Much as the 2016 Republican platform
largely adheres to conservative orthodoxy, the Democratic platform approved in
Philadelphia this week reaffirms many liberal principles. The main difference
between the two is that while the GOP platform makes few substantive changes to
basic party principles (a summary of the changes that are present can be found here),
the Democrats’ platform veers far to the Left, even when compared to the
historically liberal platform of four years ago.
One of the sharpest illustrations of
this can be found in the evolution of the abortion plank over the past several
decades, as described
by Fred Lucas at the Daily Signal. For the first time the platform expressly
calls for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment prohibiting most direct federal
funding of abortions—previously a bipartisan and noncontroversial issue.
Democrats also refuse to call for abortion to be “rare”, until 2008 a hallmark
of Democratic language, and the abortion section as a whole is the longest and
most detailed in platform history.
But the abortion plank is nowhere near
the only section of the platform that has taken a dramatic left turn. The
platform takes stridently liberal positions on same-sex marriage, LGBT
protections (opposing “bathroom bills” and religious liberty laws), and gun
control (endorsing a variety of tailored gun bans and other measures designed
to effectively choke the Second Amendment. And the platform is the first in
history to endorse eliminating the death penalty entirely, calling it a “cruel
and unusual form of punishment”. The vast majority of the American public
disagrees on all points.
On economic and other domestic issues,
the platform endorses increased regulation, amnesty for illegal immigrants, a
universal health care system which goes even further than Obamacare in
expanding the reach of the federal government, a $15 minimum wage, and more. All
of those proposals are like siren songs promising everlasting prosperity, but
all have been repeatedly discredited in practice. Obviously nothing to appeal
to conservatives or moderates there.
Only on issues of national security and
foreign affairs does the platform show any recognition of a need to appeal to
voters beyond the most liberal and isolationist parts of the Democratic base.
While less willing than its Republican counterpart to endorse military action
or a leadership role for America in world affairs, the platform at least acknowledges
a watered-down version of American exceptionalism, expresses a need to defeat
ISIS and radical terrorism (of course without explicitly naming radical
Islam), and takes a strong stance in opposing the power-hungry tactics of Russia
and North Korea. However, even here the platform fails by praising the Iran
deal and devoting a section to the supposed national security threat of climate
change.
If 2016 was merely a referendum on the
two major party platforms, the choice would be easy, and voters would be able
to pick based on policy and principle alone. But of course, both nominees make
the choice an agonizing one.
No comments:
Post a Comment