Consider the first sentences of the original platform and the draft proposal Here’s the original first sentence:
We, the Massachusetts Democratic Party, affirm our belief that government exists to strengthen individuals, families and communities and that all people should be treated with dignity. As Democrats, we are united in our devotion to our country, our Commonwealth, and our democracy.
Here’s the first sentence of the revised Preamble:
Massachusetts Democrats believe in the common good.
The original platform’s first sentence has 42 words. The new sentence has seven. That’s a reduction of almost 83% of the words. There is strength in the verbs of the original. To affirm is positive, active; it suggests taking a stand. Believe is as vague and generic as you can get in the lexicon of conviction.
The word strengthen is, well, strong. Again it suggests action, a goal. Not that the Party doesn’t have goals. The first plank in the platform tells us “Massachusetts Democrats have ambitious goals.” Good to know, particularly since the revisions are as unambitious as you can get. Where’s the dignity in the common good? Where’s the devotion?
Striving to be as unobjectionable as possible, the language of the party's revised platform epitomizes everything that's been wrong with the Democratic Party's rhetoric for the last 20 years.
Beyond the people who write them, I’m not sure who reads party platforms. I confess that I paid little attention to until he emailed me. Still a party without platform would be hard-pressed to justify such an omission. Aside from lacking a platform, the next worst thing is having one that is laughable. And that is what this proposed revision is. Laughable. The language is so broad, so shallow that half the planks could belong in the GOP platform (if it had one).
In other countries, party platforms tend to be referred to as manifestos. As a party, our model should imitate The Declaration of Independence, not the laws of the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Mark
amberpaw says
As you know, all the hearings submitted their Testimony online, so all testimony is already “a public document”. I know that in the 4th middlesex District we were excited to be able to hold our own hearing, and the room was standing room only. A lot of work went into that hearing and I don’t see the results in the document posted by the State Party as a draft platform. Just to make it easier to see what I mean, I am posting the reported testimony [the same as is on the official party blog] for comparision with the document put forth as a “draft platform” – I thought that platforms were indeed like manifestos, aspirational, what the Democratic Party imagined as a better society. See below:
<
p> 4th Middlesex Senate District Democratic Platform Hearing
Church of the Redeemer Meeting Room
6 Merriam Road, Lexington
February 27, 2009 1-3 PM
<
p>Moderator: State Democratic Committeewoman Carol Donovan
<
p>Carole Donovan recognized the presence of State Senator Ken Donnelly and Representative Jay Kaufman, and indicated that Representative Charlie Murphy had contacted her with his regrets; though he had planned to attend due to his recent appointment as Chairman of House Ways and Means, and the budget deadline and situation, he was now working this weekend. W the House Budget due on April 28th, the consensus was to congratulate Representative Murphy on his appointment and view his workload as of great importance and very heavy indeed. It should be noted that the meeting room was filled to capacity, with some standing at the rear of the room. A handout was provided to all attendees as to how to submit their written testimony via e-mail.
<
p>Testimony and Discussion:
<
p>Stanley Giffith
Mr. Griffith is a Lexington resident. He prepared extensive written testimony, which he will submit directly to the State Democratic Committee via e-mail. His concern was that based on statistics tracked by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education [DESE – formerly DOE], break out statistics between straight and gay or bisexual youth show that gay or bisexual youth are six times more likely to attempt suicide as well as more likely to be attacked with weapons or spit school. There is no master plan by DESE or the Department of Mental Health [DMH] or the Department of Mental Health [DMH] nor the allocation of even one dollar to assist gay youth. Mr. Griffith also presented back up studies and data.
Platform issue: Request that the Democratic Platform support priority funding with regard to gays in health programming and leadership training for teachers and others who work with youth. Inclusion of support for including of gays in hate crime protection. Request that Platform support the Safe Schools Initiative and programs.
<
p>Robert Peters
Spoke from his experiences as a member of the Board of Commissioners for Lexington Public Housing
<
p>Issue One:
<
p>Mr. Peters explained that residents of public housing may only be charged 30% of their income for housings, which he said is appropriate and in accordance with the purpose of public housings. However, the remaining 70% is supposed to be paid by the State.
<
p>Platform impact: Request for support by the Democratic Party via its platform for full funding of the state=s portion of the cost of public housing.
<
p>Issue Two:
<
p>Where 40b currently allows that affordable units built over the objections and/or without the permission of localities become market rate after 20 years, such units should remain affordable units Ain perpetuity@.
<
p>Platform impact: that the Democratic party platform support that any Aaffordable units@ built pursuant to Rule 40B remain affordable in perpetuity.
<
p>Robert Kearney
<
p>Concern: Three Speakers of the House left under ethical clouds. Gov. Patrick introduced an ethics bill. Mr. Kearney read written testimony, which he plans to submit electronically, as well. Message; Public corruption weights down and dilutes the effectiveness of government as well as eroding confidence in government.
