Democratic Party Platform

[Ben.]

Mr. President

I am ever a loyal and devoted servant of my party and my country, however in this instance I cannot in good concisions acquiesce to this platform. Not only do I find it vague on the whole but where it possesses clarity I find it fundamentally at odds with some of my deeply held beliefs.  Therefore I must officially state that I am rejecting this platform and voted at convention in a likes manner. I must further inform you that where this platform to be adopted I would be unable to campaign for or ultimately vote for the candidate who championed it.

Trusting that you as well as others within this great party might understand the reasons for my adopting this course of action I must now close. I trust that this platform might be revised and that a new platform that I can in good faith enthusiastically support might be drafted and accepted, however if this does not come to pass I have already explained the course of action I will be compelled to take.    

Regards

Ben: DLC Chairman.


PS: If this decision of mine meets with the disapproval of my colleagues within the DLC then i am more than happy to tender my resignation as chairman of that organisation.

[Ben.]

Ben,

If you object to the platform that strongly, might I suggest that you yourself draft a competing platform.

I think the duty of platform writing should have been yours anyway, if you are the Chairman of the party.

I am chairman of the DLC... but hey I'll present my recommendations


Social Issues:
 The Democratic Party is a “broad church” embracing cultural Liberals on the left and social conservatives on the right. I myself am a moderately socially conservative Democrat. But we must have positions that will be supported by both wings of the Party.
       
Abortion- While I am pro-life, I recommend that the party should have a platform which is committed to upholding Roe v Wade. The party should not seek to overturn the legislation such as the “partial birth” abortion ban or the legislation which lists crimes against the unborn child. However the Party platform should allow for state governments to legislate in a manner which they believe to reflect the attitudes of their constituents towards this issue.

Gay Marriage- It must not be the Federal Government’s role to legislate about whom may marry whom and any attempt to amended the constitution, in such a way should be opposed by this party. At the same time, once more, this issue should be left up to state governments to decide.

Racial Affirmative Action- Affirmative action is a source of some concern as it presently stands. I believe that this party must accept that there are other more effective and just ways to overcome inequality and widen opportunity and at the same time a new way must be found to tackle prejudice and injustice based on a person’s socio-economic origins.

Death Penalty- This party supports the death penalty only in the most heinous cases, however once again this party should permit some leeway for states to extend or completely ban the implementation of the death penalty..

Economy:
The budget deficit is a massive problem in this nation which threatens this nations long-term future, it cannot be allowed to blight the prospects of our children.

Tax Cuts- I do Not believe that this party should be committed to rolling back the taxes for the middle class. What we must instead do is to cut taxes further for both the middle and lower income groups as well as small to medium sized business and provide further tax breaks for those business offering to establish themselves in areas of high unemployment. The present Tax cuts must be decried by the party as highly regressive, we must stress that we wish to extend the tax cuts for the middle and lower classes however we must also move to raises taxes upon the better off  who presently enjoy very low taxes and yet do not give a great deal back to this nation through saving, investment or spending within the United States.    

Tariffs- I believe that this party must recognise that the imposition of tariffs on foreign goods in an attempt to boost our native manufacturers is almost always a temporary solution, that said this does not mean that they should never be employed however it must be recognised that they are a short term delay rather than a solution in of themselves. There have been calls for tariffs to be imposed in an effort to boost manufacturing, however at this time I do not believe that this party should endorse such a policy (at least for the moment), it should be stressed that we view the introductions of tariffs as a viable tool to assisting industry but not an end in their self and a tool that at this time it would seem unwise to use as with hiring in manufacturing at a 16 year high, the Steel Industry doing well thanks to massive demand from China and with America gaining more and more “white collar” jobs, in short this would not seem to be the time to resort to tariffs.

Spending- We must put aside any plans to spend large amounts in the near future on such critical areas as health or education instead the primary concern of any democratic administration should be to eliminate the budget deficit and restructure the present spending of the government in both Health and Education. This party must call for a repeal of the Prescription-Drug Bill, it must be denounced for its exorbitant cost and the fact that in reality helps few people, a new bill must be proposed to replace this one which allows for a sustainable expansion of medical coverage to include more Americans. In education the “No Child Left Behind” program must be seen to have failed, states must be seen to shoulder the burden for the cost of education however we must advocate that the federal government support the states financially in a significant way, it must not cut and run as has been the case. So to summarise this party must take as its first order of business in economic policy to either massively reduce the budget deficit or eliminate it entirely and as part of this process to radically restructure the wasteful and unsustainable spending plans that are presently the norm.


Foreign Policy: We as a party must recognise that the world is changing American interest have to be protected, the world will not always be as peaceful and stable as it currently is present predictions from the CIA and many others groups point to massive overpopulation in Africa, the middle east and Asia resulting in political instability and conflict. We must prepare our selves for this likely future However we must also work to maintain strong alliances with our faithful allies such as Britain, Australia, Japan and many others.

Iraq- This party must stress that its is very glad that Sadam Hussein’s regime has be deposed. We must however stress that the reasons given for going to war where at the least confused and at the most open lies we must stress that we want a full explanation for why we ever went to war. This investigation into the reasons for going to war must be viewed as separate from our policy towards Iraq now where we are there  we must work with the local groups to find a solution that assure a permanent stable and peaceful Iraq if this means more troops then so be it. But we must also work to build stronger likes with our allies and convince them to assist us to a greater degree in Iraq as the UK has been doing.

Afghanistan- As in Iraq we must work with local leaders while providing a secure environment to bring about a stable and preferably democratic state.

Homeland Security- The efforts to increase co-operation between the various intelligence agencies such as the FBI, CIA etc… are good and must be encouraged. The Patriot Act has caused much concern and some form of senatorial enquiry should be supported by this party to determine weather the price paid for the patriot act reflects the benefits it bestows, without such a process it would be impossible to reach any concrete conclusions concerning the usefulness of the act. However the party should recognise the importance approve all of the different elements of the security service working together and enjoying extended powers to deal with and act against suspected terrorist both within and outside of the United States.  

           

That concludes my recommendations for the Party platform, I don’t agree with it all, but it pretty broad and its expectable to me and probably a large number of other moderates.

Thanks

Ben

[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.

[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.  

[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.  

[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.  

[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.                                    

 

[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.  

[Ben.]

Defending the right of a human being to live is hardly moral condescension, the argument that the baby in the womb after the first trimester isn’t human is a weak one, and I find you’re off the cuff rejections of mine and many others deeply felt beliefs insensitive in the extreme, you are entitled to your beliefs for sure but that does not mean that you need to denigrate others, however your argument for abortion seems to be based on nothing mare than the assumption that 1.) simply because the baby is within the mothers womb it is devoid of rights and 2.) that convenience trumps a child’s right to live every time... I am sure more cogent arguments could be found to support abortion.

If you wish to leave the Democratic party then very well, I will fight for the real American, they deserve more than a conservative dogma which cheats their children of their future and a ultra-liberal dogma which denigrates their values and seeks to impose a harsh, intolerant and fundamentally bankrupt attitude to life, society and the individual.    

I think then we have nothing more to say.

[Ben.]

Kick

[Ben.]

Voting on this has been sparse.  Can we declare Nym's revised platform as officially passed?

Yes

[Ben.]

Kick… for old times sake this is living history!