While Democracy and the Democratic Party may sound similar, the party leaders again showed yesterday that one has little to do with the other. President Obama and party leaders wanted the party’s platform changed to include a reference to both Jerusalem being the capital of Israel and God. The omissions however were not accidental and a high number of delegates opposed the change, which had to be agreed to by two-thirds of the delegates. As shown in the video below, in calling for a voice vote, the leadership was shocked when it appeared that more people voted no than yes — certainly well short of two-thirds in support of the changes. That did not matter. The leadership just declared the vote as having passed by two-thirds acclamation.
Many wanted to be neutral on the divisive issue of Jerusalem but Obama was worried about the political backlash among Jewish voters. Many others wanted a secular platform and to stand apart from faith-based politics. Obama himself has relied on faith-based politics and policies, as discussed in earlier columns. Obama objected to the removal of the word God and seemed to miss the secular purpose of the move, asking him “Why on earth would that have been taken out?” It appears that no one had the courage to answer that question by explaining to Obama that it is not necessarily that delegates do not believe in God but were standing against the use of God for political advantage. Instead, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz insisted that “the platform is being amended to maintain consistency with the personal views expressed by the President and in the Democratic Party platform in 2008.”
The problem is that the platform actually reflects the views of the party members and they did not agree. The GOP had already pounced on the omissions in the platform and the Democratic leadership wanted the issues removed regardless of the opposition of the membership. Waserman Schultz dismissed the omitted language as a “technical oversight” ignoring the obviously high number of delegates supporting the omission. When combined with the rejection of the clear vote, the statement left the convention looking like a Chinese Party Congress. The “technical oversight” in this case proved to be the views of the delegates who were told that they would decide the content of the platform to reflect the views of the party base rather than the party bosses.
In fairness to the Democratic Party, the GOP has relied more heavily on faith-based politics in the past as shown most vividly by George Bush in his first successful run for the White House. The GOP also did not show much commitment to participatory politics in their treatment of Ron Paul supporters. However, many of us have criticized the use of faith in politics as not only demeaning faith but often also injecting sectarian divisions into our political system. It also undermines principles of separation of church and state when politicians run on their intent to advance religious values in government. Yet, it is how the leadership forced through the changes that was the most unnerving for those who watched yesterday.
Party leaders dispatched former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland to push through the changes. Strickland started out by noting his credential as an “ordained United Methodist minister.” Strickland announced “I am here to attest and affirm that our faith and belief in God is central to the American story and informs the values we’ve expressed in our party’s platform. In addition, President Obama recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and our party’s platform should as well. The 2008 platform read, “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.”
It took three voice votes and the opposition was clearly loader than the support for the changes. Yet, Strickland simply declared the measure passed despite all appearances to the contrary.
For those long unhappy with the Democratic leadership, it was a telling symbolic moment. Once again, it appeared that Democratic voters (even delegates representing the most loyal activists) are given only the appearance of participation in their party. For years, Democratic leaders lied to their members about their knowledge and even support for Bush’s torture program and surveillance policies until it was revealed that key Democrats were briefed on the programs. The party leadership then worked with Bush to scuttle any effort to investigate torture and other alleged crimes to avoid implicating key Democratic members. Likewise, while the majority of Democratic voters opposed the continuation of the wars, the Democratic party leaders blocked efforts to force a pull out under both Obama and Bush. These controversies were seen by many that the Democratic Party is primarily run to ensure the continuation of a small number of leaders in power with voters treated as ignorant minions. It was a particularly poignant moment in an uncontested convention after Democratic voters were not given any alternative to Obama.
The image of the chair just ignoring the obvious opposition from the floor of the conventional symbolized this long simmering tension. For full disclosure, I have long been a critic of both parties and have argued for changes to break the monopoly on power by the two parties. It is really not the merits of these two changes that is most bothersome. Arguments can be made on both side of such issues. It is the disregard of the views of the members and the dishonesty in how the matter was handled. The illusion of democracy was all that the leaders wanted in the vote.
