- Republican pabulum of Iowa (RPI)
- Platform continues to be reduced in size, relevance, grassroots legitimacy
- Practical prioritization within sections or topics removed
- Grassroots continues to be elbowed out in favor of mostly vague platitudes.
- Conventions turned from convocations where grassroots formalize telling politicians what they want, to listening to enchanting speeches from politicians.
- Any pretense that the platform is something to be complied with have been removed
- Call for respectable campaign ethos eliminated
- Tax limitation amendments removed.
(Veritaspac.com comments) Regarding the upcoming Iowa Republican State Convention comments and analysis The text of the 2012, 2014
Regular readers will be aware that for the more than four years of our existence V’pac.com has decried the diminishment of county, district and state platforms to little more than platitudes with reduced currency, specification, prioritization and resultant relevancy to compelling matters of the day. Statements of overarching principle are fine but the diminishment in content, removing so many practical matters, timely actionable concerns, reduces grass-roots input.
The dismissal of so many interim concerns of the day reduces relevancy. Such a reduction in relevancy is aggravated by the removal of any compliance measures previously called for. There is no longer even the vaguest call for support of the platform, no compliance necessary. Admonishments about how to conduct oneself in the political ethos, had been removed by 2014.
We believe that the inclusion of more specific matters that rise to a degree of urgency, informed every two years by grassroots convocations as to their continued pertinence or not, is important to grassroots involvement and party relevancy. The trend of substituting all-encompassing platitudes that pretend to cover most matters of government or political concern or so limit topics of concern, make the precinct caucus system a joke, or at least a half-joke.
The message is clear enough, “petty” or interim concerns are already covered. Want change in a particular tax or regulatory policy or practice in the interim between the nirvana called for in platform platitudes — tut-tut simple strident person. You should be satisfied that “we are for fewer regulations and less taxes, ” the grand philosophizers have anticipated you. You will be told essentially don’t bother. It will be strongly hinted that if the caucus approves your “legislation” it will be expunged by the appointed ones, the keepers of the generalities. You will be up against the “hurry up and get out of here” precinct leadership intent on making it easy to leave as soon as possible, the main goal for too many from about the opening gavel.
The question becomes why bother with the caucus system? Republicans might as well fold up that part of the tent. Eliminate all that grassroots platform folderol. WE HAVE PRINCIPLES THAT COVER EVERYTHING! Why not just cast your presidential straw poll vote, with all the necessary Republican commitment of same-day registration, and go home. The party kingpins will take care of the rest (and decide priorities) without your input. Of course there is already a first in the nation primary state. So let’s keep it nominally a caucus for appearances (and money), as otherwise inconsequential we try to make it.
Having served on county and district platform committees, rules and other committees, and chaired county platforms, it is well appreciated that processes can be streamlined, real redundancies removed, writing improved, committee selection made more dependable, rules adapted, discipline held to, and modern technologies incorporated. As regards new technologies, that aspect alone could make for platform debate and voting on all but final approval completed before county district and state conventions. Instead the last two state platform committees have thrown babies out with the bath water.
The full text of Republican Party of Iowa (RPI) State Platforms from 2012, 2014, and 2016 (proposed) along with related commentaries and links, can be found by using the item on the page bar above. What follows are a few statistics and other observations about recent platforms and some brief comments about some of the sections from the proposed 2016 RPI State Platform.
Rules — Comparing 2016 (proposed) to 2014.
(This commentary is as regards a selection of items we thought of note. We may have missed some significant items)
Section 1 General Rules
Items a- e are essentially unchanged. Item f uses the term “may” instead of “shall” as regards a similar topic.
Item i regarding who may distribute literature on seats – 2014 allowed any candidate, for 2016 that has been limited to internal party positions unless permission granted.
Item o – motion to adjourn – is only in order if the agenda items are complete or a quorum is absent.
Section 2 Delegates
Item a – quorum calls are limited to one an hour, previously two per hour. Items b and c appear essentially unchanged.
Section 3 – Voting Rules
This section is much simplified due to adoption of electronic voting devices, but also altered.
Item d — calls for division are made easier
We suspect that due to the newness of electronic voting the related rules will necessarily evolve. We can imagine some problems. For one, how to actually prevent “proxy” voting if the device is left with someone, temporarily perhaps.
Section 4 — Nominations
The relevant rules here seem stilted toward greasing the nominating committee’s slate. The slate must be voted down in order to have individual nominations. That is an organizational and psychological impedance. It is unclear to this writer if rival slates are practically possible as a competing or substitute motion to the nominating committee’s report without a suspension of the rules which requires a super majority. If so, that is unfair.
Section 5 — National Committeemen – made into a separate section from 2012.
Section 6 — Platform and Debate
Item “a” is changed to individuals from four districts required to sign on as compared to ten counties previously.
Item b — delegates have one extra hour to submit amendments.
There are less itemized rules in this section, it is arguable as to whether the “proposed” rules work more for or against facilitation of the platform. If the platform was not an atrocity as far as honoring the precinct caucus system, with little hope of change due to the inertia of the system and the lack of leadership of the committee, we would evaluate them closer.
Preambles and Principles – 2014 – 2016
Quickly comparing the Preamble and “Principles” sections of the two efforts, they seem unchanged.