<
p>Platform impact: The Democratic Platform should support Gov. Patrick=s ethics reform bill.
<
p>Deborah Sirotkin Butler
<
p>Passed out copies of written testimony, which she said she has already submitted electronically.
<
p>Platform impact: Requested that Access to Justice become a separate plank in the Democratic Platform. That plank should fully support Article XI of the Massachusetts Constitution, the AOpen Courts Clause@. The detailed portion of the platform should include support for the Judicial Branch as a co-equal branch of government, full funding for access to justice which includes all indigent legal defense mandated by G.L.c.211D, civil legal services, prison legal advisors, and Mental Health Legal Advisors.
<
p>Senator Kenneth Donnelly
<
p>The current system of taxation is not adequate to maintain basic services or repair the infrastructure.
<
p>Platform Impact: The Democratic Party Platform should fully support the Municipal Partnership Act as well as the gas tax to repair infrastructure.
<
p>Representative Jay Kaufman
<
p>The increase in the gas tax would inherently include miles driven. To the extent it is regressive, a >circuit breaker= would be built in as an offset. Noted later that 2.5 cents of the proposed gas tax increase is already targeted for regional transportation.
<
p>Rep. Kaufman also stated that pension reform should lead to a system that supports retirees fairly. Also, we need a tax policy that pays for services that we can take pride in, and which is equitable. A working system of taxation also takes into account, and has mechanisms that offset Apeaks and valleys@ in revenue due to the economic climate. There also must be a fair allocation of power and responsibility. Currently, local government has almost all of the responsibility for infrastructure, education, and public safety but does not have the authority to meet their revenue needs.
<
p>Platform impact: The Democratic Platform should contain support for a system of taxation sufficient to maintain programs and infrastructure, with an equitable relationship between responsibility and resources.
<
p>Ed Quinn
<
p>Supports the Governor=s proposal regarding the gas tax and the Municipal Partnership Act. The poor state of our infrastructure is holding back the economy. The proposed one cent hold back from the gas tax for research & develop0ment should instead beused to address regional planning and to address the lack of public transportation between communities.
<
p>Platform impact: The platform should support taxation sufficient to support repair of our infrastructure, but also should support regional planning. The platform must support progressive taxation and oppose regressive taxation.
<
p>Marlene Rockmore
<
p>Noted that citizenship must be taught, discussed state of public education.
Further, let=s finish the job on healthcare. The cost now for healthcare is $24,000 a year for a family. Cost control is needed, as is full electronic sharing of medical records.
<
p>Platform impact: The Democratic Party Platform should support the AThe Platform Curriculum in the Massachusetts Education Framework@ addressing civic and economic literacy. The platform should also support fair, non-discriminatory health care for all at a reasonable and regulated price.
<
p>Tom Larkin
<
p>Platform impact: The Platform should support progressive taxation NOT more regressive taxation.
<
p>This submitted testimony is not verbatim, but constitutes an accurate summary of the testimony received on February 27, 2009 in Lexington.
<
p>Respectfully submitted:
<
p>_____________________
Deborah Sirotkin Butler
as note taker to the hearing
<
p>
sabutai says
I haven’t talked to everyone with whom I want to talk about this. From what I’ve seen, though, it strikes me that there was a a lot of testimony submitted via Jamie Eldridge’s posts here, in hearings, and on the MDP blog.
<
p>Unless large numbers of people pushed for more generalities and banalities in places I didn’t see, the Democratic Party is seeking to do the exact opposite of what their members were asking.
kbusch says
The “common good” language is supposed to be something that distinguishes us from Republicans or conservatives.
<
p>There’s also been a useful push to get our politicians to speak about their values and to derive policies from values. If it’s just about policy, one runs into the problems Kerry has: no one knows what he believes, his convictions seem soft, and there’s less to identify with.
<
p>That’s a rhetorical problem, certainly, but the platform should not, IMHO, be a political speech.
<
p>In a more perfect world, the platform process would have been an opportunity to debate a small number of important issues facing Massachusetts and to begin to develop popular support for the means of addressing them.
yellow-dog says
I agree with your point of the common good. I like to think of Massachusetts, not as a state, but as a “Commonwealth,” with all the common good connotations of that term. Our belief in the commonweal is a legitimate contrast with with the Republican view, but the language doesn’t match the degree of that contrast.
<
p>I recently read Drew Westen’s The Political Brain and agree with his basic premise: The political brain is an emotional brain, not a dispassionate brain; language should be used to activate emotions. The platform draft is bloodless, dispassionate in a Dukakis ’88, Gore ’00 sort of way.
<
p>The primary goal of a party, according to Westen,
This platform does not resonate emotionally, and as the original post demonstrates, reads like it was written by a computer program.
<
p>The platform isn’t strong enough in defining what Democrats stand for. Here’s another line:
<
p>Aside from Carla Howell & Co.(they want no taxes), who doesn’t want this? The GOP may define reasonable and fair differently, but they want the same thing. We’ve failed to define ourselves and our opponents.
