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
We never had Red State/blue State maps of elections until recent years. Everything used to be in black and white. Like on the front page of that newspaper in 1948. Dewey Wins In Landslide!
Turley takes a daily shot at the Democrats and Obama for this or that but no gripe about the RepubliCon Convention where the Ron Paul delegates were not allowed in. This dog is voting for Ron Paul! Not for the Willard, Unless of course I get some sense and vote for Obama. Todd Akin fans in Missouri are said to be organizing to vote for Ron Paul and not The Willard because of what the Willaard said about Akin. Why do they call the RepubliCon states “Red States”? Are they communist?
randyjet,
“The GOP convention would not have had such a thing. They would have been good GOPbots and done what they were told to do.”
I’m surprised that no one seems to remember that the new rule that allows the leading candidate to replace delegates s/he doesn’t like. What I saw was the chair ruling a yea win when the nays were much louder. Points of order were ignored. imo, the powerful (I was going to say leadership, but it’s my idea of leadership) of both parties exhibited the same patriarchal behavior.
The grassroots should be running the party. In my district a few years ago there was a D. candidate I could have supported. I found out about his candidacy from friends and went looking for him to offer support. Couldn’t find him, he had quit. Seems that the power folks in DC has decided that a prosecutor was their guy and the one I liked had to quit. Not even allowed to run in the primary to let the party voters decide. He had already collected a respectable amount of money, small amounts from a lot of people, but the county honchos were being told to support the other guy. Too bad. The only time in years that I considered support for a major party candidate. Their guy won, served one term and is back in obscurity. Not doing Ds (or Rs) any more.
Sorry, but you lie. He did NOT have to quit. There was no cop knocking on his door telling him to quit or else. He chose to quit accoding to his own judgement and reasons. It was obviously apparent to him that the other person had more prominent political support and money, so he CHOSE to quit.
That is called politics. If you don’t like it, don’t complain about it since that is how democracy works. He could have continued his campaign no matter what. He would not have gone to prison. He would not have lost everything he has. Just because you lose, does NOT mean it is a dictatorship or not democratic.
id707,
All I can tell you is that my parents were part of the Greatest Generation and firmly believed that responsible Citizenship demanded active participation in self government. My mother used to call it, “Brushing your country’s teeth.”
mespo,
If you wait four years you might be able to vote for the female version and keep the 22nd intact.
And please don’t assert that I’m arguing that people should abandon the Democratic Party in response. I can contain multitudes and believe they remain the best American political alternative despite a scene that would have looked more at home in 1968 than 2012. I contain multitudes.
I treat a convention as a party’s parliament, and that parliament should remain supreme. I’m, frankly, disgusted by this, and yes, it happens all the time. A chair tried to rule a constitutional change the leadership wanted by voice vote at a convention I attended in 2001 and I had to move for division. We lost narrowly, but far too narrowly for the chair to have made a ruling.
This stuff IS a big deal because it reaffirms that party leadership is able to use representatives as simple counters for the will of the party leadership. That’s not how representative democracy is supposed to work.
As I said, let’s get real about this. It was NOT a constitutional change, nor even a serious vote on a substantive issue that had major support. If I had been a delegate, I too would have joined the NO vote. The sight of the chairs face when it was obviously turned down would have been worth it. That NO challenge to the ruling was forthcoming, nor the formation of any opposition caucus to the ruling, makes it clear it was NOT a serious issue.
I am not about to abandon the Democratic Party because of this ruling. Conventions, especially Democratic ones have a tendency to be feisty affairs with some such thing as this. As I said, let’s get real and look at serious issues.
I maintain that the right of a party to govern itself instead of acting as a support structure for a cadre within the party is a serious issue. That Democratic delegates do not is worrisome.
The delegates showed their independence in this vote. Obviously, the leadership thought it was just simply a housekeeping measure that needed no preparation with the delegates. If anything, it showed the independence of the delegates and the ability to screw up things if they so chose. The GOP convention would not have had such a thing. They would have been good GOPbots and done what they were told to do.
Then there is the fact that the GOP nominee has contempt for much of his own platform and will not take it seriously, and indeed argues that in public. Obama on the other hand has enough respect for the platform to try and tweak it to his specs which is his right as the nominee. That there is not a major outcry about this shows the relative seriousness of the opposition. As I pointed out, I too would have voted NO just to be contrary. It was and is not a serious issue. Get a sense of humor and lighten up. Let’s fight about something that matters.
Blouise and LottaKatz,
The time zones force me to miss the fun here. But warm kudos to both of you for your unusual insights. You were not ordinary children, there certainly were others who were not allowed to be there. And to say that you bloomed as others thought you would, is to belabor the obvious.
Do a book: “Kids who did Stepenfetchit for Politicians”
Excellent tweet OS!
Repeal the 22nd Amendment!! I’m voting Clinton. 😀
OS, 🙂 Priceless. Thanks
Tweet of the day: “Still accepting answers. How does Bill Clinton’s speech compare to George W. Bush’s keynote last week? #dnc2012”
Blouise, Kerry was excellent. He surprised me. Gabby Giffords made me cry.
LK,
The killing of JFK affected all my feelings about politics and this country for ever after.
Lotta,
I feel the same about the Kennedy years. I still can remember the good Benedictine nuns turning the tv on when the news from Dallas hit the airwaves.
Mike and Rafflaw, thanks for the kind words, I feel like an old codger thinking about things that long ago. Blouise’s Kennedy memories are amazing. The (sadly) few Kennedy years entirely distorted my view of politics and even today informs some of the fundamentals of my political views as well as affection for some political conspiracy theories. 🙂
Does this come as any surprise from a corrupt party that, in 2008, refused to allow a floor vote, bullying Clinton delegates from states like California to acclaim obama in violation of their states’ election laws binding them to cast their first ballot for Clinton?
Or the party that rigged the MA primary this year to ensure that Chicago’s anointed one, Lizzie Warren, did not have to face the embarrassment of being shown up by the upstart Marisa DeFranco?
A pox on both their houses. We need new parties, with new politicians, and quick!
The Democratic is anti-God and anti-Israel. They are pro-gay and believe in tax funded abortions even into the 8th and 9th months and even killing a child that didn’t die during abortion. That is a recipe for God’s judgement!
Great memory Blouise. Sounds like there is a book in there!