The Truth Behind the Democratic Platform Debate

[KMOD]

Accusations that the Clinton campaign isn’t serious about climate change are absurd.

By Carol Browner

June 29, 2016

This election year, I have the privilege of serving on the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee. The charge we had was this: To craft a progressive blueprint for the future that represents the diversity of the entire Democratic coalition. Following weeks of meetings, testimony from 144 witnesses, and votes on amendments offered by both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders supporters, we have succeeded in drafting a platform that “moves our party firmly toward justice, fairness, and inclusion,” in the words of my fellow committee member Keith Ellison—and above all, a platform that will win in November.

This is a platform that will make history. For the first time, it explicitly calls for repealing the Hyde Amendment, which restricts federal funds for reproductive health care and disproportionately affects low-income women and women of color. It sets down a marker that every American should earn at least $15 an hour. And it contains a robust, detailed, ambitious section on one of the most serious challenges we face: tackling climate change.

Which is why it was so disappointing to see other members of our committee accusing the Clinton campaign of obstructionism—and claiming we did not approach the climate crisis as seriously as we should. In both cases, nothing could be further from the truth.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/democratic-party-platform-debate-hillary-clinton-213998#ixzz4CzErA2Z0
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Just sharing. I found it quite informative on the inside dealings of drafting the platform.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

1. My understanding is one side wanted to fill it with concrete actions (in regards to Climate change)

While the other side wanted to just have platitudes and no concrete actions to take.

[LiberalFighter]

3. Platforms have never had concrete actions included.

It is only a guideline that we want Democratic candidates to pursue. They can't be forced to follow it. If it is to be accomplished it requires like minded Democrats to Congress so the President also has support to get it done. Everything that Obama has accomplished was not all his doing. It included help from Congress.

[MineralMan]

5. Exactly. Platforms state broad goals and concerns,

but generally do not contain calls for specific legislation or policies. Instead, they are about setting priorities and defining those goals in a way that allows everyone in the party to support them. The Democratic Party is a broad-shouldered party that includes members who have a wide range of specific ideas.

Platforms are not the place for narrow definitions of what is to be accomplished.

[MaggieD]

4. If that is true "one side" has no frigging clue...

....what a platform document is designed to contain. It's an outline of an agenda and a statement about what the party stands for and supports. We aren't electing the people that draw up the platform. Governing details are left to those we elect in our representative democracy.

SMH. This is basic stuff, people.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

11. The platform calls for concrete steps in regards to women's rights with the call to...

repeal the hyde amendment in the draft platform document.

[Armstead]

34. Ouch!

So much for that argument. Apparently the "rules" only apply when wanted.

[Squinch]

6. And there is the problem right there. Once again, "one side" doesn't understand how things work.

It's very tiresome at this point. Especially when that "one side" reports the events with such a condescending attitude that shows it is ignorant even of its own ignorance.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

10. Why does the platform call for specific policy in regards to repealing the hyde amendment then? nt

[Squinch]

12. It doesn't. It simply says it is going to seek to overturn all federal and state laws that

impede a woman’s access to abortion, including the Hyde amendment. It doesn't list every law, and it doesn't say how it is going to go about doing that. Because it's a platform.

[MaggieD]

14. Exactly!

It's not rocket science for anyone that has actually supported Dems and been involved in the party over the years. And when I was new to it I don't remember jumping in and lecturing all those that had been doing the work before as if I was some kind of expert on the subject.

Just makes me shake my head. And yes, it has become very tedious at this point.

[Squinch]

15. That's the thing. It's the jumping in and lecturing that makes them look so bad.

We are all ignorant about most things. But ignorance and hubris together in one head is what makes assholes.

[MaggieD]

24. I agree wholeheartedly

I was just telling one of my managers the other day (regarding a really awful client of ours) - you can be ignorant OR you can be arrogant, but if you are both you are just an asshole. LOL! It is so true.

[Armstead]

35. It seems like there's a lot of "lecturing" going on to "educate" us about Emily Post too

Just a variation of the "anyone who wants to challenge the status quo is ignorant" and "idealistic rather than realistic" and all of the other conservative-style arguments and memes to shut down debate and differences of opinion and challenges to the entrenched status quo.

Maybe a carbon tax is a good idea....or not. But how about debating it on the actual merits of the issue rather than dismissing it out of hand as a "lecture" and all the otehr dismissive arguments to marginalize those who want to move faster on those issues?

[Squinch]

49. This has nothing to do with manners. This doesn't even have to do with issues. This

has to do with procedures. Procedures that have been in place forever. Procedures that you need to know if you are going to be in any way effective.

