The GOP Party Platform Must be Reformed
In our last week's newsletter we wrote a story called “Now What?” that discussed the need to consolidate the GOP Party Platform, to make it brief, inline with what voters stand for, so that the majority of Republican elected officials could agree to follow 80% of the Republican Party Platform in exchange for being able to use the Republican brand. The response was fast and positive, leaders in the House and Senate saw the historic chance to end old feuds and bring positive change. Initial feelers are being extended and work will soon begin on crafting a document listing exactly what changes will be needed on the GOP side and what the elected officials are going to have to learn to live with.
It isn't just the Sooner Tea Party that is concerned. The day before the GOP Convention a thoughtful article came out of Batesline.com, focusing on the Party Rules changes but the article had this to say about the Platform.
“Rule Changes #10, #11, #12, from Cimarron, Choctaw, and Tulsa Counties: YES, but amended. Three counties passed an identical proposed amendment to the rules:
Rule 19 (i) Disclosure of Agreement of Candidates with Our Platform: For a Republican candidate for elective office to receive the endorsement and support of the Oklahoma Republican Party, he must read and mark up a copy of the current Oklahoma Republican Platform, indicating his agreement or disagreement with each plank with explanation as necessary, and make it available for review at the state Party office.
Legislators hate this idea. It would put them on the record on every issue in the platform, giving campaign fodder to Democratic opponents. Grassroots activists love this idea, because helps them figure out which primary candidates are worthy of their support. In this time when it's politically advantageous to run as a Republican, we need a tool to discern which candidates are committed to the party's philosophy and which are merely opportunists.
In order for this proposal to help weed out the RINOs without hurting good Republican candidates, the platform needs to be much more concise. I would propose amending the proposal with the requirement that the platform be no more than eight letter-size pages, in 10-point font with one-inch margins. This year's proposed platform is 35 pages long! Without a length constraint, the platform committee is susceptible to logrolling: I won't object to a plank on your obscure pet issue if you don't object to mine. The remedy is a page limitation, with page budgets for each section. This gives subcommittees and the committee as a whole an incentive to weed out obscurities and focus on those planks which speak to broad principles and which enjoy broad agreement. When I served as Tulsa County platform chairman in 2003, we used page limitations to reduce a 40+ page document (if I recall correctly) to 8 pages, and everyone in the committee felt that their issues had been heard and were pleased with the outcome. So yes, let's require candidates who want party support to tell us where they stand, but let's give them a more carefully crafted and concise platform to respond to.”
The article made some great points. Last year a push was on to get candidates to sign a petition or statement with the Oklahoma Taxpayers Unite (OTU) that called for a repeal of the teacher taxes. The problem was that made a list of candidates that the teacher unions could go after in the primary. We might not like the idea but marking up a platform does indeed give fodder to the Democrats so we have to choose positions that resonate broadly. Not that we can't or shouldn't, but decisions need to be made wisely and with political implications understood.
The article pointed out that obscure issues ought not to have a place on the Platform and that budgeting space would help.
