A Democratic platform for 2006
November 18, 2005
This is the sort of thing I love to see: a bold and forward-looking Democratic platform for 2006. I would call it a Contract with America, except that term is a bit over-used, and in any event, this platform is nothing like the Contract, which was a weird mix of non-controversial procedural issues (e.g. ban voting by proxy), things with bi-partisan support (welfare reform), and things that seem absolutely ludicrous in light of what they’ve done over the past eleven years (honest accounting of the federal budget).
Not so, the Democrats. This is a real platform:
With the possible exception of universal university education, I support them all. College for everyone is a great idea, but economically speaking, it’s more important to make non-university jobs better. Not everyone can go to college, and there are lots of vital and necessary jobs that don’t require an advanced degree. We need to make sure those jobs allow one to support a family. We should make sure everyone who wants to has the opportunity to go to college, but with only so many tax dollars to go around, there are higher priorities than universal college.
Impeaching Donald Rumsfeld is absolutely necessary in light of the torture abuses, and the overwhelming evidence that Rumsfeld permitted, knew about, and turned a blind eye to them. Impeaching the Secretary of Defense doesn’t have the partisan hysteria that an impeachment of George Bush or Dick Cheney would have, and I doubt that the president could be found legally culpable for the torture anyways. Rumsfeld can, and should be held accountable. He should have resigned when the scandal broke, but since he did not have the grace or honor to do so, the Congress should remove him.
A constitutional right to privacy is one thing that would return our court system to sanity, and take the venom out of judicial confirmation hearings. No longer could the Republicans deny it, or more often, acknowledge it in a limited way as evidence of their non-insane credentials. We have a right to privacy, which is the right of all people everywhere, and we should make it explicit.
About raising the minimum wage and universal health care, no more needs to be said. These are vital for the economic health of the country, and morally imperative as a basic matter of social justice. Freedom from fear and freedom from want are the birthright of all Americans. A real living wage and universal health care are fundamental to achieving those long-cherised goals.
A national system of mass transit will help lead this country into the next millenium, draw down our dependence on foreign oil, help slow suburban sprawl, help create sustainable cities, reduce gridlock and congestion, and pay for itself many times over. And the construction boom that will be needed to create such a system will strengthen labor unions (as well as architects and engineers of every stripe), and deliver benefits and secure jobs to those blue-collar workers who need them most. Those things too, will revitalize our cities and small towns all across America.
Corporate reform is non-controversial, and national internet is a great way to make sure the information age is available to everyone. It’s as much a part of our vital national infrastructure as electricty and telephone service were a hundred years ago. And lest people point out that those things were privately funded, it took the government and the New Deal to bring rural electrification to all the far-flung areas of this great continent.
Eight bold ideas; eight powerful reasons to vote Democratic in 2006. Let America be America again. I guess the new slogan is “Together, we can do better”, and indeed we can.
November 18th, 2005 at 10:00 am
That’s a platform that will get me to the polls. Actually, I’d be there anyways, but this is a platform that will get me pounding sidewalks and making phone calls and writing checks.
November 18th, 2005 at 10:17 am
And a pony too! How high would they have to raise taxes to pay for all of that?
November 18th, 2005 at 10:37 am
Items 1, 2, 3, and 7 require no money at all. The money required for 8 is insignificant with respect to the federal budget.
6 would come mostly from a re-direction of the current discretionary spending in the transportation bill, but some small levy may be necessary. That bridge to nowhere in Alaska could fund light-rail systems for 3 good-sized cities, for example. It’s a matter of moving our transportation funding from airline subsidies and roads to mass transit systems. I’m playing fast and loose with the facts here, but the underlying principle is sound.
A general point that’s usually ignored in debates about “pork” is that non-defense discretionary spending is almost completely insignificant compared to the cost of the war, interest on the debt, and especially the tax cuts. And the pork is often wasteful, but also often the part of the federal government that is most useful.. bike trails, parks, courthouses, museum funding, etc. Construction money returns to communities, etc. It’s not always the best way to do things, but it’s not just flushing money down the crapper, either.
4 and 5 would require significant new federal money, and a general restructuring of how our economy works. Some form of progressive payroll tax (preferrably an income tax that treats capital gains and wages alike) would be necessary. Some part of that would be returned in the form of ended payroll deductions for health insurance, and theoretically returned in the form of much improved business productivity and flexibility. In another sense, it’s a wealth transfer from the rich who would bear the brunt of the increase, to the poor and lower middle class who do not have health coverage now, or who pay extremely high deductibles for extremely poor coverage (hi there, Wal-Mart).
But yes, taxes would need to go up. They need to go up anyways. We’re taxing about 17% of our GDP, and spending about 21% of it, which is totally unsustainble. And it’s vaguely obscene that someone who makes $10 million pays a lower percentage of his income than I do. Taxes at the top end of the scale would need to go up, not to Eisenhower-era confiscatory levels, but at least a return to the Clinton-era rates.
