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
julianmalcolm,
“Do the more experienced among us have suggestions on how to wrest control back?”
There are so many suggestions written all over this blog. Stick around and add some of your own. Experience can sometimes be a hindrance to problem solving so jump in with both feet!
This is NOT a serious question. First off, this convention is more a PARTY than a political conventioin. I was also unaware that there was a faction of Democrats who were pushing for the omission of God and of Jerusalem as Israels capitol. Had there been any REAL opposition to the changes, they could have appealed the chairs ruling, and forced a division of the house or a roll call vote.
The opposition to the changes were more like the request at a party to do something that the organizers want. After the party gets going, I can guarantee you, most anything will get vetoed. Let’s get real here. It is NOT Chicago 68 style politics.
Blouise,
Arriving late. You say:
“One stupidly worded sign can go viral and totally destroy a well disciplined presentation taking the focus off of the candidate and losing votes.”
Then OK, it is not democracy, it is a staged performance just like a speech on the stump, but without the hecklers.
In Sweden, we say: Vinn eller försvinn. Win or disappear.
Why not eliminate conventions? There were no choice making except the elimination of Paul’s delegates (I believe). What is left to decide here? How did that platform get out of committee without God and Jerusalen?
Bill’s speech was meant to talk to money issues with the independents.
Again consider what JT says, the red/blue and the electoral system makes decided states uninteresting. JTs 2010 blog is more and more attractive.
Use the time for debates.
No answer requested.
julianmalcolm,
“Do the more experienced among us have suggestions on how to wrest control back? Perhaps, not at the conventions, but at a more local level perhaps?”
In many cases it’s just a matter of showing up with a few like minded people. I attended a D committee meeting. It was 4 Dems and me.
It’s how the tea party took over the Rs. They showed up in numbers and outvoted the regulars.
Ron Paul got as many delegates as he did by knowing the rules and having dedicated people who took advantage of the rules. Of course, those with the power used it mercilessly to put him down. Paul won in a way by showing how abusive those in power can be in order to maintain their power. It’s what they’ve been doing to him for years and what both parties due to those who want to participate outside the two parties.
hmm, this started out to be positive but got mired in real life. : (
If it was the people (and not money and party) who steered the party we might have more choices in our potential candidates.
If you take a step back you will see conventions are quite tribal. The different states[tribes] w/ their banners jumping up and down. The chiefs on the podiums preaching to the choir. Lottakatz I think understands this.
Mespo, Are you a Red Sox fan. They love to hash over losses from decades ago, it’s sad and tedious…not neccesarily in that order.
Elaine, Do you get a commission from The Nation? I go to a coffee shop in Madison where Nichols has his unofficial office. Very bright guy but quite full of himself.
Messpo,
Not chasing you but must take issue with you on a point of what democracy is. You adopt the pragmatic, we are here to win elections POV. All well, what is the point otherwise of participating.
“Pristine democracy on a voice vote of the party faithful that leads to defeat is simply taking your eye off the goal in the minds of the Democratic leadership.
———————-Messpo
But, I though that it was the people who steered the party, and that the platform was determined by the people.
Not by the candidate and the party leadership.
Would wish for views on that, but can’t impose on you. That is my naive POV.
@Bron: There is no real objectivity, all rights are based in reasoning about what typical people emotionally value. Like staying alive, for one, or not being beaten into compliance, for another.
Typically arriving at the decision on rights should require a super-majority. That is so the Right remains stable and cannot be easily tipped; if you allow a Right to be established by 50% + 1 vote, then the entire Right rests upon no single advocate switching sides. i.e. the collective opinion might change within a few seconds of passing the Right.
That would too fragile a state for something we want to term a Right. A vote of 75%, however, is a much stronger indicator of a stable and persistent perception or belief or emotional commitment.
Your perception of “objectively” defined rights is nothing of the sort, you emotionally value your life, time, profits, and stuff you own. There is no objective reason to survive, all reasoning in that direction boils down to what you want and value emotionally.