Platform (statistics)
After a copy and paste to a word processor for a word count we determined that 2014 has 1554 words and 2016 has 1360 words which indicates a reduction of over 12%. That is after an absolute gutting and re-write of the 2012 platform (see related comments accessible from page bar link above).
Section statistics: (section names are the same in 2014 and 2016)
Life. (2016) 5 items (2014) 4 items [+1]
Liberty (2016) 8 items (2014) 13 items [-5]
Property (2016) 8 items (2014) 8 items [#]
National sovereignty and defense (2016) 8 items (2014) 8 items [#]
Commerce (2016) 6 items (2014) 12 items [-6]
Government (2016) 13 items (2014) 6 items [ +7 ]
There were a total of 51 planks in 2014 and there are 48 proposed for 2016 [-3]
Platform critique – lowlights & highlights
Comparing the 2012 to the 2014/2016 efforts we see that 2012 offered a valuable exposition of important issues that percolated up from precincts across the state. With only a relative few exceptions the 2012 planks are still relevant today as separately actionable steps consistent with general Republican principles. The 2012 planks should be honored as interim priorities toward the grander implementation of Republican principles. It is a shibboleth that longer platforms are somehow writing legislation and that interim measures short of Republican Nirvana should be left to legislators. Such an attitude denigrates grassroots input, eliminates useful performance measures (platitudes are unattainable) and greatly reduces the educational and practical value of platforms.
Most of the sections from the 2012 platform were eliminated in 2014 and 2016, including the topic of education. Consider that most of the state’s budget is spent on education. A sentient human being would think that a political party’s adherents might have more to say about the topic than endorsing vouchers. Traditionally an education section has been included and composed of more individual planks than any other category or section. All but one plank on the matter is gone other than a very few that touch on the matter obliquely.
Agriculture policies? Heck Iowan’s have little to say about that anymore. Let the lobbyists take care of advising the politicians (a critique that could be applied to the whole of the 2014/2016 platforms).
What follows are just a very few comments regarding sections of the proposed 2016 platform. Much much more could be said about the scant inclusions.
The Life section
Now includes a doctrinaire rewrite departing from previous platforms including 2014. It seems to indicate that “personhood only” people held sway on the committee. No calls for incremental legislation are present in the section other than an abortion funding restriction. Most long-time right-to-life activists believe that incremental legislation such as restrictions on age, purposes such as sex selection, and other highly supported restrictions serve to educate the public, undermine abortion proponents and most importantly save babies now. They are necessary to arrive at full legal protection for the right to life. Personhood-only adherents in their pursuit of doctrinaire purity leave babies that could be saved to die under the current Roe v Wade regime. The result is that a number of actionable “high=polling” items are missing from the 2012 platform in 2016.
Property section
Item number 5 reads We support eliminating all death taxes. So OK — it actually sounds plain and inclusive enough. But inexplicably, given all the many issues related to property and taxes that are gone, left unspecified or prioritized, we see item 8 — We support retaining the step up in basis on assets transferred from a decedent has been retained. It must be a profound statement of principle not possibly contemplated in the other generalities (such as #5).
Throw a dart at a copy of the 2012 state platform and what ever you hit explain why it is expurgatable (because it probably will have been) but item 8 is necessary because it is not covered elsewhere?
Government section
Tax limitation amendment dropped. Item 6.3 of the 2014 platform read: We support amending the Iowa Constitution to require a 2/3 vote of both Houses of the Iowa General Assembly to pass any bill that has the effect of raising individual or corporate income taxes or sales tax. For 2016 it is gone!
How is it that a call to limit the size and scope of government, which 2016 contains in all its vaguery, covers such a matter effectively? A politician can say, “oh I don’t vote for tax increases” but will allow mere majorities to harm individuals and the economy. What has changed about the matter of the power to tax being the power to destroy?
We reached out to Iowans for Tax Relief, the states major advocate for tax limitation statutory and amendatory relief about this matter and have not received a response. We also asked them about the People’s Right to Vote Amendment http://www.taxrelief.org/pages/amendment
We counseled that candidate surveys are fine but having a party behind the proposal is more compelling and helps to educate a wider audience.
Republican Party section of the Republican Party Platform — Gone
The 2012 platform included the admonitions:
24.4 We call for the Republican Party to lead whenever it has the majority, and to oppose the other party’s leadership when it does not serve the interests of voters.
24.6 The Republican Party affirms that it will only endorse and provide financial support for candidates who agree to vote for legislation in substantial alignment with the party platform.
24.7 We insist that the Republican Party and its candidates stand for integrity in all political advertising. We expect political campaigns to be conducted in a positive and truthful manner.
They were provisions that were important then and that only became more important since. They were removed in 2014.
Summary and conclusions: (as we have said before)
Platforms should not be dismissed as superfluous little diversions for the rubes. Platforms are about accountability. Conventions are not about sitting and listening to speeches from politicians telling us what we need to know, but the other way around.
The proposed platform subverts the grassroots nature of the caucus to convention process. The platform process can be streamlined with reliance on new cheap communication avenues. Conceivably the platform could largely be settled by voting before the day of the convention.
Somehow the gutting of provisions was sold as making the platform more approachable. Balderdash. The effort has made it more irrelevant and unresponsive to grassroots concerns.
R Mall