November 18th, 2005 at 11:09 am
In defense of ponies, they make little kids very happy.
I think it’s a great platform, too. If only the national party has the sense to take up it or something similar. I’ve emailed it to my representatives.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:03 pm
I like this a lot, too.
The only problem with “impeaching” Rumsfeld is that massively screwing up may not be a “high crime or misdemeanor” as such. That’s not to say that demanding that Rumsfeld be fired as a screwup-in-chief (as the cabinet officers serve at the pleasure of the President) isn’t a good idea. That only Brownie-level screwups are even discreetly shown the door highlights the general executive incompetence issue.
The start of a forward-looking transportation policy wouldn’t really have to include a lot of new money. Apart from issues like the $ for the bridge to nowhere could be (and would be would be much better) spent building out the Dane County Transport 2020 plan, consider e.g., how much high-speed rail could be built for the price of the O’Hare comprehensive plan (a lot) when the entire airline industry is unsustainable at the fuel prices that will probably persist beyond the smart ones’ current hedges.
I also think you’re right to characterize existing health insurance contributions as tax-like. I assume there aren’t so many libertarians out there who just jump for joy at the thought of those dollars being funneled to their care proividers via insurance companies as opposed to through a national single-payer system to significantly dim the idea’s popular (vs. K St.) appeal.
November 18th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
Impeaching Rumsfeld is the most marginal of the ideas. I agree that screwing up is not an impeachable offense. The general incompetence of the administration is a campaign issue, to be sure, but it’s not a high crime or misdemeanor. I instinctively dislike the idea of using impeachment in that way — it smacks too much of the Athenians banishing and executing their generals for losing battles.
But I do think Rumsfeld’s role in the torture scandals is impeachable. He’s signed orders demanding to “take the gloves off”. He’s personally authorized a long list of “interrogation methods” that on any reasonable interpretation constitute torture. A pretty solid argument can be made that his role in the scandals violate his oath to preserve and protect the Constitution.
Given that the Senate would never convict him, it may be just as well to go for a censure resolution, which could include misuse of intelligence and the incompetence issue as well. The word “impeachment” carries far more weight on the hustings, though, and I like the “fighting back, cleaning house” sort of meme it carries with it.
November 18th, 2005 at 1:38 pm
Oh yeah, *those* high crimes and misdemeanors… I think I just naturally assign responsibility for them to Rumsfeld’s boss (who *should* be impeached, but won’t be, at least unless we get a really big second Fitzmas present). Well, and Bush, too.
November 18th, 2005 at 2:10 pm
I’d love the impeachment to include all of them, but I can see the benefit in settling for Rumsfeld. What I really like about this list as an agenda is that it has something for everyone.
Union contracts and a WPA-like renewal program for labor. Mass transit for the environmentalists and for urban/suburbanites. The privacy amendment for feminists and women’s health. The minimum wage for the working poor. College for the education supporters. Universal health care for the poor and the middle class. Taking down the MPAA and RIAA for the libertarian geek brigade (I can say that since I’m a card-carrying member). Corporate reform for the good government supporters, assuming said reform would include some sort of lobbying/campaign finance work.
November 18th, 2005 at 2:36 pm
Sarah, I think that’s an excellent point. It “delivers” for all of our core constituencies, which is important. Even more importantly, it avoids the traditional “I have a plan for X” approach, which does nothing except allow the media to criticize “specifics” of a half-formed plan instead of writing about how “Y has no plan for X”. I mean, really, if I had a nickel for every time I heard that John Kerry had a plan for something, I could at least buy an expensive dinner.
“A plan for X” doesn’t inspire, or communicate what our fundamental values are. The Republicans have “low taxes, big military, family values”, which do communicate their beliefs in a way that sounds like they’re advancing substantive policies, and in a way that forces Democrats to disagree (that’s the drawback of lots of Democratic attempts at something similar: Republicans may oppose all the things that lead to freedom from want, but they don’t oppose the thing itself)
A list like this communicates “individual privacy, economic security, we’re all in this together”, which I think is a pretty good summation of Democratic values. But it does so by presenting real policy positions that Republicans will disagree with and that independents and moderates will support. These are our wedge issues.
November 18th, 2005 at 3:53 pm
There’s a lot of good stuff in these comments, and the more I think about it, the more I like this platform. And Tom’s right. It is hard to tell all the high crimes and misdemeanors apart these days.
I do wonder how a privacy amendment could be phrased, though.
November 18th, 2005 at 5:08 pm
Impeach Donald Rumsfeld? You can’t be serious! He’s not an elected official. He serves at the pleasure of the president. Try thinking up a positive agenda for once.
November 18th, 2005 at 6:11 pm
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Of the sixteen federal officials to be impeached, one was a cabinet member: William W. Belknap, the Secretary of War. He was acquitted, Aug. 1, 1876.
