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
GBK,
Google “Lee Child ” and find out about the complement you were paid.
Blouise,
The next book is being released on 9/11/12.
Blouise,
“I’ll call you Reacher.”
Ok. I’m ignorant to this specific cultural reference, but I like the sound of it!
gbk,
I’ll call you Reacher. 😉
It seems to me that both right wings of America’s Corporate Oligopoly Party have clearly declared Jerusalem the capital of the United States and Single Spook Animism the official national religion and test for political office.
Blouise,
” If enough people leave the party … the party ceases to exist … quite literally, for all states have rules regarding parties from percentages of voters registered to percentage of votes cast for a party candidate every two years. Those who fall below the percentages are called “political designations” in many states rather than parties. On a state by state basis it would be relatively easy to get rid of parties … I find it strange that people don’t understand this.”
About 50% of the voters, don’t vote in Presidential elections. About 60% don’t vote in “off” year elections. In a close presidential election, the winner get votes of about 21%, the loser gets about 19%, and the others get the remaining 10% of the votes of all voters. Not exactly a mandate.
Since these are registered voters, they have expressed some interest in participating in the electoral process. They have expressed their disapproval of the two parties that control everything. They refuse to vote “lesser evil” knowing full well that lesser or not, it isn’t what they want. They are in effect voting “none of the above”. If it were an option on every ballot, NOTA would win a significant number of races. Of course, it would take the Ds and Rs to put it on the ballot. Since it is primarily their candidates that would be found lacking, it won’t happen.
Where are these voters to go? The two major parties have rigged the rules such that it extremely difficult for any candidate not blessed by the hierarchy of the two parties to get on any ballot whatever. They hand-pick their own candidates and have onerous hurdles for independents or third parties. Several other groups have tried to establish parties to varying degrees of success.
Even when other parties manage to get over the hurdles, they are, with few exceptions in local elections, not allowed in the debates. They are not invited on the main news programs. They are frozen out of nearly every venue that would show their capabilities.
Any successes are attacked one way or another to remove them from additional successes. Read Nader’s “Crashing the Party”. Also, check out Ballot Access News. Richard Winger has been tracking and documenting parties other than the Ds and Rs for decades. He also tracks court cases involving third parties.
It takes a lot of time, energy and money to establish an alternative even without the hurdles. With the hurdles it’s next to impossible.
Our electoral system is basic to the kind of government we have. It’s a terrible scam but it shouldn’t be.
Blouise,
I avoid small towns with football teams due to having travelled through many on foot in my younger days and experiencing their need to, um, how shall I say it, keep the streets clean. 🙂
gbk,
Ha! Obviously you are not blessed with small town high school football … one always knows when it’s Friday.
Correction 2.5% (Decimal point).
I am neither surprised nor disappointed that as an atheist, I am unwelcome in the Republican party; it did however astonish me to discover that “my sort” is also unwelcome in the Democrat party.
If I were founding a forward progressive country, I would certainly ensure that were something in the constution to ensure no discrimination based on faith, or lack of.
Perhaps we shouldnt be surprised at the House vote (4th Nov 2011); it seems that only ONE QUARTER of ONE PERCENT of them actually support the First Amendment.
I am an atheist in the Democratic Party and I feel quite welcome. Now if I wish to IMPOSE MY views on the party by demanding that all members refrain from prayer or acknowledging their faith, THEN there will be a problem. It would be as bad as if a Muslim demanded that only prayers to ALLAH be allowed and that if others prayed to God, it would be an offense to Muslims. I have no problem with those who are religious expressing it and since the overwhelming majority of people are theists, it is dumb to think that it needs to be restricted and kept under cover so as not to upset atheists.
Blouise,
Damn, I thought it was Thursday! I thank you and the stars for the unerring reference!
gbk,
It’s Friday night. 😉
Blouise,
“I even would suggest that some have Democracy confused with Robert’s Rules of Order.”
I didn’t want to go that far, but you’re right.
