With Mitt Romney's convention bounce mired in mendacity and middle-class mistrust and already negated by President Barack Obama's quick September surge, my Republican friends have to cling to the minor snafu over the removal and restoration of the words "God" and "Jerusalem" in the national Democratic Party platform. Thanks to the intervention of President Obama himself on Wednesday, that platform now contains the following two passages, just as it did in 2008:
We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.
...Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths [Democratic Party, national platform, approved September 5, 2012].
The second passage had been excised completely; President Obama restored it in full. (I'll address that Jerusalem language in a separate post.) In the first passage, the President simply ordered the re-insertion of the word "God-given."
I am a Democrat. I do not believe my potential was given to me by a supernatural being. I don't think it adds any force to the main point of the passage in which it appears, which is to affirm Democrats' superior commitment to helping the working class. I'd rather the word weren't there.
But I'm not going to make any more trouble over the inclusion of that one word in the platform than I do over other people's table prayers. When I'm sharing a table and the folks around me bow and pray, I hang out quietly for a few moments, then get to the real business of eating with everyone else. No big deal.
What bends me out of shape is the fact that the party violated Robert's Rules of Order to get that word and the Jerusalem language back into the platform. Anne Holmquest accurately reported the violation from Charlotte:
...The official is supposed to repeat the actual content of the proposed change when he says, "All those in favor of (state the content), say "˜aye'; and repeat the actual content of the proposed change when he says "All those opposed to (state the content)....say "nay." He didn't repeat the wording either time, which makes things really unclear for the delegates voting. They think, "What are we voting on?"
But he made an even bigger error. You see, the proposed change requires a 2/3 vote. The official took the voice vote on the motion, but both sides to the debate sounded equally loud and he couldn't determine a ratio. Was it 2/3? Unfortunately, he repeated his error by asking them to do it again by voice. According to Roberts' Rules of Order, if the voice vote is too close, he/she should suggest a call for the division of the house; and one of the delegates could have requested it also. Then each delegate would have raised his/her hand to be counted to determine if the delegates for the motion had 2/3 of the votes. From the official's nonverbal communication, he himself still looked unsure as to which side of the debate had more supporters. The motion passed. Verbally and nonverbally, delegates expressed disapproval [Anne Holmquest, "Suspending the Rules," Political Smokeout, September 5, 2012].
Since I've seen General Robert and parliamentary procedure do more concrete good for mankind than any supernatural being, I consider it my faithful parliamentarian duty to deem that platform change illegitimate and to ignore those improper amendments.
Of course, my unilateral refusal to recognize those amendments will have as little impact on my efforts and my party's efforts to make real policy as will my Republican friends' hyperventilations about our platform language.
The problem with the floor vote on the platform was not that it violated Roberts Rules of Order. It was that the chair declared that 2/3rds had voted in the affirmative when they obviously did not. That was a bald faced lie. Apparently, "mendacity" is not confined to Republicans.
Are we splitting hairs?
I don't know that it is a "bald-faced lie" and I don't really know how somebody can judge that from television. As far as I'm concerned voice votes are intended for nearly unanimous decisions, and when such is not the case, procedure should be followed. I guess I tend to agree with Cory, but I don't really think there is much of a conflict to iron out between Ken and Cory.
From what I understand, the SD GOP Convention was one of the most egregious butcherings of Parliamentary Procedure many had ever witnessed, and that's coming from Republicans. I expect more from the national conventions for sure. What I am far more offended at is the inclusion of an abortion ban plank with no exception for rape and incest from the Republicans when the majority of them claim not to support it but clearly cast voice votes in favor. That seems to me a much clearer instance of "bald-faced" lying.
I should note that that plank, I don't believe, was ever singled out. Upon re-reading I may have been misleading. However, the RNC platform voting did poll to be more interesting to people than either Romney's or Ryan's speech leading up to the RNC, mostly because of that particular plank and the Todd Akin kerfuffle.
Perhaps the overarching point here, and one that relates to similar dust-ups here in South Dakota, is : 'to what degree should a candidate's personal political agenda conform to the party platform?'
If you listen to Stace Nelson, Sibby, and their anonymous men behind the curtain (JBS? SDGO? Howie et al?) the answer is 100%. But this situation makes clear that each party's platform is a set of guide posts upon which there is only relative agreement and nothing even close to absolute.
Further, it points up the fact that party leaders (if they are truly leaders) can, and do influence (and perhaps even dictate) certain platform planks in order to 'bring the troops in line' with the leader's values and political agenda. In this circumstance we see among Democrats some tension between what the delegates want from the platform versus what the Candidate in Cheif demands the platform to be.
