Democratic Platform 2016: A Conversation with Ben Grant
Party platforms have been part of the electoral landscape for hundreds of years. Some of the most famous belong to parties on the margins — the Populist Party of the early 1900s or Ross Perot’s Reform Party. Other historic platforms are those with “firsts” like the 1948 Democratic Platform’s strong support of Civil Rights.
The Democrats hold their convention in Philadelphia July 25–28, 2016. Ahead of that convention, I discussed the work that went into this year’s Democratic Platform with Ben Grant, a Maine Attorney, former Chairman of the Maine Democratic Party from 2011–2014 and member of the DNC Platform Committee’s Orlando meeting. We discussed this year’s platform and what it means for the 2016 election.
CHRIS: There’s been a lot of coverage, including its own Twitter hashtag, of the Democratic Platform this year. What is the point of a party platform in 2016?
BEN: When you look under the hood, the value of a Party Platform is debatable in the modern era. The general public has FAR more information about elected officials then when the Platform concept was invented. In addition, the Parties have sorted themselves out after the 20th Century jumble of oddball coalitions. Things are a lot clearer now, just by the D or R label, so the additional assist from a Platform is often unnecessary.
I do think the Party should always have a statement of broad values, but the Platform today is something far different. It’s turned into an attempt at an all-encompassing statement of a particular perspective on dozens and dozens of discrete issues. I don’t mean to diminish the importance of each issue or the passion many people feel in creating the language, but I don’t believe the Platform is something that elected officials consult in the process of governing.
The question is then: who is it for?
After being involved in the development of the Maine Democratic Party Platform, and now the National Democratic Party Platform, I think the answer is that it is far more important in the relationship between base/activist Party members and elected officials than it is a useful statement for the broader public. In some sense, the Platform is a message from rank-and-file Democrats to the elected officials about core priorities.
The Platform is also useful if you pull the lens back and focus on the broad direction, as opposed to the nuances or textual debates. This year, you can clearly see that the Platform reflects larger trends in both Parties. The Democrats are moving toward a more liberal populism and the GOP is retrenching even further into a more extreme version of itself. The Democrats are changing with the times (i.e. based on real-world evidence), and the GOP is refusing to change.
After working on the inside of Party politics for several years, my personal belief is that the Party is defined far more by the votes taken by our elected officials than by non-binding documents.
That said, I do view the process of creating a Platform important and instructive as a temperature check of the Party base. We do have core values that remain virtually constant — and we should always remind people of them. However, the detailed policy prescriptions have limited usefulness
CHRIS: Do you think the platform makes a difference in the positions of candidates up and down the ballot?
BEN: No. My view is that candidates are centrally concerned with the views of their respective districts. This is what I hear them talk about, and this is what I know the advice is that they are given by the campaign experts. Most people who run have been a member of a Party for most of their lives. They don’t need a document to guide them on the basic Party values. Everything else that is filled in around the edges typically reflects the idiosyncrasies of the electorate they are asking for votes.
Like I intimated above, the Platform makes a bigger difference for activists. It’s a way for them to deliver a clear message to the folks they work to get elected.
CHRIS: You recently returned from Orlando, where the committee made its final draft platform. Was there a difference in tone between the first session and the Orlando session?
BEN: I didn’t attend any of the prior sessions, so I can’t speak with firsthand knowledge. What I do know is that we voted on many proposed amendments that had already been negotiated by the Sanders and Clinton people who were in St. Louis (and other prior locales). Remember, the Platform Committee has a “drafting” subcommittee of about 15 people…and that’s where a lot of the heavy action occurred.
CHRIS: What was your role on the committee? Did you feel you had influence/say in the document as a whole, or specific areas?
BEN: I was basically a rank-and-file Clinton delegate, so I viewed my role as more procedural than substantive. I was a “whip” for a small group and helped spread the word on the campaign’s position on the contested issues. I am certain that I could have had influence — as I watched a lot of people in similar situations propose and prevail on many small issues. I chose not to do this, though, largely because of my answers above. For me, this wasn’t a chance to hear myself talk — I was there to do a job. Fortunately, I agreed with essentially all of the Clinton positions, so I was able to do this job with a clear conscience.
