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
lotta,
“You don’t have to sample many drinks at the age of 8/9 to realize that none of them taste good so why would anyone drink that stuff for fun?”
Soul sister!! That is the truth!!
BTW … Kerry just surprised the hell out of me … he hit his mark and stayed there.
I first met Kennedy in ’55 when I was 10 years old. I don’t remember thinking of him as handsome. What I remember was his coming into the kitchen where I was standing on a stool in front of the sink emptying ice cube trays into a punch bowl. He offered to help and stood there next to me for 10 minutes talking about where I went to school and what I wanted to do over Christmas and when he found out I was a musician he had all kinds of questions. He liked kids. Three years later I was in the Capitol with my parents and he came out of the chamber and all the young girls standing along the red velvet ropes started screaming. He’d become a star. 🙂
Mike,
I want to echo your comments laying Lotta and Blouise.
Bettykath, Kerry spoke at the convention a bit ago, he was lauding Obama for (among the list) ending torture. Not quite, as your list states.
LOL Blouise, I envy you your bi-partisan exposure, and seeing President Kennedy in person. I liked politicians like they were rock stars- he was just the most handsome man, he had the mojo.
My godparents were Irish Americans- hard liquor drinkers, and my folks were beer drinkers so I got bar-tending skills at about the same age. I just know you were also ahhh, precocious, and sipped/sampled your wares at some point: quality control and all. 🙂 I think that’s why I was never really a drinker. You don’t have to sample many drinks at the age of 8/9 to realize that none of them taste good so why would anyone drink that stuff for fun? There was almost always some ice cream in the freezer so that kept me wiling kitchen help.
betty, what a great post. Put it out there! The one thing I would add, is on the ”reject torture.” We still reject torture, but we ADVOCATE enhanced interrogation! That’s all right, see! A rose by any other name . . .
It’s just so obvious! Instead of doing what was promised, he marched straight down the same road we were going before, only making it even worse. The elimination of due process just turns my stomach!
Elaine … the Nation is one paper where I’d love to be.
lotta … as a teenager one of the things I enjoyed the most were dinners. My dad was a Republican and their dinners were always in the ballroom of the fancy hotel. My Mom was a Democrat and their dinners were usually in a Church basement. I would go with my Dad and listen carefully to the warm-up jokes. the next week I would go with my Mom and the jokes would be exactly the same except for the punchline. Exactly the same.
The best joke teller was Sen. John Kennedy in the basement of Holy Cross. Young Bob Dole was the funniest Republican and he continued to tell jokes out in the hallway.
Yep, I learned to make a killer martini by the age of 9 and how to pull the tap so that the head was just right by the age of 11. Very valuable skills.
ID- you’re right inter v intra- I get them confused.
—-
Elaine, 🙂 A good sense of humor is a wonderful thing, cite on sister!
julianmalcolm: “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).”
———————
True. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a hard core of people that love the process, the rock & roll and find politics, warts and all, dirty as it is, an honorable personal endeavour. It’s a duty that can be great fun as well as great work.
I’m watching excerpts from Rep. Lewis’ speech and an interview with him. I remember those times. I was turned away from downtown food counters when I went downtown with my black friend. The only black faces were restroom attendants and elevator operators. John Lewis is lucky he wasn’t killed. The current state laws targeting the poor, the elderly, people of color, the handicapped, students are treasonous. I saw the pictures in LIFE magazine of the bodies being pulled from their impromptu graves. Now, (Republican) legislatures just pass laws to accomplish the same thing. They are aiding and comforting enemies of Democracy. They are the enemies of Democracy.
Poor as the choice is, flawed as the standard-bearers are, as far from the ideal- or even the norm as we have sunk as a democracy, elections and the process are all we have; our revolutions lite. Who gets elected is important and I actually over thought it. The quazi-fascist or the quazi-fascist the traitors are fixing the election process to benefit?
I’d like the process to be better, I’d like the parties to be more responsive. I’d like the the Gilded Age to be a historical reference and not a destination but I’m not going to confuse the little picture with the big picture. I have a vote, that’s it, that’s all I got left. Little picture as it may be and even though I may hate the politicians I am asked to consider, I am compelled to use my vote to the best effect I can.
Democrats Retreat on Civil Liberties in 2012 Platform
http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/09/democrats-retreat-civil-liberties-2012-platform
By Adam Serwer on Tue. September 4, 2012 9:02 AM PDT
What a difference four years makes.
In 2008, Democrats were eager to draw a contrast with what they then portrayed as Republican excesses in the fight against Al Qaeda. Since then, the Obama administration has in many cases continued the national security policies of its predecessor—and the Democratic Party’s 2012 platform highlights this reversal, abandoning much of the substance and all of the bombast of the 2008 platform. Here are a few places where the differences are most glaring:
Indefinite Detention
2008: “To build a freer and safer world, we will lead in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people. We will not ship away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, or detain without trial or charge prisoners who can and should be brought to justice for their crimes, or maintain a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law. We will respect the time-honored principle of habeas corpus, the seven century-old right of individuals to challenge the terms of their own detention that was recently reaffirmed by our Supreme Court.”
2012: Nothing. The Obama administration has maintained the practice of indefinitely detaining certain suspected terrorists. It has also made use of “proxy detention,” by which foreign countries detain US citizens under questionable conditions, although the administration did do away with the Bush-era “black sites.”
Warrantless Surveillance/PATRIOT Act
2008: “We support constitutional protections and judicial oversight on any surveillance program involving Americans. We will review the current Administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. We reject illegal wiretapping of American citizens, wherever they live. We reject the use of national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. We reject the tracking of citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war…We will revisit the Patriot Act and overturn unconstitutional executive decisions issued during the past eight years.”