Notably, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa seemed to be ready to acknowledge that the delegates clearly rejected the change on the first vote. He then insisted on a second vote and it got worse. He seemed about to admit the failure of the motion and then called for a third vote which sounded even more lopsided (with not just a failure to get two-thirds but even a majority). Yet, he declared the motion passed to the boos and jeers of the delegates.
In creating the illusion of democratic voting, the delegates might have just as well bleated like sheep in protest. It did not matter. The message was clear that the delegates are just a backdrop to be used by party leaders to celebrate their reign.
Source: CNN
Made sense to leave G-d out, that is thr more inconclusive, even if of Faith not all use the name G-d. This was expediency pure and simple. Take off one more way for the repubs to distract from their lack of platform.
bettykath:
Official Florida vote count:
Bush: 2,912,790
Gore: 2,912,253
Wonder if all those principled Florida progressives and Democrats who stayed home election day now wake up at night with a start knowing they ushered in George W. Bush.
bettykath, Bravo!!! I voted for Nader and I am proud of that vote. I voted for John Anderson and Ross Perot. Although, to be honest, I was glad that little whacko Perot never got his hands on the nuclear football.
mespo727272 1, September 6, 2012 at 12:25 pm
nick:
“mespo, Still whining about Nader having the temerity to fight the duopoly. Let it go, man. That resentment will give you agita…or worse.”
***************************
If merely stating historical fact is “whining,” I have to wonder who taught you English.
=================
Mespo,
You have many opinions with which I agree but on this topic, you’re the one ignoring historical facts and perpetually whining.
Gore actually won the popular vote in FL as the media recount established.
There were other candidates besides Nader who got more votes than the “official” gap between Bush and Gore.
Five individuals in black robes are the ones who appointed Bush, not Nader.
Gore didn’t even win TN, his home state. If he had, the FL loss wouldn’t have mattered.
Nader’s votes came from Democrats and Republicans, many of whom would not have voted for anyone else.
More Democrats voted for Bush than the difference in the “official” outcome.
NO candidate is ENTITLED to any votes. Every voter has the right to vote for whichever candidate they want. Gore wasn’t entitled to single vote that went to Nader.
Anyone who overcomes the onerous hurdles to get on the ballot deserves to be on the ballot and to any votes that s/he gets.
Get over it.
I am a citizen and I vote for whomever I decide is the best candidate. Sometimes that vote is easier than others. But just because someone may not like who I vote for, does not give that person the right to claim that I am not acting like a citizen. I at least have participated in the process in every election since I was 18. I have also protested, and worked for change, and I still work for change, but I have always voted. I even voted for a 3rd party candidate once and that protest vote did not get me or the country any closer to a better situation.
@Bron: Even without wars, American police officers die in the line of duty about every other day, at an average age of 38. Of over half a million such officers, about 10% are assaulted in the line of duty each year, and 2.6% sustain injuries requiring medical attention.
I do not believe my service to the country gives me any privilege any other citizen does not have; but I DO believe that only citizens collectively can determine exactly what RIGHTS we should have, not you or your misguided philosophy or religion or beliefs.
In order to have any meaning rights must be protected collectively, otherwise they are just an unnecessary excuse to fire a gun. For example, if you believe you have a Right to protect your property with lethal violence, the rest of society has to agree they will not punish you for using lethal violence in that way: Your “Right” means nothing if they burn your house down with you in it anyway. If you believe you have a Right to life, it does you no good if the rest of society hasn’t made a commitment to find and prosecute anybody that deprives you of it.
“Rights” not protected by the collective are just empty rhetoric, an excuse that means nothing, because if the collective does not agree to sacrifice its time and money to protect and enforce those Rights then they can be violated with impunity.
