage pushing the envelope when it comes to mixing religion and politics in the way the Christian Coalition has been known to.
Was intended to welcome faith communities, nor does it do anything to clarify the values of the Democratic party. I’m speaking not to what the drafting committee may have intended or hoped from the language, but what it actually says.
<
p>
This is what I get from the party chair’s comments. Don’t fret about our draft platform of pious platitudes. We need only a short meaningless statement to give us the maximum amount of flexibility in the future. It’s wonderful – people can interpret it to mean whatever they want it to mean. That way, the platform will become an effective recruiting tool. Who we are and what we stand for as a party will be in the mind of the beholder. Just trust us to do the right thing, which, of course, is whatever we think is right. Give me a break!
Democrats believe in certain basic principles, namely: the right to privacy, equality under the law, a healthful environment, security for the disadvantaged, and a fair distribution of wealth. These are the core principles of the Democratic Party. Unlike our existing draft platform, these principles, taken as a whole, could not be mistaken for Republican principles. But we need to express what we believe in a more meaningful way. We particularly need to articulate our long-standing commitment to justice and equality in specific, not meaningless, terms. We need to explain what we stand for.
<
p>It should be the function of a Democratic issues convention to gather in one place activist Democrats every four years in order to refine our core principles into viable and practical short and long-term goals. If the party takes that function away from us, then what is the purpose of an issues convention?
I should say the platform committee did a great job of soliciting input on the platform, through the web site and public meetings, both of which I took advantage of to weigh in on the platform. However, I share the disappointment many felt about the resulting draft.
<
p>There is a process by which any plank of the platform can be amended at the convention: 250 signatures on a petition, 20 minutes of debate, then a 2/3 majority vote — at least that’s how it was explained to me. However, the general nature of the platform could potentially generate one of these amendment proposals for every plank (I know of two already for which signatures were being gathered), and there’s no way there’s going to be enough time at the convention to handle that. It could be quite the train wreck, and people are bound to go away disappointed from the convention.
<
p>There is, of course, the final up-or-down vote on the platform (with any amendments that pass via the aforementioned process). I guess there’s always the possibility it might fail that vote, if there’s enough dissatisfaction. My personal opinion is that that risk is greater with the platform as drafted than it would have been had a more specific and progressive approach been taken. It should be interesting.
First, John, let me thank you for responding. This was a much needed and appreciated diary. Here’s my concern: I think we’re failing the objective. Case in point:
<
p>
<
p>It’s 11 pages of blandness that’s basically indistinguishable from the Republican platform. That feels less like writing a document in which we state who we are and more like one that’s just abdicating responsibility for recruiting people who will believe in the ideals of the democratic party.
<
p>I would submit that we, as a party, can do better. We don’t just want more democrats – we want more and better democrats. This current proposal speaks nothing to the latter goal of the progressive movement and party base. We can have a document that can be used more often than in the past, but I don’t think we achieve that through completely giving up who we seek to be as a party.
<
p>Is it possible to craft such a document before the convention? I’m willing to see some changes. If it’s not, then I think we should stick with what we currently have and start the effort to create a better document next time. It would seem a big waste of time and effort, but this was a learning experience for all of us.
To say that the rep and dem platforms are “basically indistinguishable” because sabutai created a clever quiz (5/7) and you don’t agree with it’s direction is BS.
<
p>As a matter of fact parts of the economic development section of the Republican platform read like a script from the Colbert Report.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
certain aspects of both documents are indistinguishable, despite the fact that these are areas in which both parties differ greatly.
Suppose you were a Democratic legislator – or candidate – from a conservative district. Say it’s two years from now. You favor universal health care, leaning toward single-payer. The president or governor, after long and arduous debate and discussion, has drafted a universal health care initiative that would be a hybrid of single-payer and standardized private industry participation. Your district overwhelmingly favors a private-industry solution.
<
p>So you take out the Platform, drafted and passed in 2009. It says “Massachusetts Democrats support a single-payer health care system,” as some advocate it should. Your choices: ignore the platform and go with your constituency and the Administration, or follow the platform and risk defeat in the polls, offending the Administraton and your colleagues, and splintering the pro-universal health care vote so that the anti’s prevail.
<
p>But suppose instead the Platform read “Massachusetts Democrats support…High-quality, accessible health care services including support services to children and families…(and) Full implementation of health care reform…” as the current draft reads.
<
p>Now you can embrace the platform and the stated Party values, support the Administration’s plan without offending your constituency, and get health care coverage for the millions of Americans (or Bay Staters) who don’t have it.
