Democratic Party Platform

[Ben.]

We Still haven't vote on the Ben draft vs the Nym draft!

I demand a vote!

Weather i win or lose we must vote and soon!

Sorry to seem emphatic but this is a point we cannot allow to "hang".


I post my platform once again...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Nym90]

I vote for the Nym draft. (The new one, not the original).

[Nym90]

Fritz, maybe you can redo your analysis of the differences again, though. It seems to me that the new Nym version is much closer to the Ben version in many areas.

[Ben.]

Sorry i missed out...


Environment: The care of our environment is a “balancing act” we must care for our environment but we must also allow for economic growth and sustainable exploitation of our natural resources. This party must oppose such nonsensical suggestions as drilling in the “artic nature reserve” and other blatant attacks upon the environment, however in regions such as Ohio and West Virginia we must also work to protect the jobs of those in manufacturing jobs associated with Industries that are perhaps not incredibly environmentally sound, At the same time we must provide some funds for these industries to modernise and reduce what ever population they cause. Rather than setting national objectives for reductions in carbon dioxide more diverse targets in a number of areas should be set by the department of the environment on a state by state basis.

Forum Affairs: Three Strikes and You’re Out! For trolling that is, based upon a committee of three members with over 300 posts selected by the president, meeting on a thread or through some other means such as MSN, a person who is considered to have trolled on no less than three threads or more than eight times on a given thread should be suspended from the site indefinably but this must be left up to the vote of the three committeepersons, as it could always be found that there are mitigating circumstances.      
 

[Ben.]

Ben (DLC Chair) Memorandum: Subject- Democratic Platform.  

Mr President.

I do not have any direct problems with your revised platform. And I am resolved that it would be acceptable to my personal sense of what is right and just to campaign for you and this platform (despite my disagreement with some elements), with the one proviso being unless some other group or individual where to propose a platform with which I whole heartedly agreed that is, in which case I would once again need to consider my position.

I do however worry about the ambiguity and potential for misinterpretation of the platform in a number of areas.

In Spending…


“The Democratic Party supports increased spending on governmental programs which will help job creation. We support increased spending on roads, bridges, schools, and other vital infrastructure.”

I fear that this means we are leaving the door open to unlimited amounts of spending, when the simple fact is that we will be unable to embark upon such spending plans without exacerbating the budget deficit even further. Furthermore I fear that such ambiguity even when joined by the following ascertain…

“However, we do not support deficit spending other than during extenuating circumstances, and would oppose any spending proposals that would put an undue burden on our future generations.”

…could be a massive electoral liability, sadly I feel that the commitment on the one had to spend in such a wide range of areas and then on the other to support a balanced budget is simply not possible and will be see as such by not merely our opponents but also those who might be persuaded to vote for us. Similarly I feel that the following is impractical…  

“We support studying the economic benefits and costs of each individual proposed and existing government program to determine whether or not it is operating in an efficient manner. We feel that the overall size and scope of government can be reduced by increasing the efficiency of government, and that there are reductions in spending that can be made without reducing the quality of service provided, and that improving the efficient operations of government should be a high priority.”

…and that once again such a commitment would be both unworkable if elected and in the campaign it’s self an electoral liability.

*In Abortion…

I am afraid this is an area of big concern for me as well as many others, but the wording in our platform is ambiguous to say the least and could be portrayed as contradictory…

“The Democratic party supports Roe vs. Wade. We are greatly committed to upholding a woman's right to choose an abortion. We feel this intensely personal decision should be left to a woman and her doctor, not to government bureaucrats.”

…the above statement would seem to support a staunchly pro-choice agenda, however then the following is stated…

“We feel that abortion law, as it currently stands in the United States, is not in need of modification. We oppose any attempts to change the current US laws on abortion.”

…This is probably not intentional, however it needs to be urgently revised imho to make it less ambiguous and actually “get it off the fence”.

On Gay Marriage…

This is a politically very thorny issue but as with Abortion the party’s postions seems confused…

“The Democratic party is in favour of giving all people the right to marry whomever they choose.”