CHRIS: How many members on the committee were from Maine? How was that choice made?
BEN: Maine only gets one seat on the Standing Platform Committee. By agreement with the Sanders camp, Clinton got this seat, and Sanders filled Maine’s one seat on two other DNC Standing Committees.
CHRIS: Were there any regional fault lines, like there once was with the old southern coalition?
BEN: Not obviously. Generally speaking, the fault lines fell along the results of the Clinton-Sanders contests. There were some strident Sanders folks from states that Clinton won (see: New York and California), but basically form held according to the actual votes (Maine notwithstanding!).
I would add that the fault lines were more obviously generational and also issue based. Just to paint with a broad brush: the younger and more liberal the person, the more likely they were a Sanders delegate.
CHRIS: How much did Hillary or Bernie, either directly or by inspiration, affect the platform?
BEN: Tremendously. My view is that the Platform usually occupies a pretty sleepy corner of our Party’s “big tent” — but this year Sanders decided to make this one of the targets of his political insurgency. I would venture to say that 90% of the major Platform amendments came from the Sanders camp, and so too the passion.
One of the underpinnings of the Sanders candidacy was an effort to move the Party to the left on several big issues. When you look at Clinton’s positions and the Platform in combination, you can only conclude that he has succeeded.
I think this is a good thing, by the way.
Clinton’s fingerprints are on the new platform, too, to be sure. Her head policy staffer, Maya Harris, was the person in charge of the effort — so this wasn’t staffed out to some mere campaign operative. Team Clinton took this very seriously at the substantive level.
CHRIS: Was there a clear HRC/Bernie divide among committee members?
BEN: Yes. Almost every contested vote ended in the exact same margin (100 Clinton votes to 70 Sanders votes).
CHRIS: Was there any issue or area that garnered consensus among the whole committee?
BEN: Plenty. Far more than the press was interested in covering. We voted on close to 300 amendments. I would guess that 60%-75% were not contested in any meaningful way. To give just one example, we adopted a broad statement concerning the issue of policing and race relations (we were there the day after Dallas). The language is supportive of the law enforcement community, but also encouraging of reform and respectful of the legitimate grievances felt by many. It was a fine moment and one that made me proud to be there and be part of Team D.
CHRIS: Any other issues that stand out?
BEN: Another example: the first amendment that we took up included language supportive of the $15 minimum wage — and it passed unanimously.
CHRIS: How much did recent events, like the current rise in calls for gun control, affect the members? Did it move the needle, or do you think there was longer term commitment to gun control, etc?
BEN: To my ear, this group was already there on gun control issues. Operating in the immediate aftermath of Orlando, Minnesota, Baton Rouge and Dallas made things very raw, but I don’t think rank-and-file DNC types needed more convincing. You only have to listen to Gov. Malloy from Connecticut talk for five minutes about Sandy Hook to have enough motivation for a lifetime.
CHRIS: Did you think, or was there a sense on the committee, that the platform needed to challenge any specific threats from the Republicans this year, like the broad threats against Muslims, for example?
BEN: Yes, for sure. There were some skirmishes about whether or not to mention Trump by name, but the spirit of the effort clearly had him in mind. I have long said that Team D is primarily knitted together by its views on social and racial issues — for more than on economic issues.
Trump is a direct affront to many D views about tolerance and acceptance. The confrontation definitely popped up in some Platform language.
CHRIS: From your point of view, what was the most divisive moment/issue and how was it overcome?
BEN: TPP. Fracking and Israel-Palestine were probably a close second and third. On TPP, the Clinton proposal included a very strong statement about the standards that should apply to all trade deals. It was proposed and seconded by Lee Saunders, president of AFSCME, and Bob Martinez, president of IAM — both leaders in the effort to stop TPP. The flashpoint was over whether or not we were going to include language opposing a vote on TPP in this Congress.