Collective Rights do not lead to the domination of one segment of society over another, for two reasons: First, because the super-majority that agrees on a right can be composed of different people in every instance. Second, because in fair system (which can be judged objectively) any law declared must apply to all, including those that declared the law. Nobody is “dominated” if everybody is subject to the same set of rules.
But, I will stipulate that depends a lot on the definition of “dominate” and “segment.”
If you still think it is domination, what gives you the right to dominate serial killers by punishing murder, or the right to dominate professional thieves by punishing theft? In a state of nature where those are legal activities, those “segments” of the population will not agree to be punished for the activities they enjoy and survive upon, so outlawing murder and theft is necessarily not a 100% decision, either. It must be made by a super-majority. If that is the sense in which you want to use the word “domination,” then sure, in your view the super-majority is oppressing and exploiting the “ruthless” segment of society.
Mespo,
Correction: “That’s snarky and appropriate.” I meant NOT appropriate.
Ok. Let’s dismiss the subject with the apathetic voters being the reason Bush won.
Of the 50% who didn’t vote, some of them are probably not progressives and would have voted for Bush or Buchanan or Browne, Hagelin or Phillips. The progressives might also have voted for Nader or McReynolds. I’m not sure where Moorehead was on the left/right scale but she also got more votes than the “official” margin.
So back to my initial point: Don’t blame Nader. If you can accept that, I’m quite willing to blame all the voters who didn’t bother to show up.
“Never in my political ‘apprenticeship’ or thereafter was it ever giving to me to understand that the presidential convention or any local (city, state) party function was an exercise in inter-party Democracy. Never. I really am surprised that so many people on this blawg (people with opinions and knowledge I respect) think that it is. Did I miss a revolution? These are party events controlled by the people that control the party.” (lottakatz)
——————————————————————–
Your experiences as a child somewhat mirrors my own except it was one parent at the Republican conventions and another at the Democratic conventions starting with Eisenhower/Stevenson contests. Eventually my father become the chief financial committee chair for a now retired, long serving member of the House and thanks to my parents’ involvement, I have attended more than a few Inaugural Balls in D C for both parties.
Your assertion that never was it given to you to understand that the conventions’ function was an exercise in inter-party Democracy is correct. Now you realize that in saying that, we have seriously disturbed an intentional spin and/or revealed a lack of experience.
One thing I have noticed that has really changed is the excitement level within the hall. I used to come home with the funniest looking hats, buttons, flashlights, goody bags full of things only a child would love. Conventions used to be like carnivals. You celebrated and charged up to hit the pavement for your candidate. I suppose it’s still happening, just not on camera though I did see a male child all dressed up in a suit and tie sitting quietly … hope he’s having more fun in the halls.
The distinction that Blouise and lottaKatz has made regarding the lack of any inter-party democracy are the most helpful of the day, (for me anyway). I can hardly stomach the county party meetings so I’ve never even gotten near the conventions – chalk me up as among the inexperienced.
Still, it seems to me that both right and left feel disenfranchised with R and D, more than usual, (I think most Americans have always hated politicians with a few exceptions). Do the more experienced among us have suggestions on how to wrest control back? Perhaps, not at the conventions, but at a more local level perhaps?
Lotta and Blouise,
Thank you for your insights and perspective on the reality of politics. I love your reminiscenses of your involvement with the inside of politics. You provide the context that informs this discussion.
bettykath:
No offense taken. I just wanted to point out the now historical fact that Bush won the state due to many factors not the least of which was apathetic voters who couldn’t fit ol’ boring wooden Al Gore into their paradigm of the ideal candidate. Bo, their principled stand worked so well that it gave us Bush and his gang of marauders. Principle is fine; it’s just expensive.
Tony C:
““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.”
So how does the collective come to a consensus? On what do they base their concept of rights? Do they pull them out of their nether regions, vote on them, make them up? Does everyone have to agree or do we need just 51% to justify “our” collective rights?
how do you have a society when the chances of everyone agreeing on collective rights is slim to none? It seems to me your collective rights lead to the domination of one segment of society over another or you split society into little fiefdoms.
