Fox News noted yesterday the brewing philosophical battle heading into this weekend’s convention over the California Republican Party Platform, i.e, whether the GOP’s statement of principles should be conservative or moderate.
Governor Schwarzenegger would like a shorter, more inclusive statement, a one-pager, addressing only the topics he believes are important to the State. Few, if any, social issues. The FlashReport’s own Mike Spence is quoted in the story, leading the charge for conservatives who believe the Party should be clear and detailed about where it stands on the issues of the day.
Go back 12 or 16 years and you would find the same story heading into any every-four-years platform adopting convention, Pete Wilson troops on one side, and the head of the California Republican Assembly quoted on the other. The debate was — and is — healthy.
Yet, I can do better than simply one page. To ensure the GOP is open to everyone, and doesn’t offend anyone at all, let’s make it even more succinct. To the Platform Committee and Convention delegates, may I offer the following suggestion:
The Platform of the California Republican Party
As Republicans, we believe:
Crime – We’re opposed to it.
Taxes – Although we do so begrudgingly, we pay ours.
Economy – We support a good one.
Education – Everyone should have one.
Immigration – This is a Federal issue.
Family – We are family, I got all my Party with me.
We further affirm that the membership of the California Republican Party be open to anyone who checks the appropriate box marked "Republican" on the form at the time of registering to vote.
###
On second thought, I’m not sure about that last part. It could be construed as only allowing citizens to join the GOP. Oh well, please let me know if I’ve missed anything, but remember that the goal is brevity and inclusiveness.
Here’s the Fox News story.
10:00 am Update (or Addendum, if you will): What a nice outpouring of love already this morning, in response to the above. I wish some of you would post comments, instead of just emailing me. Most of you saw the post for what it was, pointing out the absurdity of the situation by showing the extreme of a Platform that says nothing. If you say nothing, you stand for nothing. Some, however, thought I was making light of a serious issue.
The Platform is a serious issue, thus my post to show the ridiculousness of standing for nothing.
To be clear(er), eight years ago I had the privilege of being asked by CRP leadership to take the role of drafting a new platform and taking it through the changes at the drafting and full platform committee meetings. I used the then-existing Platform as a start, and culled from many resources, including recently adopted GOP platforms from other states, resolutions adopted by the CRP, current issues, and my own instincts. My draft went out to the Platform committee prior to the first draftiing meetings, then I attended all meetings with a laptop and a CRP-provided assistant, following the debates, answering questions, recording changes to the document as votes were taken, and turning around revised drafts in time for the next meetings. It was a great process, including healthy debates, and ultimately achieved large consensus, even on issues where some participants disagreed. I’m proud to say that much of my original work remained in the final document adopted by the CRP. When I look at the current CRP Platform, adopted four years ago, I also see that much of the language was carried forward.
Yet, this is more than about my work. It’s about a process moved forward by Platform Committee members elected by the CRP membership and debated at length over a series of meetings, so as to culminate in a statement that is clear as to where the GOP stands on a myriad of issues important to the State and nation. To trade clearness and detail for brevity is to shortchange the importance of taking a stand, as well as the significant input of the CRP membership on issues important to them. If we are to be so concerned with a Platform that ensures anyone who reads it is to say "I agree 100% with every aspect," we might as well also make sure the CRP never debates a resolution or takes a position on a ballot measure again. Ever.
Sure, the Platform could be nothing but a document that states the obvious. And, we could also get rid of a State Party that takes a position on anything.
So, conventioneers, if a brief, succinct document is important to you, then do your detail work, then also place on top of it an executive summary, so as to narrow it down for those that can’t be bothered with the detail.
That said, all of this reminds me of being asked by someone if as a then-elected official, I had taken a position on the devastating 2003 Cedar Fire in San Diego. Of course, what the questioner meant was whether I had done anything after the fact to change a system that worked against getting the fire snuffed out as quickly as possible. Yet, what was asked was my position on the fire. My toungue-in-cheek answer: "I was opposed to the fire."
September 6th, 2007 at 12:00 am
From the article:
“Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants the state GOP platform — the party’s statement of core values — boiled down to as little as a single page focusing on lowering taxes, limiting the size of government and building a strong national defense.”
What good would such a platform do if you govern in direct contradiction to those ideals (i.e. state run health care, state budgets growing out of control, etc.)?
September 6th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I am absolutely opposed to deleting any part of our traditional social platform and I have phoned the Governor’s office and told them so. A party that cannot tell the citizens where it stands and is more worried about “unity” does not stand for anything! In Margaret Thatcher’s words “To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects”. To the Governator I say “Stand up and be a man”!
September 7th, 2007 at 12:00 am
How can we have a platform without planks? If we are not specific in our beliefs we have no basis for our existence, yet alone an agenda. Ambiguity is not worthy of respect nor does it inspire.
September 8th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Barry, I’m glad you posted your amplification note. I too have been a strong believer in the fundamental principles outlined in the classic Republican Party Platform as it addressed social, freedom, governmental and financial issues. There’s only one reason to shorten the platform – to try and engineer a “big tent” approach to the party in the hope of gaining more constituents. Liberals will see this for what it is, a laugher. We’re not going to gain a greater base by caving on principles as if we’re ashamed of them. This broadening approach in San Diego has left a very bad taste in my mouth, and speaks poorly for our “leadership”. I’ve said for some time that the Platform is good, but an additional 10 point (or more) summary on key social and fiscal problems is needed to ensure we can tell all of California what we believe in and fight for. And I’m not saying to ignore marriage, abortion, and the rest of the key issues of our day that our Governor and others have shown to be hopelessly wrong on. We’re to articulate our principles, not throw them away like cowards.
Frank Kacer