Not so with the 'right-to-life' plank of the GOP, or at least not seemingly so. Romney has repeatedly argued for excepts when it comes to abortion and seems ambivalent as to whether zygotes should be considered legal "persons." So in this sense, he seems to be at least a little out of step with his party's supposed core values. But, digging a little deeper, we find that most Republicans have values closer to Romney's and that the official platform position is what most in the party would consider to be "extreme."
Problem here is, Romney has neither the courage nor the clout to insist that the platform be changed.
Some 'leader' huh?
Above should read: "Romney has repeatedly argued for exceptions..."
(Sidenote: Although it remains unclear from day to day exactly what he thinks those exceptions should be.)
Now, to Cory's point, our GOP friends needs to ask themselves whether they believe in the First Amendment or not?
Is it absolutely mandatory that anyone who wants to claim to be a Republican believe in God?
And if so, which one?
And if a specific one, is that not saying that as far as the Repuplican party goes, that whole 1st Amendment thing should be stricken from the Constitution?
Seems that way to me.
I couldn't agree more.
I was hoping somebody would make the logical connection there, and you did so not only eloquently but immediately.
You are on a roll, Bill.
Yes, Justin, the GOP appears to hold no truck with the First Amendment any more, especially in regard to the "free speech" and the "establishment" clauses. Perhaps the good Professor Blanchard will return here to clarify.
Yes, yes, yes, Bill! A tension definitely arises for local Republicans who might make big hay over this particular Democratic platform plank but who then try to dismiss the Howie-Nelson attacks on fellow Republicans for their failure to slavishly adhere to their strict interpretation of every plank in the GOP platform.
Dr. Blanchard is reaching for a way to turn the mendacity card on us. Dr. Blanchard overreaches. The Republicans tell straight lies about the President and policy. In the above instance, Chairman Villaraigosa abused his authority as chair... and now pats himself on the back for doing so. Neither action is acceptable, but the actions differ in form and degree. Particularly, Romney's and Ryan's lies are a direct affront to the electorate. Villaraigosa's abuse of Robert's Rules insults a fair portion of delegates in the house but has much less impact on how we ought to vote in November.
By the way, the conversation we should be having here doesn't really center around the "God" question, it should instead center on the "foreign policy" question, particularly the question of power and war. Is belief in power now our new faith? Or do we derive our power from our faith?
To be sure, I personally have some issues with my President in regards to war and the exercise of power. What took us so long to get out of Iraq? Why, if you didn't support Iraq in the first place, did we authorize the surge and extend our stay in Afghanistan. Why have we authorizied spying on our own citizens? How do we justify drone and other strikes in nations that have not declared war on us, nor we on them? What happens if Israel bombs Iran?
I doubt if there is any chance we will see these issues debated any time soon. But at a minimum, perhaps Obama can explain and enlighten even as we watch Romney flop flop, evade and obfuscate.
God doesn't give a rat's ass what gets said in the Republican platform or the Democrat platform. God is not stupid. Hell, the candidate for President in the GOP does not give a rat's ass what is in the GOP platform because he can't run and win on it.
Here's God's platform: Treat others as you want to be treated. This is something real Christians (not goofy fundamentalists) and real Jews believe is paramount in their religions' teachings.
"Now, to Cory's point, our GOP friends needs to ask themselves whether they believe in the First Amendment or not?
Is it absolutely mandatory that anyone who wants to claim to be a Republican believe in God?
And if so, which one?
And if a specific one, is that not saying that as far as the Repuplican party goes, that whole 1st Amendment thing should be stricken from the Constitution? "
Great post Bill. I couldn't agree more. The far-right scream about freedom and yet we all, and even the moderates in their own part, have to agree with what their planks say. Wheather on the national or state level.
You are right, Mr. H, to insist on Godlessness.
Mr. Fleming, you missed a heck of a rant about exactly this at breakfast the other day. I took your side and held your own for you.
"the answer is 100%"
There goes another bald face lie.
"he [Romney] seems to be at least a little out of step with his party's supposed core values"
More than just a little Bill. He should have been in the Democrat's primary.
"Is it absolutely mandatory that anyone who wants to claim to be a Republican believe in God?"
Too restrictive Bill. It is absolutely mandatory that anyone who wants to claim to know what defines rights believe in God.
"Here's God's platform: Treat others as you want to be treated."
Your forgot the first plank, Love God with your all.
And you keep missing the whole point, Steve. There are not two planks. There is in fact, only one (...and the second is like unto this").
If you only do the first, you will automatically do the second. If you only do the second, you will automatically be doing the first. If the two are ever in conflict, you are doing something wrong. Out of balance. Not in harmony.