Rights should have an objective basis and be rooted in the nature of man, that is what our founders tried to do for us. Collective rights are to have no individual rights at all.
mespo727272 1, September 6, 2012 at 2:01 pm
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.
——–
Mespo, I’m truly sorry that you’ve taken the very narrow view that only one fact counts, the fact that skews the overall picture.
I don’t dispute the “official” vote count as being what you say. Less than 600 votes out of 6 million should trigger a complete recount, especially when it determines a national election. The recount was underway due to FL Supreme Court rule but the US Supreme Court intervened.
Obviously, at least to me, there were a lot people in Florida, as in the rest of the country (somewhere around 50%) that didn’t vote but it’s more likely that they, left, right or center, didn’t see a candidate worthy of their vote or that it mattered one way or the other. You are responsible for your vote, not theirs. I do wish that 50% had all voted for Nader : )
Instead of blaming Nader, how about the Palm Beach butterfly ballot that resulted in nearly 4000 votes to Pat Buchanan that were 4-10 times what was legitimate?
I apologize for the “get over it” comment. That’s snarky and appropriate.
The Racial Politics Behind the Right Wing’s Poll-Watching
Voting Rights Watch 2012 and Brentin Mock
September 6, 2012
http://www.thenation.com/blog/169783/racial-politics-behind-right-wings-poll-watching
Excerpt:
Last month, we published a story on a Tea Party group called True the Vote, which trades in voter ID law advocacy, voter registration challenges and poll watcher trainings. Challenging people who may have illegally registered to vote, and training people to observe poll activity are innocuous activities, but only when divorced from their racial history in the United States. A new report from the Brennan Center for Justice, “Voter Challengers” details that troublesome history while spelling out just how problematic such poll-watching activities can be, especially when administered by hyper-partisan and racially insensitive groups like True the Vote.
“This history of discriminatory voter challenges casts doubt on the fraud-prevention arguments traditionally used to justify these laws,” writes Nicolas Riley, author of the report. True the Vote, and their many allies, often cite voter fraud as the reason for militarizing the polls, but countless studies have shown that the notion of massive voter fraud is mostly bunk, as meticulously noted in this News 21 investigation.
Still, thirty-nine states allow private citizens to challenge voters at the polls. According to the Brennan study, election officials in those states are “under immense time pressure to decide challenges quickly in order to avoid voting delays.” True the Vote is aware of this, but they put it differently, saying at a recent poll watcher training that election officials are “under immense pressure to do the wrong thing”—namely let undocumented immigrants vote, and let people vote multiple times.
Scarier, of the thirty-nine states that allow random people to challenge voters inside polling places, only fifteen of them require the challengers to prove that the person they’re challenging isn’t an eligible voter. Which means that in twenty-four states people can wage all kinds of frivolous accusations—that a person is an “illegal alien,” or that they are using a dead person’s identity to vote—to burden if not intimidate voters. In these states, the poll challenger statutes can be abused and used for racial profiling, when not sending a chill effect to others who might be vulnerable for no other reason than having a Latino surname.
In those states, people can make up a reason to challenge a voter’s rights without any evidence backing them up, and do so with impunity. It’s the same as when people drum up charges of voter fraud to pass voter ID bills and go unpunished when it’s revealed that no such fraud exists. You can’t fabricate a police report by saying you were mugged if you weren’t; you can’t file a false claim saying you lost possessions in a disaster. In both cases, you face jail and fines for bearing false witness, but not if you fabricate voter fraud or voter ineligibility in many states.
The Brennan report points out that South Carolina and Virginia allow people to challenge voters even if it’s nothing but a whim. Consider that both South Carolina and Virginia both have passed voter ID laws. In South Carolina, that law is currently being challenged in a federal court, where it was discovered that the law’s author Representative Alan Clemmons made racist comments about black voters in an e-mail while discussing how to pass the legislation.