2012: The platform is silent on this issue. This isn’t surprising since, at the urging of the Obama administration, congressional Democrats passed up the opportunity to reform the PATRIOT Act when they had a majority in both houses of Congress.
Gitmo
2008: “We will close the detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, the location of so many of the worst constitutional abuses in recent years. With these necessary changes, the attention of the world will be directed where it belongs: on what terrorists have done to us, not on how we treat suspects.”
2012: “[W]e are substantially reducing the population at Guantánamo Bay without adding to it. And we remain committed to working with all branches of government to close the prison altogether because it is inconsistent with our national security interests and our values.” In 2009, most Democrats voted against funding to close Gitmo, and there were substantial internal battles within the administration over doing so.
Racial Profiling in Fighting Terrorism
2008: “[W]e will ensure that law-abiding Americans of any origin, including Arab-Americans and Muslim-Americans, do not become the scapegoats of national security fears.”
2012: Nothing. The Obama administration has in fact retained the FBI’s Bush-era guidelines allowing race or religion to play some role in investigations.
Torture
2008: “We reject torture.”
2012: “Advancing our interests may involve new actions and policies to confront threats like terrorism, but the President and the Democratic Party believe these practices must always be in line with our Constitution, preserve our people’s privacy and civil liberties, and withstand the checks and balances that have served us so well. That is why the President banned torture without exception in his first week in office.” Despite Obama’s executive order banning torture, Americans who allege they have been detained abroad by foreign governments at the United States’ request say they have been abused while in custody. It does not appear as though anyone will face charges over the Bush administration’s torture program, including those who went beyond its legal guidelines.
The section of the 2012 Democratic platform titled “Staying True to our Values at Home” states, “We must always seek to uphold these values at home, not just when it is easy, but, more importantly, when it is hard.” The distance between the 2008 and 2012 platform shows just how hard it has been, and starkly illustrates the extent to which the Democratic Party has given up on its 2008 promises to roll back the national security state that emerged and expanded in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
Elaine,
That is a great gig working for the Nation!
ElaineM, I LOVE that you can laugh @ a gentle ribbing. I’ve had face to face and email discussions w/ Nichols over the years. He also writes for a local paper here in town. We share an admiration for Feingold..that’s about it.
nick,
Not only do I get paid by The Nation–I get paid by the word, doncha know?
🙂
Speaking as a inexperienced user of English, but does not inter mean between and intra mean within.
So if we are discussing politics within the Dem party, why are all saying it is interparty discussion?
Just asking…..
Professor Turley has said again and again that the R/D dichotomy and paradigm makes a mockery of the presidential election. What shall we guess it is, just to make his point as I understand it? Is it maybe 2,000,000 people out of 350,000,000 that decide the election?
Accepting that as fact, let me repeat, as I remember, MikeS’ point that we through our elected representatives do not control our Congress. And in his view the three branches are under the thumb of a cabal. Do not his words disturb you.
Now JT and MIkeS are shining lights here. And get often many kudos, etc. But why do their words not find a willingness to act on our part? I am confused.
We badmouth the process today, excuse it as being OK as a process, a show for he stupids, etc etc. Add your own to my list. Is this all we do with all the comments today?
Shall we take a vote, pass a resolution, adopt a press release expressing the majority views, with dissents attached as an appendix.?
Is this instead a meaningless exercise? Discussing democracy, but not using it in any meaningfull way?
Blouise, On more than one occasion suspected that we were twins, separated at birth somehow. 🙂
You got the full menu, column A and B! I often think that the best political education is the that starts with activist (or participant) parents that drag you along. Man, there are stories to be told and many of them are not pretty. That’s OK though, the ugly ones are just as important, maybe more so, than the more uplifting ones; they make the uplifting ones more heroic considering the ambiance. It also teaches that democracy is a full-time job, or second job. The process is relentless.
Ms. Blouise: “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.”
Yes! I loved that stuff, and at the local meetings and fund-raisers (which were very much like church socials- and many were held in church parking lots and halls with games for the kids etc.) the hosting wards were responsible for setting up and cleaning up the hall. All those wonderful and tacky freebies left on the tables when it was time to clean up were MINE- bwahaaaaa, all mine! Considering that some of it was campaign specific, buttons and the like, I wish I had kept them instead of playing with them until they were all lost or destroyed.
You didn’t have to outgrow that stuff either, something I learned way late! My Godmother and mother were always sights to see with their ‘finery’ and hats, like Mardi Gras. When I got into my mid-teens I was too cool to dress up in red-white-blue shirts or outrageous hats and wear/accumulate all that uncool kit… what a silly twit I turned into for about 10 years.
I never got to the inaugural ball level but I spent many nights, almost all night, in the homes and some back rooms (nobody chases a kid/teenager out- we’re kids, ignored except to fetch or construct drinks- something I learned early on in my godmothers basement office) for both wining candidates and losing candidates. The next election was talked about starting then, that night. Re-lent-less.
BettyKath,
“hmm, this started out to be positive but got mired in real life. : ( ”
I thought that was a good summary:
—-of the American system, which is not of, by nor for us.
—-the conventions, which are like professsional wrestling
—-how it all began with the Constitution, has been and is now.
id707,
(I don’t know if I’m supposed to respond or not based on your last sentence, but what the hell, why not)
“Then OK, it is not democracy, it is a staged performance just like a speech on the stump, but without the hecklers.”
Party conventions were never democratically run … expecting democracy within either the Dem. or Rep inter-party functioning is not an illusion, it’s delusional. So yes, it’s a show and a pep rally and an organizational meet and a networking event and as long as one stays away from the cameras, it can be a hell of a good time. The televised portion is mainly geared towards attracting votes for the candidate.
If that’s what the Zionists want, then just give it to them. After all, Israeli
help will surely be appreciated in some future 9/11,