<
p>Under its old format, too many candidates and office-holders have chosen to ignore the Platform because it was too specific, often in opposition to the district’s voters. We cannot allow that to continue.
<
p>Instead, this year, we proposed a new format that would concentrate on values, and leave out specific solutions to specific issues. 60 Platform Committee members (of which I am one) met a number of times, and then met with Massachusetts voters at 70 hearings statewide. Yes, there were many who called for specifics. Their ideas were melded into the other reports and experiences, and the Platform was drafted based on the guidelines established.
<
p>On April 13 (18 days after the last hearing), the Platform Committee carefully considered, dissected and reassembled each line in the draft to honestly and faithfully present the values of the party. Care was taken to ensure that all sides were represented in each issue.
<
p>That draft was presented to the Democratic State Committee at large and, at its April 25 meeting, the DSC members engaged in spirited debate and discussion, and ultimately voted the draft as it was amended. http://www.massdems.org/docs/2009%20Delegate%20Guide.pdf pages 24-25. The next stop is the State Convention where the delagates will have the final opportunity to craft the document that will be used in the next four years.
<
p>Now, a month after this exhaustive and (we think) thorough procedure has concluded, come several critics who think the Platform is “missing” something, is too “weak” or should be a “call to arms” – an even angrier and more hostile document than before (when, as accurately stated, virtually nobody used it).
<
p>The Platform (and the Democratic State and Local Committees) have one purpose: to elect Democrats. We hope, of course, that the Democrats we elect will champion a progressive agenda. But we know that even a centrist Democrat will be to the left of his/her Republican opponent.
<
p>The Platform, as it was conceived and drafted, moves much closer to achieving that ideal than ever before. The Action Agenda – when and if it is passed by a convention – will set the ideals into action.
<
p>If you honestly feel that certain VALUES are missing from the Platform, by all means follow the specified procedures http://www.massdems.org/docs/2009%20Delegate%20Guide.pdf%5D page 21 and propose your amendment. But please keep the spirit and intent of the Platform intact, so that it will remain a document that can be used by more people…to elect more Democrats.
<
p>Steve Fradkin
Democratic State Committee member
Platform Committee member
You say:
<
p>”The Platform (and the Democratic State and Local Committees) have one purpose: to elect Democrats.”
<
p>The current platform says:
<
p>”The Massachusetts Democratic Party Platform is our covenant with one another and is the foundation on which our party leaders and we generally stand.”
<
p>That is quite a contrast, I’ll admit.
Where is the “value” supporting an independent judicial branch – a concept under attack and maybe only valued by John Adams and the founders –
<
p>Where is support for access to justice, other than for prosecutors?
<
p>Where is support for us, as a society, caring for the legal orphans our current system creates?
<
p>Where is support for the system of checks and balances, the Declaration of Rights and what it means?
<
p>Yes, I admit I missed the 4/25/09 meeting – because it was scheduled to conflict with a commitment where I was serving legal orphans – and as between the SDC meeting and the M.A.R.E. event, I don’t disappoint the kids. I have posted about these events. Speaking of M.A.R.E. http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/d…
<
p>I had trusted the process to lead to a document that would be inspiring [Inspiring is what I mean by “a call to arms” – as I use it it is not a hostile term].
<
p>As to whether or not the platform will be “used” or “relevant” only time will tell.
<
p>Certainly, I will grant that those involved had good intentions. Today was when I found out that had I asked to be on the Platform Committee, I could have been on it.
<
p>Therefore, I formally volunteered to be on the Platform Committee next time, or any similar effort, “in perpetuity” – previous to today, my misunderstanding was that the members of the Platform Committee were by invitation only.
<
p>But yes, one of the purposes of a platform could, and should be to inspire – and no matter how safely it is drafted or with what good intentions, if it is uninspiring and insufficiently concrete, it probably won’t be used much. Certainly a difficult balance to strike.
…or is there any appetite for electing GOOD Democrats? I guess if your only goal is to have as many legislators as possible have a D after their name then that’s fine. I’d rather hold those Ds to a more specific platform and primary them if necessary. Even if the primary challenge is ultimately not successful it will still send a message about who is paying attention.
What is your definition of a good democrat and do you hold a majority opinion?
<
p>Many good democrats believe that we should have high-quality and affordable health care and it should be accessible to all – but not necessarily single payer.
<
p>Many good democrats believe that we should have high-quality, universal preschool and full-day kindergarten – but may be ok with lifting the charter school limit.