November 18th, 2005 at 10:08 pm
OK, I withdraw my objection. It’s still a bad agenda, though
November 19th, 2005 at 1:34 am
The virtue of this platform, with the exception of the loony idea of impeaching Rumsfeld, is that it actually puts forth ideas. As a Republican, I’d love to see a Democratic Party that stands for a set of competing ideas. I’d love to see a Democratic Party that had a vision for our country, practical ideas at how to utilize government for the common good.
As it stands right now, Democrats have a visceral reaction every time a Republican speaks: “No! That’s stupid!” This is bad for Democrats, and bad for Republicans. The Republican Party unfortunately can afford to be lazy and drunk with political power because Democrats have nothing constructive to offer.
So even though many of the planks in the platform are misguided, a Democratic Party filled with ideas is for me, great news.
November 19th, 2005 at 9:48 am
“I am a part of no organized party. I am a Demovrat.” Will Rogers
November 19th, 2005 at 11:55 am
Grant: I like that quote, too.
Brian: While I understand where the “Democrats have no ideas” meme comes from, I don’t think it’s accurate. If you go to any left-of-center think tank, their websites are full of plans and policies for every imaginable thing. Some of them are bad, some of them are quite good. John Kerry’s campaign was undeniably substantive — tax breaks for education, health care credits, etc etc.. with the notable exception of Iraq (where the plan was pretty obviously “Our allies will be so delighted to see the back of George Bush and his poisonous diplomacy that they’ll help out and we’ll put this mess behind us” — you can’t say that out loud, or it won’t work). These are bad things to campaign on (they’re small and uninspiring), but they are reasonable policy goals when the Congress is controlled by the opposition party. There’s no way universal health care will pass a GOP Congress, so why propose it? It’s a weird sort of misguided honesty.
One “problem” is that the media don’t cover the plans of the opposition party. This is why some liberals accuse the media of partisanship, and it’s the same reason conservatives accused the media of partisanship in the early 90s. When, incidentally, the news carried all sorts of stories about “The GOP has no ideas”, simply because the GOP was in the position of opposing (obstructing?) the agenda that Clinton and the Democrats were putting on stage. Now the situation is reversed.
The benefit of a platform like this one is not that any of these ideas are new, but that it lays out desired goals instead of proposed policies. “Universal health care” is the sort of thing you can either support or oppose with vigor. It may be best achieved with a series of small steps: allow kids to enroll in Medicare, allow Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices, etc. But those things aren’t campaign slogans in the way that Health Care for Everyone is.
I too would love to see two revitalized, honest parties engaged in serious discussion about the direction of the country. We don’t have that now, and we probably never did, but it’s a great political dream nonetheless.
November 19th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
I’m not saying that no Democrat has any ideas. You’re certainly right that many Lefties, including yourself, have a lot of constructive ideas to bring to the table. I’m referring more to the political establishment in Washington. I think it is undeniably true that the GOP takeover in 1994 had much to do with ideas. The GOP offered a credible alternative to the party in power. Right now, Democrats in Washington pretty much just say no, and offer no plan of their own (think Social Security). This is not a winning formula. Democrats need to have an agenda that offers something besides the anti-Bush. So bring on the ideas and let’s debate.
November 27th, 2005 at 11:11 pm
[...] This is the first in a series of posts, each looking at one of the position statements of the proposed Democratic platform for 2006. I’ll start with the most important one, #4, Universal Health Care. [...]
November 28th, 2005 at 11:02 pm
[...] This is the second in a series of posts looking individually at the position statements of the proposed Democratic platform for 2006. The proposal is #2 - A Constitutional Right to Privacy. [...]
November 29th, 2005 at 9:31 pm
[...] This is the third in a series of posts looking individually at the position statements of the proposed Democratic platform for 2006. The proposal is #1 - Impeach Donald Rumsfeld. [...]
December 12th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
[...] This is the fourth in a series of posts, each one looking at a specific position statement in the proposed Democratic platform for 2006. The proposal is: #5 - Universal Free University Education, which is a non-euphonious way of saying College for Everyone. [...]
December 16th, 2005 at 9:06 am
[...] Ben over at Badger Blues started a series of posts a while back about a 2006 Democratic Platform. This is an idea I love, and I really like Ben’s suggestions. I’ve heard of a few ways the platform could be put together. Some people have suggested a midterm party convention. I’ve also heard that the leaders of the DSCC and the DCCC have some ideas together and are waiting for the best time to unveil them. Either way, having a national platform and pushing it hard is a key to victory in 2006 (in my opinion). 2005 has been a year when the republicans have mostly self-destructed. In 2006 needs to be the year when the democrats stand out as a positive alternative to the corrupt republican establishment. Sen. Feingold’s leadership on opposing the PATRIOT Act conference report is a promising early example of this democratic alternative. A national platform would only help to better define the democratic alternative. [...]
December 27th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
[...] This is the fifth in a series of posts, each one looking at a specific position statement in the proposed Democratic platform for 2006. The proposal is: #3 - A Higher Minimum Wage. [...]