Both states have strong True the Vote connections. In South Carolina, a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, Cibby Krell, is a True the Vote volunteer with the Spartanburg Tea Party. In Virginia, the Virginia Voters Alliance is a group that trains Tea Party groups in challenging voters while pressuring Virginia election officials to engage in reckless purging processes.
It so happens that many of the states with lax regulations around poll watcher activities are states where True the Vote is most active. But in some of those states, True the Vote leaders—people who have trained thousands of Tea Party volunteers via webinars—don’t seem to know the state laws themselves. In a June interview with Erin Anderson, at the time a True the Vote regional director, I was told that “Wisconsin allows a poll watcher to make a challenge to a voter. Most states don’t have that [law]. Texas doesn’t have that for example.”
A Nun on the Podium Takes Apart Paul Ryan
By John Nichols
September 6, 2012
http://www.thenation.com/blog/169786/nun-podium-takes-apart-paul-ryan
Excerpt:
CHARLOTTE — The focus at this Democratic National Convention is on speeches, big speeches.
But one of the most remarkable — and well-received — speeches of convention was delivered by a nun.
According to some right-wing talk radio hosts and Republican strategists, the Democrats are waging a “war on religion” in general and the Catholic church in particular. They raised such a ruckus when the Democratic platform arrived without a mention of the word “God” that the document was quickly amended.
Yet, when Sister Simone Campbell walked onto the stage of the DNC Wednesday night, she was greeted with thunderous applause. The execitive director of the Roman Catholic social justice organization Network didn’t really have to announce that she was one of the “Nuns on the Bus.”
Everyone seemed to know that she and other nuns traveled the country this summer to call out House Budget Committe chairman Paul Ryan for proposing a budget that the women argued was at odds with Catholic social-justice teaching. Now that Ryan, who claims his proposals to shred the social-safety net are inspired by Catholic doctrine, is the Republican nominee for vice president, Sister Simone is turning up the volume:
Paul Ryan claims his budget reflects the principles of our shared Catholic faith. But the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops stated that the Ryan budget failed a basic moral test, because it would harm families living in poverty.
We agree with our bishops, and that’s why we went on the road: to stand with struggling families and to lift up our Catholic sisters who serve them. Their work to alleviate suffering would be seriously harmed by the Romney-Ryan budget, and that is wrong.
During our journey, I rediscovered a few truths. First, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are correct when they say that each individual should be responsible. But their budget goes astray in not acknowledging that we are responsible not only for ourselves and our immediate families. Rather, our faith strongly affirms that we are all responsible for one another.
I am my sister’s keeper. I am my brother’s keeper.
That last pronouncement earned sustained applause from delegates who had packed the Charlotte convention hall to hear former President Bill Clinton make the case for reelecting current President Barack Obama.And the crowd listened intently as Sister Simone recalled visits with Americans who are in need of education, social services and health care.
The crowd listened intently as Sister Simone told the stories of Americas who are suffering without access to social services and health care:
In Cincinnati, I met Jini, who had just come from her sister’s memorial service. When Jini’s sister Margaret lost her job, she lost her health insurance. She developed cancer and had no access to diagnosis or treatment. She died unnecessarily. That is tragic. And it is wrong.
The Affordable Care Act will cover people like Margaret. We all share responsibility to ensure that this vital health care reform law is properly implemented and that all governors expand Medicaid coverage so no more Margarets die from lack of care. This is part of my pro-life stance and the right thing to do.
At what is arguably the most pro-choice Democratic convention in history, speaking from a podium where just minutes later reproductive rights champions such as Sandra Fluke and Planned Parenthood Action Fund president Cecile Richards would present powerful arguments for the right to choose, Sister Simone was not merely welcomed but embraced by the delegates.
Sister Simone recalled the “seamless garment” stance advanced by progressive Catholics such as Joseph Cardinal Bernardin who argued that to be “pro-life” one must be opposed to unjust wars and capital punishment and strong supportive of social welfare programs.
