Continuing Hullabaloo: State Dem Platform Process

More on the controversy about the State Democratic Party's platform process at New Mexico Matters, and followed up at Live From Silver City here (Part I) and  here (Part II). Wedges, wedges!

Meanwhile, the release of the NM Party's proposed platform for 2006 has prompted criticism about its mushiness and avoidance of controversy. Clearly the 2006 platform mimics the one produced in 1996, in both content and format. You might think many issues and positions would have changed significantly in ten years' time, but you'd be mistaken. Virtually eliminated from the platform were a significant number of specific positions passed by large margins in the form of dozens of resolutions approved by County Parties and the State Central Committee over the past year or so. The proposed DPNM platform will be voted on at the State Pre-Primary Convention this Saturday. Normally, the platform passes without much discussion, but this year may well be different with many Dems up at arms about the Party's lack of backbone on major issues.

The Process that Produced the Platform: A motion was duly passed at the November SCC meeting directing the Party to hold platform hearings in each congressional district, as the Party bylaws require, and a day-long platform meeting the day before the Spring SCC meeting. The motion was aimed at involving as many Dems as possible in the process and providing opportunities for those charged with writing the platform to hear what rank and file Democrats believe on the issues.

Unfortunately, the result instead was a truncated process that produced mostly bland platitudes. I guess it's not surprising considering the platform was produced by only a handful of committee members and others at a meeting in Albuquerque on the same day as the Taos County convention. Moreover, although Party officials termed the meeting "statewide," I heard about it only because a committee member shared their email with me. Not exactly what the SCC-passed motion required.

Could it be that the weak platform process is really designed to be that way -- to keep the street urchins of the Party quiet while "moderates" decide on positions based mostly on the lastest polling results?

Take two examples. By overwhelming margins, a significant number of County Parties passed very similar resolutions on the Iraq War and a strong resolution on this passed almost unanimously at the State Resolutions Committee and before the SCC:

Resolution: Support our troops. Oppose the continued military occupation of Iraq, and urge the government of the United States of America to plan immediately for the withdrawal of its military forces from Iraq, specify a target date for the completion of the withdrawal which is no later than June 2006, initiate the withdrawal process as soon as possible to signal our good intentions and announce that the U.S. has no plans for a long-term presence in Iraq, except for that associated with normal diplomatic relations between countries.

Yet, the 2006 platform states only:

Platform: We support the strategic redeployment of troops from Iraq, in 2006, if possible. We believe that this country should use more diplomacy, as a deterrent to future wars.

Regarding civil rights for GLBT citizens, the 2006 platform says only

Platform: The Democratic Party recognizes that families and communities come in all shapes and sizes. We believe that government should not dictate family values, but rather value all families equally.

All discrimination must be eliminated in housing, employment and public services; including discrimination based on race, religion, mental and physical disability, national origin, age, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

However, both the State Resolutions Committee and the SCC passed resolutions with this language:

Resolution: Oppose any definition of civil marriage that restricts eligibility based on sexual orientation. Also the State Democratic Party will work to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and support the right of all citizens to civil marriage.

Resolution: Support the rights of all citizens to be treated equally under the law by supporting legislation which guarantees every citizen equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference and by supporting legislation which outlaws discrimination against persons on the basis of their sexual preference.

What happened between the passage of these resolutions and the writing of the platform? Imposed mushiness from those apparently so scared of the neo-con and Christian right that they prefer weasling over clarity and specificity. Haven't you heard? If the Party stands up for equal rights for ALL citizens and for bringing the troops home, the right-wing noise machine will kick into high gear and label the Dems "extremists." Sorry, but the voters already know the Dem Party is full of people strong on civil rights and against this war.

What will voters learn from watered down platform planks? That Dems don't believe strongly enough in their values to take an honest, principled stand. Our fear and gutlessness will be out there for all to see. Since we're already called "extremists," why not take the strong stands we believe in and fight for our values? Why not persuade, educate and lead on the issues? What do we have to lose?

If we can't have our candidates run on a strong, passionate and courageous platform now, with BushCo's approval ratings hovering in the low 30s and a majority of the public against the war, when can we do it? As has been said at virtually every Dem gathering I've attended, and on millions of places all over the web, we need more passionate patriots and fewer meek apologists. And we need them NOW. Let's beef up the platform and run on what's right, not what's status quo.