The "love commandment" is transcendent. It stipulates that it is not possible to love your own idea of God completely without affording others the same prerogative.
"If you only do the second, you will automatically be doing the first."
That is your own assumption which I am not buying.
"It stipulates that it is not possible to love your own idea of God completely without affording others the same prerogative."
Where is that stipulated exactly? I can't even agree with having "my own" idea of God, rather I have God's idea of God.
Nonsense, your idea of God changes weekly, Sibby depending on what you've been reading lately. You display that proclivity about yourself routinely, here on this blog and elsewhere.
Perhaps better to stick with the second part of the commandment, which you at least have a chance of comprehending, and let the first part of the it take care of itself.
If you love your neighbor as you love yourself and your God, that's really all there is to it.
Simple.
Don't try to make it complicated.
You'll just confuse yourself and blow the whole program. :^)
Interesting that Steve cited the first out of the 10 Commandments, which is in Exodus, one of the five books of The Torah. Actually, in these five books which detail the period of time when God had a greater interaction with God’s “chosen people,†there are 613 commandments setting the theocratic laws of how people must interact with God and how people must interact with each other. So does this mean God has 613 planks?
The great Talmudic scholar Rabbi Hillel, who lived in the century before Jesus’ time, is the subject of a story in which he was asked by another man if Hillel could teach him the Torah, from Genesis through Deuteronomy, while standing on one foot. The sage took him up on the dare, raised up one foot and said, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah. The rest is commentary. Go and learn." It’s interesting that the statement starts with “do not†or “don’t,†which is a prohibitive law.
Commonly, we all know this as The Golden Rule, and if you check out the Beatitudes in Matthew, you’ll see that Jesus carried on a commentary to his followers that goes beyond a prohibitive statement that identifies who is blessed and why:
-the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (5:3)
-those who mourn: for they will be comforted. (5:4)
-the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. (5:5)
-they who hunger and thirst for righteousness: for they will be satisfied. (5:6)
-the merciful: for they will be shown mercy. (5:7)
-the pure in heart: for they shall see God. (5:8)
-the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God. (5:9)
-those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (5:10)
The stupid noise made in party conventions to declare whose side God is on is complete insulting nonsense, as are the efforts of self-serving politicians who wrap themselves in the Bible so they can pimp votes by declaring anyone who disagrees with them is anti-faith. I put in the same category those self-serving politicians who wrap themselves in our American flag so they can pimp votes by declaring those who have other opinions as traitors.
My point is it’s time to consider the future of governance in our state and nation based on facts and what the candidates have said or not said how they will solve the biggest, most important problems. The rest of it, especially the faith and patriotic fervor of the candidates, is useless distraction.
"You'll just confuse yourself and blow the whole program."
Bill, pantheistic monism, where we become god and have "our own" idea about God. Isnt' that what the serpent in the Garden was pushing?
"Don't try to make it complicated."
I think Dougal is Bill.
"The rest of it, especially the faith and patriotic fervor of the candidates, is useless distraction."
Dougal, I agree it is all theatre designed to distract us from the truth...both parties are working for the Beast of Revelation, whether they know it or not. Sad that we have taken God out as the authority and know we have a war as to which group will rule the world.
Pantheistic monism raising Earth's surface temperatures to new record highs: Socialist NOAA.
And I think both Sibby and Dougal are Bill.
LOL (...transcendental joke... sorry.)
Be the Bill and be the Sibby within us all.
(More transcendental humor.)
To repeat here, and then I'm done with this thread,
mentioning "God" in a political platform should be
an exercise in caution.
First, the purpse of a political party is to win elections. It's not a church.
Second, to stipulate politically that one must hold a specific religious belief violates the 1st Amendment, at least in spirit.
Third, to equate one's religious beliefs with ones politics most likely does their God and spirituality a gross diservice. Politicians routinely exclude their families from their political campaigns because they love them and feel discussion of private matters concerning them has no place in the coarsness of the political arena. They hold their relationship with family sacrosanct.
Is not one's intimate relationship with the almighty at least as sacred if not more so?
Those are my final thoughts on this topic.
Thanks for the discussion, Cory.
"Second, to stipulate politically that one must hold a specific religious belief violates the 1st Amendment, at least in spirit."
Go ahead Bill and have Congress pass that law and see how far it gets. If I don't want to vote for a Mormon or a Liberation Theology Marxist, then why do you say that I can't complain about it? And LT Marxism of Obama is very much political. His religious belief (Liberation Theology) of taking from the rich to buy his votes is Obama's main campaign strategy.