That’s a long way from where Paul Ryan lines up on the issues.
Disillusioned Obama Supporter In Romney Ad Is Actually GOP Staffer
By Pema Levy
September 6, 2012
TPM2012
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/rnc-staffer-plays-obama-supporter-in-gop-ad.php?ref=fpa
Excerpt:
Republicans debuted a new ad Thursday in which a frustrated former Obama supporter expresses her disappointment with the president. The only problem: The woman in the video is actually an RNC staffer.
The new ad features Republican National Committee Director of Hispanic Outreach Bettina Inclan, who in the ad purports to be an average woman voter who supported Obama in 2008. She describes her disillusionment with the president in the ad as a romantic relationship gone awry.
“You’re just not he person I thought you were,” Inclan says in the ad, addressing a cardboard cutout of Obama. Inclan lists out-of-control spending and Obama’s penchant for hanging out with Hollywood celebrities as reasons for the break-up. “It’s not me, it’s you. I think we should just be friends.”
The ad asks people to share why they’re “breaking up” with Obama.
The RNC says its ad, which first appeared on television Thursday is not dishonest.
“It’s a lighthearted ad to show how millions of Americans feel about President Obama — he’s not the person we thought he was and it’s time to break up with him,” an RNC official told TPM. “But let’s be clear, it is an ad.”
Inclan began her current RNC post in January 2012, and has worked in Republican politics since well before Obama’s 2008 election. She did Hispanic outreach for Rick Scott’s 2010 Florida gubernatorial race worked on Capitol Hill for Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) and as national executive director of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly.
This is an interesting thread on many levels and I haven’t commented because my experience is so contrary to the other posters here but, what the heck, I’ll be the contrarian on the thread.
The first presidential elections I remember are the Eisenhower v Stevenson elections when I was 4 and 8 yrs old. My parents were party loyalists/activists and my godparents were machine operatives and for most of my youth I attended precinct meetings, went with my parents to canvass the assigned neighborhoods to hand out literature and knock on doors, and sat in my godparents office surrounded by stacks of campaign letters and inserts, addressing/stuffing them into envelopes, and attending endless political rallies and events. Good times. Lotta’ talk about politics, external and internal to the party at the ward, state and national level, and both clean and dirty politics.
Never in my political ‘apprenticeship’ or thereafter was it ever giving to me to understand that the presidential convention or any local (city, state) party function was an exercise in inter-party Democracy. Never. I really am surprised that so many people on this blawg (people with opinions and knowledge I respect) think that it is. Did I miss a revolution? These are party events controlled by the people that control the party. We can be as disappointed that naked political considerations take precedence over the will of the delegates but surprised? Srsly, surprise has never been on the table for me even if I don’t particularly like it.
I have seen (as have you all I’m sure) the same voting maneuver done on the floor of the House of Representatives and in state legislatures. That’s always a shock and a slap in the face, but at a convention that’s just business as usual.
What has surprised me is the blatant vote fixing regarding Ron Paul. Caucus votes were ignored and primary votes were fixed post factor to steal his votes. Similarly the vote for Wisconsin Supreme Court Judge Prosser was blatant theft. The in-your-face nature of election fraud shocks me. As well, the use of security measures to stifle dissent and control the active space inside and outside of any political event has reached a new high- a 100 block security zone for the Democratic convention? Amazing. The use of the police isn’t new but the sophistication has evolved to a new level. I’m shocked by that. What happens inside the hall though? Meh.
commentary on convention security by my favorite news show:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-5-2012/hope-and-change-2—democratic-national-convention-security
Swarthmore,
Consider the source of the ads. Allan West is one of the most hyperbolic and least intelligent members of Congress.
From West is meaningless but I agree with the initial platform for above stated reason re G-d. Jerusalem I don;t know enough about that to have a position on right or wrong. To me too though when saw on news this am vote sounded like at least 50 – 50
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/allen-west-ad-slams-dem-convention-three-times The dems knew these ads were coming, lee.