What shuts down debate is when large groups of people decide that the rules must be changed for them, or they walk into situations where they don't know what is going on and tell everyone else how stupid they are.

I completely agree that a carbon tax is a good idea. And I understand that the language of the platform did not specify a carbon tax because they were not convinced that a tax was the best way to achieve the stated goal carbon reductions. I personally think a carbon tax IS a way to achieve that. So going forward it is incumbent upon us to push for that as the solution to the goal that was specified in the platform. But the platform is where we state goals, not the means to achieve those goals.

And walking into a situation and telling everyone to change the way things work because you don't know how things work does not move us faster to the issues. It gums up the process and slows us down.

This is a platform. Not a plan. There is a difference.

[Scootaloo]

27. But... that is a concrete goal.

"We seek to do X in order to achieve Y" is a concrete goal. It doesn't need to outline every bit of minutae. Only to state a goal, and the plan for achieving that goal.

[Squinch]

31. It states the goal. It doesn't state the plan for achieving the goal. Because its a platform.

[Scootaloo]

48. You're arguing against yourself

[Squinch]

50. No, actually, I am doing no such thing.

[Scootaloo]

51. Sure you are

You're claiming that a statement of goals is not a statement of goals, but that it is instead a statement of goals, totally unlike another statement of goals, and anyone who thinks a platform states goals is stupid.

It's very strange to watch.

"We will do X to achieve Y" is a statement of goals. Apparently you find this acceptable for abortion (good for you) but not when it's climate change. I can't help but wonder if your weird double standard is purely due to who is trying to get climate change goals into the platform?

[Squinch]

52. No, dear. I am saying that statement of goals is different from statement of plans of how to

achieve those goals.

I am sure you will come back with some reason why that is simply not smart enough for you, so have at it and enjoy.

Fact is, the BS supporters fucked up on the platform committee.

[1StrongBlackMan]

26. Did "some" or "lots" of people tell you that?

[CrowCityDem]

2. More proof it's really 'all or nothing' with Sanders and some of his followers.

This is going to be the most progressive platform in a generation, and it's being written off as junk.

[Squinch]

8. And because it doesn't have "concrete steps." Which, by definition a platform DOESN'T HAVE!!!

[KMOD]

21. Some people are just

perpetually angry, and never satisfied.

[Armstead]

36. The "most progressive platform in a generation" is not a very high bar

like saying "the least warm ice cream in a generation"


More accurately is the "least conservative"

[CrowCityDem]

43. And there's the problem; some people can't see progressive when it's staring them in the face.

Look, I know Bernie would have been a bit further to the left. That doesn't negate the progressive credentials of what this platform is going to be. There is more room on the progressive side than just whatever Bernie says.

[Armstead]

47. It's a spectrum rather than eitehr/or

There are Clinton supporters who trule believe she is the best possible candidate. There are Clinton supporters whose beliefs are actually more aligned with Bernie. There are Sanders supporters who don't have real problems with Clinton, but believe Sanders better reflects their goals. There are Brnie supporters who have a strong dislike for Clinton and the approach and policies she represents................And there are infinite variations of all those positions.

Bernie represents the movement to move the party in a more clearly progressive direction. He is less important than what he is pushing for.

Personally I think that's a necessary function to reinvigorate the overall dynamism and progressive/liberal direction.

[Squinch]

53. But BS would not have been much further to the left. Just as Hillary needed to have varied

party representation at the meeting, so would BS have needed to do the same thing.

The platform would not have been substantially different with respect to the GOALS that were stated.

BS followers may have different ideas of how to achieve those goals, but the goals, thus the platform, would have been similar.

[Gothmog]

7. I am ready to say no more concessions to Sanders as to the platform

I am on a group for other national Clinton delegates and there is a great deal of frustration with the demands of the Sanders people and a belief that too much has been given already

[KMOD]

23. Senator Sander's op-ed today was quite

strange. He was making all sorts of demands, and if he had been paying attention he would realize that Hillary Clinton is actually working to fulfill what he is requesting.

[Armstead]

37. Asking nicely never seems to work

[Squinch]

54. Well, it seems that BS supporters are all pissed off with the results of the platform, so

it would appear that what he is doing isn't working either.

[Armstead]

58. And Clinton supporters are pissed at Sanders supporters so it seems....

their expectations were also not successful.

That's kind of in the nature of politics. People do get pissed off at compromises, no matter what side one is on.