Democracy is more that the Rules of Order, but those rules make for democratic functioning in ANY organization. Without them,there can be NO democracy at all. Thus any person wishing to contest the chairs ruling had ample opportunity to do so. and did not. Nor do we have lots of pissed off platform committee members going to the press and denouncing the changes.
“Most have forgotten the distinction between government and parties. Granted, the two parties have done everything in their power to encourage and enforce this lapse of distinction, but this is the populaces burden, not theirs.” (gbk)
Right on target which is why the title of this thread, “The Democratic Convention and The Illusion of Democracy”, confounded a few posters. I even would suggest that some have Democracy confused with Robert’s Rules of Order. 😉
If one wants to reform either party then one joins that party and works to bring about said reform. If one disagrees with the direction in which a party is moving and does not want to get involved in reformation, then one leaves the party. If enough people leave the party … the party ceases to exist … quite literally, for all states have rules regarding parties from percentages of voters registered to percentage of votes cast for a party candidate every two years. Those who fall below the percentages are called “political designations” in many states rather than parties. On a state by state basis it would be relatively easy to get rid of parties … I find it strange that people don’t understand this.
bettykath,
“but I think people wanting to be part of the government create the kind of party institution that they are likely to emulate once they get in power.”
So we agree.
gbk,
I understand the distinction, but I think people wanting to be part of the government create the kind of party institution that they are likely to emulate once they get in power. The government is just a bigger sandbox. The big rules there, e.g. the Constitution, are just pieces of paper that they are willing to ignore or actively subvert.
Haden: “Protestors in the streets should serve as a permanently challenging – and threatening – disruptive presence in constant orchestrated interaction with forces on the inside, too, not simply serve as occasional “street heat” to be enlisted when pressure is needed by the insiders.”
*****
That is something that shouldn’t be understated or underestimated. Having a half-million people show up in DC repeatedly, constant agitation and even the violence got some serious changes in law and attitude. If you can’t reason with politicians showing them an alternative that rocks the boat to the point of capsizing it got things done. There was an internal revolution going on that lasted an entire decade (Longer actually, starting in the 50’s.) and killed some of our brightest national stars. It is distressing to think that real political responsiveness requires such a high level of threat. That’s what it is, a threat to the political well-being of the people in office.
It would seem that this thread might benefit from the fact that political parties are not the government.
Political parties are nothing but an assemblage of usually like minds that offer a candidate and platform for any given office that are hashed out amongst themselves — by the rules the party internally adopts which is solely in their domain — for their own needs to hopefully establish one of their own into the government structure.
Most have forgotten the distinction between government and parties. Granted, the two parties have done everything in their power to encourage and enforce this lapse of distinction, but this is the populaces burden, not theirs.
Utter depravity. Democrats need a prophet.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/glenn-greenwald
MikeS selected Hayden’s article. It gave me needed insights. And it showed a panorama over the decades of our fight, and why we should not abandon our hopes so easily nor be blind to the progress that has crowned our efforts. The eternal radical striving, while worthy, must as Hayden says, be tempered by reality when election time approachs snd the ideal man or program is not on the ballot.
Leaving the field to the bad guys and leaving your ball for them to play with seems unwise, I believe he means.
And what says that Mr. Ideal Candidate would have done better under the incredible circumstances. Would you? Not I, not even in my dreams.
We know who the “Bad Guys” are. So let’s kick them. Or will you cut ALL our throats by staying home and cursing Obama?
707,
Actually, the FF didn’t want political parties to form but that idea didn’t last long. Madison liked the idea of factions so that no one group got too much power. Each faction would be kept from going too far afield by the other factions. Unfortunately, we now have three factions: party 1, party 2, and the larger group that won’t have anything to do with party1 or party2. With party 1 and party 2 factions working together to keep the larger group from getting any power at all.
You said, “Our holy FFs said all men are created equal. They did not say that those who work for a party shall be given the reins to rule us.”
Right. They also didn’t say that uppity women like myself had any say. Or that those without property (which, of course, includes slaves) had any say. Maybe randy and arthur are members of the landed gentry who are more equal than the rest of us. : )