<
p>The original platform makes clear, in emotionally compellingly language, what we stand for. This draft revision isn’t always clear, and it’s extremely uncompelling. There may be need for revision of certain ideas and planks, but this draft is ridiculous. Check out the national platform.
<
p>My biggest fear is that this platform is an accurate reflection of the DSC’s thinking and the state of the Massachusetts Democratic Party as a whole. I’ve certainly seen nothing to suggest otherwise.
kbusch says
like what I said here.
sabutai says
The four amendments that I think make a bare minimum of change we need in this thing:
<
p>Amend “High-quality, accessible health care services including support services to children and families” in “health care” to “Universal access to high-quality, accessible health care services including support services to children and families building upon the 2006 ‘Act providing access to affordable, quality, accountable health care’“.
<
p>Amend the section “economic growth and labor” to include
<
p>We support laws and regulations that protect the right to organize workers, including employee free choice.
<
p>Amend the section “education” include:
<
p>“We support fair and comprehensive assessment of students, educators, and districts that goes beyond high-stakes standardized testing”
<
p>Amend the section “revenue and tax expenditures” to include:
<
p>“We support progressive income taxation, along the model of the United States income tax.”
<
p>If you don’t think the Democratic platform should include employee free choice, universal health care, fair assessment, and the progressive income tax…why do you think we need a platform at all?
bean-in-the-burbs says
At the 4th Middlesex platform hearing, there was testimony submitted about the difficulties glbt youth can have in school. The draft document’s Education section does not speak to a safe learning environment for students at all. Extremely disappointing.
<
p>And I’m sorry to see that the platform committee followed the path of the national party in not using the words gay or lesbian anywhere in the document. Marriage equality is there, sure, but you won’t find any other explicit reference to the glbt community. This is something I called out in my own electronically submitted comments, saying that I hoped that the state platform would NOT follow the national party’s lead and make glbt Democrats read between the lines to find themselves and their concerns represented.
sabutai says
I organized testimony from around 50 people on education. The draft platform doesn’t reflect a word of it.
bean-in-the-burbs says
Is this what we vote on, unless we can organize amendments from the floor?
sue-kennedy says
Cathy Ashton
Dean Atkins
Janet Beyer
Michael Capuano
Barry Lawton
Jarrett Barrios
Jamie Eldridge
Avi Green
Denise Jordan
Elaine Kamarack
Elizabeth Kilcoyne
David Kravitz
Grace Lee
Dennis Newman
James O’Day
Ann Roosevelt
Miriam Vogel
<
p>Is there anyone missed?
amberpaw says
A Petition that delegates can sign with SPECIFIC amendments in this area. Seriously. You may wish to consider either using your blog, or a gmail or yahoo listserv to organize a convention effort to get a specific amendment in. Why not? If not YOU, then WHO? If not NOW then WHEN? Yes, I am willing to help, including making and bringing copies once the actual wording for an amendment is hashed out. If nothing like this is done, how will those who are, ahem, settled in their ways know the extent of the energy for changing the platform – and the reality, out here?
sabutai says
I’m certainly trying to get some stuff together. I’m hoping to get another post up succinctly saying what I’ve been blabbing about over on my blog. The ultra short version is this:
<
p>There are three alternatives:
<
p>*Accept the sucky platform. Try to move on
<
p>*Work to get a “no” vote on the draft platform. Nobody with whom I’ve spoken knows what happens then, but with help I should have an answer soon. If a no vote on the draft means a reversion to our current (and soon to expire) platform, I find that better than the draft with 3 or 4 progressive amendments. If a no vote means something else, then I’ll go with the amendments.
<
p>*Find separate amendments (or a group thereof) that can gain a clear majority approval from the convention floor. A progressive omnibus. This option takes work and money, heaven knows. What I posted as the “bare minimum” would be my suggested starting point for that. If we had a combined force of everyone working for equal access to health care, everyone favoring employee free choice, AND everyone working for a progressive income tax, we’d probably be able to pull it off. There are some progressive forces around the state, both broad-based and issue-based working on this, and if something can be hashed together over the next few days, it’s pedal to the metal.
yellow-dog says
and most time effective alternative.
<
p>What’s needed is redrafting, not tweaking. And I can’t believe making major changes would not take forever.
<
p>If the party leadership needs a kick in the arse, turning down the platform is a good place to start.
sabutai says
What happens if there’s a no vote? I know people are looking for an answer…
bean-in-the-burbs says
Couldn’t the convention vote to retain it, over the newly drafted document, which doesn’t appear to stand for much of anything other than broad generalities?
sabutai says
My ideal would be
<
p>1. No vote on the draft
2. Vote to continue the current platform
3. Small “maintenance” amendments such as employee free choice or universal health care actions
ryepower12 says
pronto