…But then the following seemingly contradictory statement…

“We do not feel that it is the place of government to decide who is worthy or unworthy of obtaining a marriage license, as we do not feel that such personal judgements of the strength of a relationship between two people can be made by government bureaucrats. We feel that the institution of marriage will be strengthened by allowing all couples who love each other enough to desire to enter into a marriage to get married.”

…I am afraid it seems rather rambling and unclear, clarity can be found at the end…

“We feel that individual states should be permitted to allow gay marriage if they so choose. We oppose any attempt to amend the Constitution regarding gay marriage.”

…In conclusion I think a party who’s position is to leave the issue up to the state’s can do just that, it does not need a position at a national level that may affront the values of some of its members (not myself it must be said) and could also prove an electoral liability.

Thank you Mr President, That concludes my recommendations on the platform for the Democratic Party. Also am I to understand that the office of party chairman is now vacant following Boss Tweed’s victory in D-1, if so I would very much like to be considered.

Thak you once again.

Regards

Ben (DLC Chair).            

PS *This is an area where i would find it hard to support the platform where a policy to the left of the position articulated in Boss Tweeds' Bill (hughento's amendment included) adopted and agreed to. Sorry but that is how i feel on the issue.  

[ilikeverin]

*sigh*

Is there no other party besides the Republicans (?) who support the War on Drugs?

[Nym90]

Thanks for your comments Ben. I found them very insightful and you made many good points. As for the ambiguities that you mentioned, I will attempt to explain them.

On spending, I made it clear twice in the platform that a balanced budget was the first priority, and that we would not support spending proposals which would substaintially increase the debt and that we could not afford. I also explained in an earlier response to John D. Ford that I feel that government programs which will help to create jobs can actually more than pay for themselves through the boost they will give to the economy(trickle-up economics). I feel that it is practical to increase spending in certain key areas that will help get the economy moving and balance the budget at the same time. Pres. Clinton was able to both produce a strong economy and budget surpluses, and I feel that government spending to stimulate the economy can produce the same effect. I understand many may be skeptical of this approach, but I believe that it can work and am definitely prepared to defend it in a debate.

I also don't see it as unworkable at all to review government programs and make them more efficient. Again, Pres. Clinton was big on this (and Al Gore in particular) with the concept of "reinventing" government. I feel that government can be made more efficient without making it less effective. We can have smaller government that works just as well if we eliminate some bureaucratic red tape. As someone whose undergrad college degree specialized in efficiency of operations, this is a personal passion of mine, but I definitely see it as workable, and if successful, would help in efforts to balance the budget without having to cut spending in vital areas or unduly raise taxes.

I understand the moral opposition many will feel to the abortion plank. Our party does take a strong pro-choice position; in saying that we support existing US law, though, I see no ambiguity. We would oppose any attempts to change the current abortion laws, including the partial-birth ban, as well as opposing any repeal of Roe vs. Wade or any further attempts to reduce abortion rights. It seems fairly clear to me to say that we support the status quo.

On gay marriage, our party's position is that we would like individual states to approve gay marriage, but we do not feel that they should be forced to do so against their will at this time. I don't see that as a contradiction. Simply saying that we are for state's rights on this issue may make it seem as though we do not support gay marriage, when in fact we do. We do not feel that the nation, is, at this time, necessarily prepared for nationwide gay marriage, but we feel that steps should be taken in that direction. We do support gay marriage and will continue to fight for it. The civil rights battles of the 1950's and 1960's weren't won overnight, nor would any attempt to force integration on the South immediately have been successful. Sometimes a more gradual shift in policy over time is necessary for something to become more culturally acceptable.

On the social issues, remember that I was trying to appease both you and Migrendel. Since you think our positions are too liberal, and he thinks they are too conservative, I seem to have been mostly successful. Party platforms are always difficult to write, and certainly not all party members must agree with all of the platform. Individual candidates for offices, running under the Democratic party banner, are free to choose differing positions.