[Squinch]

55. These days, what else is there for him to do?

[CobaltBlue]

66. Gothmog—I’m not interested in how Hillary voters feel about Bernie and his voters.

I expect a lot more out of this Democratic Party. And I am not impatient. Either the Democratic Party’s platform becomes retooled—or this committee project was faked. We will find out.

[Eric J in MN]

9. The Platform Committee voted 7-6

...against a requirement that federal agencies consider the climate impact of their decisions.

She didn't even try to justify that in her essay.

[lapucelle]

17. When there's a vote, one side wins and one side loses.

I'd like to see the text of the proposed requirement.

It's pretty disingenuous to equate disagreement with obstruction. The authoritarian bent of some of the Sanders members is troubling at best.

[Scootaloo]

29. As is the tendency of Clinton supporters to treat it like a game

You know there is shit in the world that matters more than you "scoring" for your "team" right? Like... Actual people, actually suffering, and actually dying, due to actual environmental damage?

[Armstead]

38. More like the anti-authoritarian bent

and I believe it is refreshing not to once again settle for platitudes and put downs for those who don't want to play ball by the conservative centrist rulebook that has been used to stifle liberalism and progressive progress for decades.

[Eko]

20. Here.

"The Clinton campaign says its reluctance to accept some of McKibben’s amendments reflects legitimate concerns about the policy implications, not mere political calculation. Not all experts agree that a carbon tax is the most effective way to reduce emissions, for example. Mary Nichols of the California Air Resources Board had pointed out in her testimony to the committee a week earlier that a carbon tax does not guarantee emissions reductions, while direct regulation, such as Obama’s Clean Power Plan, does. Clinton supporters rejected a blanket prohibition on lending for foreign fossil fuel development projects on the grounds that the U.S. relationship with any given developing country may have competing priorities, and they opposed the climate test for energy projects because they worried it could prevent necessary projects like transmission lines for electricity that may be partly generated from dirty sources."
http://grist.org/election-2016/sanders-and-clinton-teams-fight-over-climate-language-in-democratic-platform/

[Orsino]

45. Money talks.

The Democratic Party still isn't quite ready to take on the big jobs, but they are at least being forced to vote against them. That's a little change, deluvered by Sanders' campaign.

You're welcome.

[Squinch]

59. Yes. Because what the hell does that even mean? According to the article, here's what the

platform DOES say about climate:

The 2016 draft platform moves decisively beyond an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy, calling for rapidly accelerating the transition to clean energy, getting half our electricity from clean energy sources within the next decade, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions more than 80 percent by 2050. The draft proposes harnessing a wide range of tools to achieve these goals—from strengthening fuel economy standards, to defending and extending tax incentives for clean energy, to updating building codes to boost energy efficiency.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/democratic-party-platform-debate-hillary-clinton-213998#ixzz4D5fBplcH
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

So, yes. They did vote down a requirement that federal agencies consider the climate impact of their decisions. I bet they would also have voted down a requirement that we all deeply ponder the climate. Or that federal agencies should meditate about climate change. Or that car makers should mull over emissions.

[JaneyVee]

13. With all due respect....

Earth is 14 billion years old. We should definitely move towards alternative energies and away from fossil fuels, and we should definitely fund the research and transition, but this is not an issue that should divide Democrats. There are more pressing issues.

[KMOD]

18. Oh, absolutely.

I suppose it's a matter of seeing the platform as a glass half full, or a glass half empty. I see it as half full. I'm happy to see climate change being addressed aggressively.

[Scootaloo]

28. Earth's age has nothing to do with the issue.

And I'm, sorry, but if you're working against the effort to slow down climate change (there's no stopping it, at this point) then yes. There is every reason in the world for me to be divided from you.

[JaneyVee]

32. What are you doing to stop climate change?

Better yet, what are you willing to give up to stop climate change?

[Scootaloo]

65. Well, for starters, there's no stopping climate change. it's already here

Second, i'm probably not doing all I could. Thing is, I could cut everything and go live off the land in the woods, and it would still amount to nothing.

The reason is simple - climate change is too big to be changed by individual action. It's a systemic problem that needs to be addressed from an angle that can alter entire systems. I can buy local produce, but all the other stuff is still being shipped to my local grocery, and if it's not bought, it gets thrown away and more stuff is shipped in, to also be thrown away. because that's the system. I can minimize my electricity use (and I do, actually) but the power plant is still burning all that natural gas, or coal, or whatever they're using regardless of how much energy I use, because that's the system.

When you look at systemic problems you need to approach them from a systemic angle. In our world, that requires government action. Individuals simply aren't big enough to tackle the problem, it's like ants trying to push a boulder uphill. It's the same reason that private charity hasn't cured poverty.