<
p>A good democrat is in the eye of the beholder. As Democrats we share a lot (but not all) of the same goals, but there is greater division (IMHO) in how we achieve these goals.
<
p>I think the platform we have is one of shared goals. It’s up to us to carry out those goals in ways that we as individuals, communities and organizations deem best.
<
p>
I won’t necessarily agree with the entire platform myself, but I think there can be a balance between doctrinaire orthodoxy on the one hand and almost-meaningless generalities on the other. Sabutai’s quiz demonstrating how many of us can’t tell the difference between the two platforms in my opinion illuminates this concern quite well.
The single-payer issue is not a “you like vanilla, I like chocolate” scenario. It’s been understood for decades that you will not be able to reduce the cost of health care enough to make it universally affordable without eliminating the administrative overhead — i.e., eliminate HMOs and private insurers — so what you are talking about is the choice between success and failure of health care reform.
<
p>The HMO-industry propagandists are doing OK all by themselves; they don’t need our help. Instead, a balanced debate needs the Democratic Party platform to plainly and unequivocally stand up in opposition, or we are headed for another taxpayer-funded catastrophe.
<
p>The party should not be afraid to bring potential Democrats into the fold by sticking to principles and making a good case, building a party out of educated and committed citizens (so-called “good Democrats”) as opposed to placating people with platitudes and artificially padding our numbers with folks who don’t really care, haven’t really thought things through, and whose support could blow away in a stiff wind. That’s what this discussion about “quality” Democrats is about, not about particular stands on issues.
of exactly what I am talking about…
<
p>I believe eveyone should be covered but I’m not convinced single payer is the way to go and you can believe I am not the only one! Single payer is not in the national platform.
<
p>From the national platform…
<
p>This is the right way to approach the language in the platform. We should not include means in the platform.
…and leave the details to the legislative process?
<
p>And speaking of Mom, as my mom once said (I’m paraphrasing), “If the national platform said to jump off a cliff, would you jump off a cliff?”
I’m sure the new platform would be neutral on cliff-jumping.
There’s nothing in there to indicate that the party has anything resembling an actual belief.
<
p>One notable difference is the inclusion of sexual preference in a list of protections, but I, for one, haven’t forgotten that Marie Parente was a Democrat.
You gave a poor example which you couldn’t defend and countered with apple pie… Hmmm, I guess you are not really interested in a discussion on the merits?
<
p>BTW – my point wasn’t that because it is in the national platform it should be in our platform, but that it was an example of an approach I agreed with. So like the apple pie, your “If a national platform said…” quip is cute but of point.
<
p>
…because you didn’t take the time to read my original comment before responding to it, and now I’m accused of not wanting to discuss it. I’m not sure what else I can do, having made my case the best I can, other than to ask you to read or re-read it.
As O’Brien says in 1984, “The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power.” You seem to be suggesting that the ends justify the blandness.
<
p>You have drained the specifics and passion so every Democrat, regardless of his or her ideology, can run on the Democratic Platform. Since when did Democrats have to subscribe to every plank in the platform? Politically speaking, many politicians have gained by not following the platform slavishly.
<
p>I’m sorry for what I’m sure was a lot of hard work, but I think the platform sucks. I’ll push for a no vote at the state convention.
<
p>
<
p>Steve Fradkin suggests that by attempting to find a set of common values that Democrats can agree on, it becomes a document that will be used by more people and you reject that out of hand and ridicule it as big-brother-ish.
<
p>Others seem to say that it should be as comprehensive a list of things that most Democrats (but not all) support in order to – – I’m not quite sure.
<
p>Still others seem to think that there is a (more limited) list of “essential” positions without which the document is incomplete.
<
p>I’m sincere in asking people to try and define what we want from the platform.
<
p>John Walsh
My problem is…time….as I am in court pretty much every day, these days, and working on the next day’s hearing into the night.
<
p>The current platform reads solely from the perspective of prosecutors, and leaves out the ringing words of the Massachusetts Constitution Article XI [The “Open Court Clause”] or ANY support for access to justice or an independent judiciary. I cannot address all the holes and concerns I have elsewhere – and which I would have addressed had I known “all I had to do was volunteer to be on the Platform Committee”.
<
p>If only there were 40 hours in a day AND I was ten years younger in terms of my energy and health and endurance!
I think, is to offer a vision of the ideal society through Democratic and a list of steps necessary to achieve that vision. Party platforms tend to be more to the left (or in the GOP’s case, more to the right), because they shoot for the ideal. Practicality may be what’s needed in politics, but it has little place in a party platform.