[Fritz]

Fritz, maybe you can redo your analysis of the differences again, though. It seems to me that the new Nym version is much closer to the Ben version in many areas.

As Ben has withdrawn his objections, and appears to be supporting the revised Nym90 platform, there does not appear to be a need for this.

I will redo my platform comparison analysis once our party, the Atlas National (i.e. Republican) party, and the United Left party (if they are ever formed) all have finalized platforms.

Presidential and Senatorial elections are scheduled I believe for June 18, less than 5 weeks from now.  It would be nice if we could clearly establish what parties are going to participate in those elections, and what each parties platform is, well in advance of then.

On that note, I vote yes on Nym90's revised platform.

[Ben.]

After due consideration and with the fact in mind that any platform should be a compromise... I give my full support and vote for the Nym's revised platform.  

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Why compromise Ben when you could join the UAC?

After due consideration and with the fact in mind that any platform should be a compromise... I give my full support and vote for the Nym's revised platform.  

[Ben.]

Why compromise Ben when you could join the UAC?

After due consideration and with the fact in mind that any platform should be a compromise... I give my full support and vote for the Nym's revised platform.  

Loyalty my friend, I cannot abandon this party, I must try and reform and revive it getting it back in touch with the people it has always represented ordinary hard working Americans rather than simply radical party activists.

Besides within the UAC, I’d be but once voice in a quire he I have a real say.

That said I hope to be joined by other moderates in due course.  

[JohnFKennedy]

Why compromise Ben when you could join the UAC?

After due consideration and with the fact in mind that any platform should be a compromise... I give my full support and vote for the Nym's revised platform.  

Loyalty my friend, I cannot abandon this party, I must try and reform and revive it getting it back in touch with the people it has always represented ordinary hard working Americans rather than simply radical party activists.

Besides within the UAC, I’d be but once voice in a quire he I have a real say.

That said I hope to be joined by other moderates in due course.  

Why does everyone say we are taking over and things such as one "voice in a quire". We have fewer members than BOTH the other two major parties, Democrats and Republicans.

[Nym90]

Does anyone have any webspace at which they could host this platform? It would be nice to have it permanently on the web so that we don't have to keep bumping this up.

Either that, or maybe there could be one stickied topic for ALL party platforms, so that they could be easily compared.

[migrendel]

I shall not win these debates. But I do wish to be remembered for posterity that I supported the rights of women, racial and sexual minorities, and the poor. These people need our help more than these so-called "working Americans" because they will forever be impaired in the minds of some because of happenstance. It has been put in the platform that we oppose any person living on welfare indefinitely. Do we really wish to condemn an alternate lifestyle practiced by some? Should we be judging? It is also stated that we support most provisions of the 1996 law. Do we wish to support such a cruel and mean-spirited attempt to remove a cornerstone of the New Deal, which so many Americans have depended upon in times of great calamity.

I must reiterate my opposition to our abortion and same-sex marriage planks. In the law, it should not be an option to restrict a person's rights. We have denounced reproductive autonomy, and the right to decide one's spouse. It shows precious little respect for liberty. I cannot allow for that in good conscience.

I also feel that our affirmative action plank is heinous. After fifty years, can we support such a measure, that would reduce Brown to the status of a broken promise?

This is my final word in this matter. If certain concessions are not made, I shall change my partisan affiliation to United Left. I cannot support such injustices within my own party.

[minionofmidas]

We'll be happy to have you!

[migrendel]

Also, Ben, how do we "radical leftists" not care about ordinary working Americans? We support the most comprehensive social insurance and labor policies of anyone.