This was above my pay-grade, but I have to imagine Team Clinton arrived at this position, in part, because of President Obama’s advocacy for the deal. The existential question for everyone is this: are you happy with moving the Party Platform way farther then it has ever been on trade, or are you only satisfied with outright condemnation in all respects? There is no doubt that there is a pro-Sanders cohort who will accept nothing less than exactly what Sanders wants, which is what made some issues contentious. I bet that if this was a Congress and the room was voting on TPP itself, the vote would have been 90%-10% against. However, this was about whether or not to put the most defiant position possible in the Platform. That is not the same question as simply, “do you support or oppose TPP?”
CHRIS: How were these issues resolved?
BEN: See my answer to Question #8. At some level, this exercise was not about trade or fracking or the Middle East or political philosophy — it was about pure political power and the electoral reality. Clinton won. She has the votes.
CHRIS: How did you feel about the platform at the end of the process?
BEN: I feel very good about it. It moves the official Party positions in a more liberal direction, while at the same time remaining acceptable to the Party nominee. Politics is a team activity. We have certain core values, and also a defined leader. We have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, and I believe this Platform respects both of those realities.
CHRIS: How did you feel about your involvement in shaping the platform?
BEN: I was happy to contribute in my small way. It was personally instructive to witness the passion behind many of the issues, and also heartening to see the honest effort that many threw into their pet issues. People in our Party truly care about the substance and effectiveness of policy. They want to get it right, down to the last punctuation mark. That makes me hopeful for the future.
CHRIS: Now that there is a document, what is the next step for the platform?
BEN: It comes to the full Convention next week for a vote. Time will tell if Team Sanders wants to relitigate any of these issues on the floor. There is obviously a cohort of strident Sanders supporters who won’t accept anything but 100% agreement with the Sanders position. The big question is whether or not Sanders himself blesses any effort to overturn our work. In the end, I assume Team Clinton will still have the votes — but any further action on these issues must be viewed as risk, at least in terms of the media narrative.
CHRIS: What should people pay attention to at the full convention level next week?
BEN: The big speeches. The Convention’s primary purpose, to me, is to provide inspiration for all the folks who go out during the fall and do the hard work of getting D’s elected. It can be drudgery at time, so you need that spark that only a big speech can give. Fortunately, we have an incredible line-up: Sanders, Pres. Clinton, Pres. Obama and Sec. Clinton each on their own night.
Plus, it’s easy to forget the truly historic nature of Sec. Clinton’s nomination. This will be a landmark moment in American political history — the first woman ever nominated by a major Party. Progress, again, by Team D.
CHRIS: Anything else you want to add that you think readers would be interested to know?
BEN:
(A) When picking a location for a summer meeting, I believe there are unionized hotels in states with an average temp of below 99!
(B) The Meeting involved some heavy-hitters making impassioned and effective arguments. In particular, I will remember former Governor Beshear (D-Kentucky) talking about the life-changing impact of the ACA on his state, and also NAACP CEO Ben Jealous talking about policing and race-relations. AFT President Randi Weingarten is a forceful and passionate speaker on every topic.
There was a red wave in 2010 and 2014, but I left the meeting feeling very good about the commitment and excitement of many of the people I consider Party leaders.
(C) The Democratic Party is very accessible. If you don’t like something — or if you do and feel inspired to help more — there are plenty of entry points and a plethora of talented people to mentor you.
CHRIS: Thanks, Ben Grant for taking the time to discuss your experiences at the Democratic Platform Committee in Orlando. Enjoy the Convention next week!
If you like what you read, please “like” it so other people can find it easier. Follow the Fireside Newsletter, with politics and commentary every Sunday by subscribing here.
You can follow me on the interwebs on Facebook, Twitter, or over at firesideblog.org
Originally published at firesideblog.org on July 21, 2016.