[Warren DeMontague]

33. Around 4 and a half, not 14.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

If you're gonna use facts in your argument, it helps to be accurate.

Also, it's not about "saving the planet"- the planet isnt going anywhere. It's about trying to preserve a climate range our civilization can reasonably cope with, you know, without shit like mass starvation due to weather-driven crop failures, that kind of thing.

Nah, I guess it's not that pressing to me, since I'll probably be dead in 50 years, regardless. My kids and grandkids, though? Uh, yeah. It's sort of important that we address this shit asap.

[Her Sister]

40. There are a few timelines. Earliest Universe around 14 billion years

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_natural_history

Timeline of the formation of the Universe

Main article: Chronology of the universe

Diagram of Evolution of the universe from the Big Bang (left) to the present
This is a timeline of the formation and subsequent evolution of the Universe from the Big Bang 13.799 ± 0.021 billion years ago to the present day. Times are measured from the moment of the Big Bang.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_formation_of_the_Universe

[Warren DeMontague]

60. She didn't say the Universe, she said the Earth.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512225263#post13

Again, accuracy matters.

[Her Sister]

61. I know that, just saying probably that's where she got that number!

I love Science, it's fascinating! Ain't it!

[Warren DeMontague]

62. I figured as much, too.

I agree that Science is fascinating.



On the larger points at hand, of course, "global warming isn't urgent because the planet has been here for a long time" is a facile argument. Aside from the fact that it ignores what the conversation is actually about. I mean, much of that time was pretty inhospitable, by our standards. The first half Billion years aren't called "Hadean" for nothing.

Looking at it from the scale and perspective of the 14 billion year old known Universe, global warming on our speck of dust of course doesn't matter one bit, but then it is hard to imagine what does. At those scales nothing that anyone "does" matters at all.

[Her Sister]

63. It's a cool thought! Also imagining the whole universe!

The scale of time and the scale of space! Woah! It gives you a sense of awe! It's refreshing to think of it! You come back to earth (in your mind) happy and ready!

[Warren DeMontague]

64. Well, keep in mind every time we think we have a handle on how big "everything" is

Last edited Thu Jun 30, 2016, 07:29 PM - Edit history (2)

We discover that it is just a smaller part of something several orders of magnitude bigger.


Hell, we thought the milky way was the entire universe until the early 20th century.


Something to think about.

[Her Sister]

41. Universe is about 14 billion years! Earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_natural_history

All is well! As you were! With you

[Orsino]

46. No human civilization has ever had to cope with 400 ppm before.

We do not appear equal to the task, and so far are whiffing. I hope for better.

[progressoid]

16. Voted down a plan to keep fossil fuel companies from taking private land by eminent domain?

WTF?

[Hiraeth]

22. Oh. Those pesky questions.

[Her Sister]

42. ...

???

[Hiraeth]

57. See #25 below

[JudyM]

25. As can be seen plainly in the discussion above, facts are "tedious."

[SaschaHM]

19. If working with them for weeks...

and giving them concessions results in last minute "all or nothing" amendments and negative portrayals from them, then it's time to stop working with them. The results will be the same.

[Betty Karlson]

30. My understanding is that there are two sides to this story.

Reading this particular side only makes me sad: it points to a growing rift. Or, to present the various reports in the form of a cartoonish dialogue:

"We are doing fine."

"I think we could do much better. Here is a proposal"

"No need. We are doing fine."

"When I said we could do better, I meant that the current draft is likely to alienate too many voters"

"When I said we are doing fine, I meant shut up and give in."

"I won't shut up."

"I won't listen."

"I think you could and should do better than that."

"No. We are doing fine."

---------------------------

Now, the above is obviously exagerated, but all the self-congratulatory chest-thumping in the word will not improve matters. Some days ago, there was the (quite sensible) advice that we should operate as if we were 10 points behind in the polls.

Being "disappointed" with accusations of obstructionism and congratulating ourselves (on overruling the complainants?) is not the way to operate when you are ten points behind.

Fair enough?

[Armstead]

39. The chest thumping is designed to drown out discussion

It's like as soon as Clinton won, all the concerns of 45-45 percent of the primary voters were suddenly supposed to evaporate and we were supposed to just go on with business as usual.

[Betty Karlson]

44. That's a recipe for election losses.

Deal with the rift, everyone. Or it will become a schism. And the onus for doing so falls on the winning side. Always has.

[KMOD]

56. and at some point,

the pep talk in the locker room ends, and you have to get on the field and play the game.