[KEmperor]

Wow.  You oppose helping working Americans, and call not working for a living and leeching off of those who do an "alternative lifestyle?"  Just wow.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I shall not win these debates. But I do wish to be remembered for posterity that I supported the rights of women, racial and sexual minorities, and the poor. These people need our help more than these so-called "working Americans" because they will forever be impaired in the minds of some because of happenstance. It has been put in the platform that we oppose any person living on welfare indefinitely. Do we really wish to condemn an alternate lifestyle practiced by some? Should we be judging? It is also stated that we support most provisions of the 1996 law. Do we wish to support such a cruel and mean-spirited attempt to remove a cornerstone of the New Deal, which so many Americans have depended upon in times of great calamity.

I must reiterate my opposition to our abortion and same-sex marriage planks. In the law, it should not be an option to restrict a person's rights. We have denounced reproductive autonomy, and the right to decide one's spouse. It shows precious little respect for liberty. I cannot allow for that in good conscience.

I also feel that our affirmative action plank is heinous. After fifty years, can we support such a measure, that would reduce Brown to the status of a broken promise?

This is my final word in this matter. If certain concessions are not made, I shall change my partisan affiliation to United Left. I cannot support such injustices within my own party.

The United Left opposes the 1996 Welfare Reform provisions arbitrarily limiting welfare benefits.  We also support race-based affirmative action until we have achieve substantial racial equality.  

I anticipate we will unambiguously support gay marriage once the platform is refined.

[migrendel]

Well, good. If my proposed revisions aren't put into place, I shall be a Democrat no longer.

[Ben.]

Also, Ben, how do we "radical leftists" not care about ordinary working Americans? We support the most comprehensive social insurance and labor policies of anyone.

Just because you want to introduce the “most comprehensive social insurance and labor policies of anyone” does not mean that you are a friend of the ordinary working American, I am sure your intentions are good but they are misinformed.

Ordinary Americans do not want hand outs, they want support sure so they can get back to work, but it is wrong to encourage people to become part of a culture of dependency. Any adoption of an expensive and cumbersome welfare system such as the one you seem to be suggesting would only encourage this “culture of dependency” and would help no one while at the same time forcing a massive tax burden upon the same middle and lower class Americans who you claim to represent.

As far as health care and education are concerned our priorities must be to provide sustainable and inexpensive means of providing the very best of both. And in this the best solution must be for the employment of “PFI” programs with the federal government, the state government and private businesses sharing the cost of providing these services. We cannot place a massive tax burden upon hard working Americans and their families for little return what I and many moderates propose in the form of “PFI” programs is the surest way to provide sustainable and exemplary public services.              

Returning to your point about Abortion and Gay marriage, the former I have very strong views on and the latter I hold a fairly moderate position on.

On Abortion, your suggestions are dismissive of many views and you seem to lack a coherent argument to support your position. What your position boils down to is…

 “If the Mother finds the pregnancy inconvenient at any time, then she can have it aborted, no limits no questions”

…that about right, well what about the child? Am I to assume that the convenience of the mother trumps a human beings right to live! That’s pretty extreme if you don’t mind me saying so. I believe (even though if I was involved I would probably seek to persuade the mouth otherwise) that a woman should have the option to abort her foetus in the first trimester and there after only in the case of rape, incest, a threat to her life or the strong possibility of the child suffering from very serious disabilities. You seem to suggest that abortion is some kind of contraception? It is not, nor should it ever be accepted as such imho, that is why I advocate the promotion of family planning, the use of contraception and even faith based initiatives (not that they should ever be forced on anyone, but I consider some youth abstinence plans to be beneficial imho) but aborting a pregnancy is not contraception, further more what I have proposed prohibits abortions only outside of the first trimmest and even then I have included provisos, but how can an abortion of a healthy pregnancy outside of the first trimester ever be some for of abortion.

…On Gay Marriage, I think that it is thorny issue, I think that enforcing it on other people would be counterproductive and would be a circumvention of those rights which the individual states of this union hold as their own, but this cuts both ways as by the same token any constitutional amendment would be a similar contravention of the right of states. I am opposed and this party should be opposed to any efforts to introduce such an measure as President Bush attempted has to, while at the same time we should respect the decisions of states with regards to gay marriage be it Massachusetts or  Mississippi. Marriage is simply not an issue for the federal government and it should not be played politics with and that goes for the right as well as the left, local officials should be condemned for out stepping their remit such as was the case in San Francisco. As I have said this is an issue for the states and what ever the decision I believe that it should be respected, what should be recognised is that these same-sex couples should have the legal rights granted them through civil-unions regardless of the state where they reside and while this issue should be pressed sensitively it must be pressed.                                    