<
p>I checked out California’s Democratic platform. It seems to be set up the way you’ve tried to set up our platform, but I have to say that our left-coast siblings are a lot more specific in their goals.
<
p>I think you miss my Orwell point here. It’s the Orwellian use of language that I object to. Steve just provided an amusing parallel when he basically suggested that the platform was to keep the party in power.
<
p>You say the platform should be useful–a reasonable position. That wasn’t what Steve said. He said the sole reason for the platform was to get Democrats elected. I vehemently disagree. First and foremost, it is a statement of values and ideals. Steve left that part out. It can be part of the platform’s purpose, but if we only wanted to get Democrats elected, why not just promise free sex with every tax return? There’s a huge difference between useful and getting people elected.
<
p>You know more than I about getting people elected. Honestly, I don’t think voters care much about the platform of a party. The value of a platform, I suggest, comes more from its development, the process, rather than the product itself.
<
p>What would I like to see? Others have said it, but I would like to see a strong, passsionate statement of what the party stands for. We Democrats tend to have problems with tepid language (See Drew Westen an Geoffrey Nunberg). How much more tepid can you get than “Democrats have ambitious goals.” Um, duh? Republicans have ambitious goals. Stalin had amibitious goals. My ten year-old has ambitious goals. Not only does the sentence state the obvious, it does so in the most soporific language.
<
p>There may be two issues here: 1) implementing a new concept of a party platform 2) the execution of said concept. I’m much less concerned about the concept than the execution. The writing, in a word, sucks. By my count, about 40% of the planks are so vague that the Republicans wouldn’t necessarily come up with them, but they could easily co-opt them.
Are the people who organize and work for Democratic candidates. Do you really mean to poke your party’s best activists in the eye so that your centrists don’t have to disavow any platform planks? Most of us provided or rounded up others to provide platform testimony – if the party didn’t plan to listen to what we had to say, why waste our time? Your party activists aren’t crazy about this draft. There’s a reason: it isn’t very good.
You do not want a Democrat Party you want a Majority party no matter what the goal. I disagree and I think you have ignored the hard work and hard stands we have taken for the last 30 years. The fact that we lost a few races as a result is not an excuse to sell our souls. One of the things that to many in the party wish to ignore is that we are a two party state we are Democrats that have ideals and goals that are in line with the past party platforms and then their are those in Name only who run as Democrat in fear of losing and not getting the money and volunteers to run. If the rep you describe from an ultra conservative district has to bend and twist the goals and objectives of the platform to get elected I would suggest that he/she is doing the same in their vote while in office in order to preserve a record to run on and thus is a Democrat in name only.
<
p>I would suggest that because we have looked the other way on this very point that the governor has had many of the difficulties he has had. Certainly I am not saying 100%. Yet the question you pose indirectly is whether we want government that reflects our goals and values or we want a government in name only and the proposal thus far is in name only.
<
p>My position is NO! I want a Democrat with values and shared goals. Does this mean it will be accomplished over night and that some times even good Democrats will agree to disagree that is correct? But I want the values understood and supported and to know we are working towards accomplishing those goals together.
<
p>Wake up your watering down the party just to keep a majority that represents no one!
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion!
and frankly don’t care.
When WeAreChange finds a viable ally in Russia Today then we are indeed living in “interesting” times. American democracy has been long dead and buried according to my worldview.
get rid of the new statement of values and preamble and use the one from the current platform.
<
p>I find this to be a more compelling statement of who we are…
<
p>
This excellent piece of understanding from lightiris should become a part of the platform. Thank You lightiris for having the capability to “see” what is happening in our schools and the negative impact it is having on students.
<
p>Perhaps it is time to shift the focus away from assessment and focus instead on the student’s entire experience….
…do we get to keep the old one?
I’ve heard no other answer.
I asked Jim Roosevelt that question. This is the response I got:
<
p>
<
p>Jim Roosevelt is the Massachusetts Democratic Party Chief Legal Counsel. It is posted here with his permission.
The only problem with retaining the old platform is that it is dated with references to “the Republican administration” and the like.
<
p>Ben Day of Mass-CARE is helping to return single-payer healthcare to its place in the platform. Ben can be reached at director@masscare.org if you are willing to help with this effort at the Convention
<
p>Ben also drafted an “open letter” to Convention delegates–see http://masscare.org/open-lette… for the letter. The second paragraph moves beyond specifics to raise a larger concern:
<
p>
<
p>That puts it rather sharply, but in language that captures the concerns I’ve been hearing from others.
<
p>–Leo