On Politics
Should the state party's platforms be tilted?

By David Postman
Seattle Times chief political reporter

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most e-mailed articles

As a small group of Democrats worked Thursday night on the final draft of the state party's platform, one could have been excused for wondering why so much work goes into something very few people will read.

The thought crossed my mind when discussion at the Tacoma Sheraton turned to such weighty matters as whether the U.S. should have a Department of Peace, or whether to take out the hyphen between "bio" and "mass."

The best answer really is that people who attend political conventions care about this stuff. And they are the ones who do the things political parties do: knock on doors, remind people to vote, give money.

It was hard to imagine anyone was in that room out of self-interest.

"You have to adopt a platform that fires up the grass roots," said Democratic Party Chairman Paul Berendt.

Berendt has given free rein to the platform writers, saying it'll be a liberal one that he will be proud of.

And that points out a real difference in how Democrats and Republicans approached their platforms this year.

Republicans, who met last week, were most proud of the lack of dissension among the ranks and the carefully managed, easily palatable platform, with, as party Chairman Chris Vance crowed, "nothing incendiary or controversial or weird."

Vance and other Republican leaders said their convention showed the great unity of the party, which they said would pave the way for badly needed victories in November.

Measuring the value of unity is difficult. Republicans seemed unified in 2000 when, in the gubernatorial primary, the vast majority of Republican voters chose John Carlson as the nominee. Gov. Gary Locke won that race with about 60 percent, to Carlson's 40 percent. In 1998, Rep. Linda Smith won more than twice the votes of her primary challenger and clearly was the unified choice of the GOP. Sen. Patty Murray beat her with roughly 60 percent, to Smith's 40 percent. So how much of a motivation is unity if it entails heavy-handed management by party leaders?
 
It's understandable that Vance kept such close watch on the platform. In 1992, the party adopted a far-right platform — after fights over whether to include condemnation of evils such as hypnosis and yoga. For several years the GOP was ridiculed as the anti-yoga party.

So, will the 2004 Democrats be the "Department of Peace" Party? That was in the platform as of yesterday. It's an idea of Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich's, whose campaign literature explains it this way:

"We can conceive of peace as a tool to tap the infinite capabilities of humanity to transform consciousness and conditions that impel or compel violence at a personal, group, or national level toward creating understanding, compassion, and love."

The Department of Peace made the cut after defeat of an alternative, "Ambassador of Peace."

One committee member's argument summed up the importance of a party platform:

"Dennis Kucinich has brought a lot of people into this party. We want them to stay, and this is one bone we can throw them."

Comments: 360-943-9882 or onpolitics@seattletimes.com