How the Democratic Party Got a Pro-War Platform

Fact #1: The latest New York Times/CBS News poll estimates that 56% of rank-and-file Democrats say that U.S. troops should "leave Iraq as soon as possible, even if Iraq is not completely stable" and not "stay in Iraq as long as it takes to make sure Iraq is a stable democracy." (New York Times, July 11).

Fact #2: On July 10, the national platform committee of the Democratic Party met in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and endorsed an outrageously pro-war document -- to be presented as the official Democratic Party platform at the coming Boston convention and then in this fall's presidential campaign.

This platform calls for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq, until a stable pro-U.S. government is created -- meaning until the anti-occupation insurgency is crushed. It says: "We cannot allow a failed state in Iraq that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists and a destabilizing force in the Middle East."

With Orwellian double-talk, the platform says U.S. troops should ultimately be removed from Iraq "when appropriate so that the military support needed by a sovereign Iraqi government will no longer be seen as the direct continuation of an American military presence."

Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, a chairman of the platform committee, summed up that this means that U.S. troops must "stay there until the job is done."

In addition, in an unmistakable departure from the past, fully half of the 35-page platform deals with "national security." This document bristles with belligerent militarism. It calls for expanding the military by 40,000 troops, and for doubling the size of the Special Forces (the Army commandos who have been operating as U.S. assassination squads all over the world). It criticizes Bush for his "unilateral" approach to war, but does not criticize the notion that the U.S. can launch war on any country "pre-emptively."

"Democrats are stronger than ever on national security issues," said Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe.

Fact #3: This pro-war position on Iraq was adopted by a 186-member platform-writing committee without any public fight. Several proposed anti-war planks were presented by delegates (who were often pledged to the presidential candidate Congressman Dennis Kucinich).

One proposal said that the Iraq war was a mistake from the beginning. Another called for setting a date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. There were proposals opposing pre-emptive war, for reducing the military, calling for basic national rights for Palestinian people. Another plank criticized Bush for ignoring global warming and destroying the Kyoto process.

These planks were dismissed without the platform committee even considering them, in silence, in secret-- no public acknowledgement, no public debate, no public vote!

U.S. politics has an elaborate apparatus of major-party candidate forums, and primaries for selecting delegates -- in an official season that lasts for almost a full year. In official mythology this is how the "will of the people" gets expressed.

So, then, let's ask: How can the Democratic Party adopt essentially the same position on the Iraq occupation as President Bush (on this so-important "issue" for the world, for the people of Iraq, for the future) -- without even pretending to consider or address the clear views of its own membership?

On one level, this political shut-out was done procedurally. The rules said you needed 14 votes (out of 186) to get a plank on the floor. And none of the anti-war planks could even get that 14-vote minimum. In other words, the delegate selection process had (pretty successfully) excluded people willing to fight for an anti-war position.

Only one platform amendment got enough votes to be even discussed -- one calling for specific changes (not even repeal!) of the fascistic Patriot Act. It was then quickly voted down by this larger platform committee.

Sandy Berger (behind-the-scenes ringmaster of the platform process) insisted that the Democratic Party must not be seen as opposing the Patriot Act, and in particular must not list ANY specific passages they would change.

At the end, the new official Party platform calls for expanding the powers of the Patriot Act (by giving the U.S. federal government even more power to investigate financial records and transactions), and meanwhile it very, very vaguely calls for making the Patriot Act "smarter" by altering (unspecified) sections that may affect "the privacy and liberty that law-abiding Americans cherish."

Fact #4: There were no walkouts by anti-war delegates from this platform outrage. There were no press conferences protesting this crude machine politics. There were no promises to "take it to the floor" of the convention. There were no loud public calls for anti-war democrats to take the streets in Boston and New York for their views.

This complete lack of struggle was particularly startling because one presidential candidate, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, has sworn he would "stay in the race" to oppose the war. And it was particularly startling to Kucinich's own delegates!

Dennis Kucinich had sworn, over and over, through the last months to "take the fight" over the war "all the way to the convention." It was the main reason that a dedicated core of people stuck with him -- in hopes of speaking strongly against the war and "pulling Kerry" toward their stand.

New Hampshire activist Caleb Ewing expressed how the anti-war delegates felt (antiwar.org): "This wholesale rejection of our cause and values stung deeply. We were shocked, in fact, and many of us cried when we realized that not only did our amendments lack the support necessary for passage, but we also lacked even the minimum support required to debate the amendments."

Why were there only tears and no protest?! Because Kucinich sent his campaign aide to order his delegates to accept the platform.

Behind the scenes, a deal had been worked out between Kucinich and Sandy Berger. Well actually, it was not much of a deal.

Kucinich agreed to accept a pro-war platform, a pro-war candidate and not launch any challenge at the convention. And, in exchange, they got nothing.

"We are die-hard Democrats and even though some of us felt stretched to the breaking point by the sustained cold shoulder of the Democratic Party power elite, our progressive caucus leadership quickly scrambled to put a positive spin on the process, to wit, `even though we were all but marginalized and ignored in the platform, and even though we got practically nothing in the end, the fact that we took part in the process and formally accepted this nothing, is evidence of a working relationship with the Kerry camp that will bode well for us once Kerry is elected.'"

-- Caleb Ewing

Millions of people are looking for a way to express their deep discontent and dismay -- and the Democratic Party has slammed the door in their face.

Page One	Page Two	Archive
Discussion Room	Letters	What's Geoism?

Democratic Party Elite versus Its Own Members How the Democratic Party Got a Pro-War Platform

Democratic Party Elite versus Its Own Members

How the Democratic Party Got a Pro-War Platform