All of which means the collective is the final arbiter of what our Rights shall be, not you or me or anybody else.
nick:
“The good Sisters of Saint Joseph taught me English quite well, thank you. Life experience taught me to identify whining, the good Sisters merely taught me the meaning of the word”
********************
Good, then I can blame you alone for missing the point and the manner in which it was conveyed by a country mile.
Blouise:
You’re exactly right about that.
The good Sisters of Saint Joseph taught me English quite well, thank you. Life experience taught me to identify whining, the good Sisters merely taught me the meaning of the word.
JIll:
“Vote one day, work for justice everyday! There is no reason not to do so except if one secretly agrees with Obama’s abuse of power. ”
******************
Pity that’s not what your cited author suggests. She’s a boycott freak.
Lots of good comments here.
Clinton’s speech was a masterpiece, both content and delivery.
Comment in article by Margaret Kimberley: “Barack Obama and the Democrats are not the lesser of two evils, they are the more effective evil.” So true.
Romney’s assertion re: God so important to our forefather’s. He doesn’t know history.
God is not mentioned in the Constitution.
Religion is mentioned once, in the first amendment.
A requirement that candidates affirm a belief in God was defeated.
God is mentioned once, in the opening of the Declaration of Independence, as “Nature’s God”.
His specific reference to the motto, In God We Trust, is what was added in 1956, as was the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance.
The choice is to act as a citizen. Vote however you want but be willing to oppose wrongdoing, openly. Work for justice. Vote one day, work for justice everyday! There is no reason not to do so except if one secretly agrees with Obama’s abuse of power. If you do, applaud evil and remain silent before injustice. If you do not, speak up!
I think many Democrats have come to agree with the abuses they earlier opposed. I think that is why so many people will not speak out. The Democratic “leadership” has effectively purged their left wing, leaving behind those who agree with a great portion of a far right, neo-liberal agenda.
Those who don’t agree with all of it can be easily worked around, as was the case when a clear no vote suddenly became a yes vote by fiat. The rule of fiat has become normalized to the point where very few people will even speak up about having their own voice silenced.
Others with doubts are easily manipulated by appeals to the fear mongering of the day. This fear mongering, along with strategic hate management has moved Democratic voters to support actions which only 3.5 years ago, they called anathema.
Democrats continue to believe they are far too superior and intelligent to be manipulated by their party “leaders”. Yet no one should go from supposedly deeply help positions to their diametrical opposite in such a short time, without some kind of propaganda.
mespo,
You’ve left one very important fact out of Gore’s decision regarding his Presidential run … keep Bill Clinton at arms’ length … hindsight suggests that was far more destructive than Nader’s involvement.
nick:
“mespo, Still whining about Nader having the temerity to fight the duopoly. Let it go, man. That resentment will give you agita…or worse.”
***************************
If merely stating historical fact is “whining,” I have to wonder who taught you English.
Just for fun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations
James in LA
1, September 6, 2012 at 11:06 am
Obama is afraid the churchies. It hobbles him terribly.
——————————————————————
I honestly don’t think it’s fear. There are religious folk out there looking for a candidate so he’s invited them to dinner. That’s not hobbling … it’s just good manners.
mespo, Still whining about Nader having the temerity to fight the duopoly. Let it go, man. That resentment will give you agita…or worse.
@ Mike Spindell: The choice has always been between the bad and the rotten.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
100%. ALWAYS.
Strangely, democracy is within our reach technologically now and completely beyond our reach as a society — forever. This is the fault of the Democrats, the Republicans, the these and the those, and it’s just true. To be more indignant that the Democrats have not produced democracy than that the Republicans have also not seems to me to be silly posturing.
Not only has nobody promised us a rose garden, but anybody who has, has been lying while stealing our roses and disarming our thorns. All we have left is “get over it” but I can’t.
mespo:
that is right, people should vote even if they cant vote on principle. I bet a bunch of Germans after the 1933 election regretted voting on principle. There were 6 or 7 candidates that year, had they voted for the second place candidate he would have been the first place candidate and the history of the world would be entirely different.