 

[The Duke]

I shall not win these debates. But I do wish to be remembered for posterity that I supported the rights of women, racial and sexual minorities, and the poor. These people need our help more than these so-called "working Americans" because they will forever be impaired in the minds of some because of happenstance. It has been put in the platform that we oppose any person living on welfare indefinitely. Do we really wish to condemn an alternate lifestyle practiced by some? Should we be judging? It is also stated that we support most provisions of the 1996 law. Do we wish to support such a cruel and mean-spirited attempt to remove a cornerstone of the New Deal, which so many Americans have depended upon in times of great calamity.

I must reiterate my opposition to our abortion and same-sex marriage planks. In the law, it should not be an option to restrict a person's rights. We have denounced reproductive autonomy, and the right to decide one's spouse. It shows precious little respect for liberty. I cannot allow for that in good conscience.

I also feel that our affirmative action plank is heinous. After fifty years, can we support such a measure, that would reduce Brown to the status of a broken promise?

This is my final word in this matter. If certain concessions are not made, I shall change my partisan affiliation to United Left. I cannot support such injustices within my own party.

My jaw is on the floor.

[Ben.]

I shall not win these debates. But I do wish to be remembered for posterity that I supported the rights of women, racial and sexual minorities, and the poor. These people need our help more than these so-called "working Americans" because they will forever be impaired in the minds of some because of happenstance. It has been put in the platform that we oppose any person living on welfare indefinitely. Do we really wish to condemn an alternate lifestyle practiced by some? Should we be judging? It is also stated that we support most provisions of the 1996 law. Do we wish to support such a cruel and mean-spirited attempt to remove a cornerstone of the New Deal, which so many Americans have depended upon in times of great calamity.

I must reiterate my opposition to our abortion and same-sex marriage planks. In the law, it should not be an option to restrict a person's rights. We have denounced reproductive autonomy, and the right to decide one's spouse. It shows precious little respect for liberty. I cannot allow for that in good conscience.

I also feel that our affirmative action plank is heinous. After fifty years, can we support such a measure, that would reduce Brown to the status of a broken promise?

This is my final word in this matter. If certain concessions are not made, I shall change my partisan affiliation to United Left. I cannot support such injustices within my own party.

My jaw is on the floor.

Its an unrepresentative statement which migrendel is perfectly entitled to make, however it is in no way reflective of the attitudes or polices of the ADNC. I will repeat this is a statement of personal beliefs and not a statement in anyway reflective of Democratic party policy.  

[The Duke]

I know.  My jaw is on the floor anyway.

[migrendel]

How many times must I explain it? My theory of Constitutional liberty, which protects an absolute right to decide whether or not a pregnancy shall be continued, does not base the decision upon fetal interests because under the above theory, fetuses have no rights that we as a society are under obligation to protect. I suppose we need courts to declare  fetal status equivalent to that of Dred Scott, but in this case it would be for the best. Now, just because you stridently disagree with my views on abortion doesn't mean that I haven't posited a coherent legal theory to support it.

[migrendel]

I hereby sever my affiliation with the Democratic party and change my support to United Left. I simply cannot be part of a party where we forget who we represent, the ideals we allegedly believe in, and where people like Ben have sway over the policy over the supposedly more progressive organization.

I shall still vote for Nym come the election, for he is a fine president, but no longer will I be part of this. No longer will I support the party of Boss Tweed's abortion bill, Ben's judgment of the morals of an individual, and class based affirmative action. I have declared my conscience, and I shall go forward from this group. No longer will I tinker with those who place liberty and equality second and moral condescencion first.