One of the chief functions of the caucuses and conventions is platform formation where grassroots Republicans come together to decide what matters should be among those that obtain action by elected officials. It is an honorable undertaking. Without that function the caucus system might just as well be eliminated in favor of one of the variety of primary systems adopted by other states.
The proposed 2014 Scott County Republican platform purports to reduce the previous work comprised of many matters of specific flesh and blood importance, still current and beneficial guidance and directions to elected officials, with few exceptions, into generalized concepts.
The proposal platform works on the presumption that politicians need no current input from Party activists, appreciate none, that they will uniformly have the unbiased clarity and benevolence to know what it is meant by these general proposals and where, when, and how they should apply these generalities to the issues of the day, and of course what exceptions might reasonably pertain. The guidance of rube delegates is not needed.
If it is not based on the theory that mere delegates could not possibly know what is important to them, what to prioritize, that politicians should be left to decide without input from Party, then why were attendees not told that the Platform Committee would not be interested in their resolutions about specific issues? Where did the mandate, the hubris to completely rewrite and vandalize the work of previous conventions come from?
Perhaps the gutting of past work and the dismissal of specific recommendations caucus night is based on the presumption that no one cares and Republican politicians do not pay attention to such grass roots input? Not addressed is why politicians will not dismiss their generalizations as nothing more than that?
Maybe it is a response to impatient, civics benighted, cranks about whom one wonders why they offer to be delegates in the first place, given the job description. We do not see anywhere in the job description “sit and listen to speeches” as the primary county delegate responsibility and then elect delegates to go on to “sit and listen to speeches” at the district and state level. And no, dear cranks, platforms are not mere speeches when policy making and voting is involved.
The Platform Committee’s offering purports to cover all manner of territory. If that is not their intention, then why the exclusion of so many flesh and blood resolutions, prioritizations and the like?
It is not an adequate defense for this group’s platform formulation to say that because one or another member has experience in a field, that all concerns are covered. Experience does not necessarily make one an expert, and could imply antagonism towards others having anything to say. Platforms are about grassroots experience and concerns. They are flesh and blood as well as philosophical.
Accordingly there is no justification with adequate fidelity to platform traditions to say that a few generalizations should suffice for any section. One wonders how anyone in local leadership can support this proposal as written and expect to be relevant on the issues and to maintain loyalty for the Party. The effort is obviously to be as unspecific as possible, to offer political platitudes and generalizations. If widespread it will achieve no additional appeal and demoralize the base.
A few cases in point (for a comparative view of the proposal and the previous platform section by section see our Platform Page accessed from the page line above):
The section ECONOMY SPENDING AND TAXES in the 2010 and 2012 platforms had thirty or so statements vetted and approved. The proposed 2014 section has six. Is that seriously all that Republicans in Scott County have to say about current economic matters at all levels of government? Six generalizations to cover everything?
Regarding the issue of say, Internet commerce . . . the 2010 and 2012 documents opposed taxation of it. It is a very important issue at both state and federal levels, continuously raising its head. Agree or disagree, but what plank definitively covers the matter in the proposed platform?
Why is a parsing of words or philosophical search necessary? The issue continues to be a contentious “flesh and blood issue.” Why hide such matters in an unspecific generalization, debatable as to whether it is covered ? If something has risen to a level of particular concern, why should a platform not be more specific about it? Because some cranks do not want to sit and listen to a pertinent debate as to whether even a generalization applies?
The section EDUCATION has been reduced from 35 or so planks in previous platforms to five in the current proposal. Education is one of the sections that particularly entails localized concerns. Yet we have a Platform Committee, the majority of whom, including the Chairman /Chairperson, have intermittent records of even voting in municipal and school elections, including contested ones* telling us what is important.
Important public, parochial, home-school and taxpayer education concerns are not covered. An example, one of many that relate to lack of specificity in the proposed platform, is the matter of support for open enrollment policies which has been advocated in recent platforms. The concept is not uniform within school districts within Scott County or age groups within school districts. It continues to be relevant. It is an issue that enjoys wide support. It ultimately serves educational improvement. Agree or disagree, but how is it evident that it is swept in or swept out of the generalizations we see in the proposed platform?
Another education example is the “support for the community college system.” expressed in previous platforms. Contextual background as to why such a plank was in there would have been instructive but it was absent. The plank was generated in response to the belief that community colleges do not get a fair share of tax support on a per student basis compared to the state university system. Accordingly, an embellishment on it was introduced in several precincts this year and passed according to feedback we received.
Resolved, Iowa’s community colleges are crucial to both cultural and technological advancement in the state. We support that an overall budget neutral parity (no added taxes) for Iowa’s community colleges be established.
Whether or not the Platform Committee liked the proposed new formulation, how is such a sentiment adequately covered in what Scott County Republicans have before them? How would a student attending Scott Community College know that Scott County Republicans have something principled and specifically identifiable and relevant to them? Are we not supposed to be embarked on a principled outreach to various demographics? Why are we supposed to hide our light behind generalizations?
LAW ENFORCEMENT according to the Platform Committee can adequately be gelled down to three concepts. THREE. We have no doubt that junior delegates would have produced a more profound instructive section even with a mandate to submit generalizations. Apparently delegates are supposed to read a lot into them given that they are down from thirty-three or so specifications in previous platforms.
The wide range of dropped planks from what was previously Law Enforcement and Justice are still entirely relevant and important to the Republican base. No matter to the Platform Committee though, they got it covered.
Gun rights issues are no where specifically mentioned. How is it good to hide behind a generality ” we support the Iowa Constitution and the U.S. Constitution and all its amendments . . . . “? It is grade school stuff. Gun rights activists can get more deference from Democrats on the issue.
Mention of duty to retreat and castle doctrine issues — gone, — concealed carry reciprocity — gone. Is this an effort to lump important timely and yes contentious issues into some blandishment so Republicans can present themselves to be all things to all people? How does this section in any way seriously address or give politicians or the public any of our light, any meaningful input, anything to build confidence that we “hear their pain” with specific doable remedies along with resetting the system.
Every proposed section has numerous similar problems. Generalities meant to substitute for flesh and blood current issues of specific concern. The unmandated gutting of the platform is outrageous. R Mall
* It is still important to vote even when the ballot is uncompetitive or unchallenged either favorably or unfavorably. Good candidates benefit politically from a show of support, and it indicates people are watching. Bad shoe in candidates should be opposed with a write-in serving to show dissatisfaction.
Roger,
I appreciate your clarity and accuracy, it is refreshing and needs to be broadcast beyond this forum. I find it interesting that the very thing that frustrates most thinking Republicans is right under our own nose. What I mean to say is the “line item” veto of what is important to The People, For the People and ultimatley best for all of America. It is my hope, prayer and labor that we have a turn about from this kind of behavior in this election cycle!
Gary Fincher