The 2008 Party Platforms, or, Exercises in Hypocrisy

We saw at the GOP convention that the parties have no problem ignoring the rules and standards they set for expediency. When one delegate accidentally said “George S. McCain” was his candidate of choice, it was ignored, and when Ron Paul delegates tried to voice their vote, they were ignored. Since the candidate is no longer chosen at the convention, the most interesting part of the gathering is the platform. Both parties put forth platforms which are self-contradictory, and both parties routinely ignore them shortly thereafter. Let’s take a look at some of my favorite planks from this year:

Republican: Under the heading “Preserving Traditional Marriage”, the Republicans did not outline a method for preventing divorce or encouraging healthy relationships, but rather a national policy of prohibiting people in love from marrying. They call for “a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it.” Whether that Constitutional Amendment has violates the separation of church and state is interesting to secular folk, but it is not surprising that just three paragraphs later, the GOP recommends, under “Safeguarding Religious Liberties”, that “public display of the Ten Commandments does not violate the U.S. Constitution and accurately reflects the Judeo-Christian heritage of our country.” Since gays are unnatural evil and Judeo-Christianity is the foundation of America, gays should form a sect of Christianity. Right wing Republicans would either have to accept those marriages, change their policy to something more clearly bigoted, or have their heads explode. Also, I like how they mention “public” display of the 10 rules, but fail to discern between, say, a privately owned lawn or billboard and federal or state owned property, all of which are potentially visible in public.

Democrats: Under the bold title “Win in Afghanistan”, the Democrats this year decided that Iraq is a bad war, and Afghanistan is a good war. “Our troops are performing heroically in Afghanistan,” the write, “but…we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq.” Now, I will not argue that the statement doesn’t make sense. Everyone knows Iraq took funds from other places, including domestic spending and Iraq. What puzzles me is what the difference is between the two. Democrats and Republicans agree it was somehow justified, legally and morally, to invade Afghanistan after September 11, because they harbored Al Qaeda. Well, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and a host of other countries now do so, or did then. The Bush Doctrine states that sovereignty does not exist. I wonder if Senator Obama, like Woodrow Wilson and many other Presidents before Bush, will agree that we respect sovereignty when convenient and dispense with it when we feel like it.

Democrats: They have a section called “Fiscal Responsibility” in which they claim that they “reject the proposals of those who want to continue George W. Bush’s disastrous economic policies.” Uh huh. So the bailout, the sellout of American ideals and taxpayers, was all your idea? Or should we expect an effort to expand the blame to those terrible ‘proposers’ once it becomes clear even to the partisan hacks that it was a crime.

Republicans: Here’s a gem. The GOP thinks “Securing our Civil Liberties” is important enough for a one paragraph section. It reads: “Because our Constitution is based on the principles of individual liberty and limited government, we must always ensure that law enforcement respects the civil and constitutional rights of the people…[h]owever, no expansion of governmental powers should occur at the expense of our constitutional liberties.” Where does one begin to refute the Republican platform with its own actions? Spying on civilians, Department of Homeland Security, war on drug…well, just read this.

I take issue not with the fact that I disagree with many issues of these parties, but merely that they do not create consistent policies and fail to adhere to their own platform, and these are just a few examples. Of course, if they were rational, coherent groups, then discussion would about philosophical thought, not tiny sound bites, and the parties would be about those principles on which members have general agreement, not corporate cronyism and special interest dollars.

The platforms can be found here(Dems) and here (GOP)