FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Pretending the Democratic Party Platform Matters

These days, it is hard to watch people who know better pretend that the “fight” for the Democratic Party platform matters. This is a strategy that plays better as electotainment than as a path to improving policy for the benefit of the American people.

Using the case of universal health care as an example, there is almost no better demonstration of how party platforms are statements, more show than anything. From the 1940’s until 1996, the Democratic Party Platform called for universal health care. Despite this plank, all Congressional efforts since Truman have been incremental; for example Medicare, Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

In 1996, supporters of universal health care led by the Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) were outraged by the removal of the universal health care plank from the Democratic Party platform. PNHP leaders held a vigil outside of the 1996 Convention in Chicago that lasted more than 80 hours. The party did not want the vigil to happen and tried to locate it at a distance from the convention center with no access to the convention delegates. The ACLU successfully sued in Federal Court and the ruling gave protesters access to the Democratic delegates in order to urge them to reaffirm their commitment to universal coverage. While PNHP won the access to delegates, it still lost the platform fight.

In 2004, Dennis Kucinich tried to add single payer health care to the party platform. As a Presidential candidate, he described that effort as hopeless, saying “Washington right now is controlled by the insurance interests and by the pharmaceutical companies. I went to our Democratic platform committee with a proposal for universal single-payer health care. And it was quickly shot down because it offended some of the contributors to our party. We must be ready to take up this challenge of bringing health care to all the American people.”1

In 2009, we saw the truth of the Kucinich statement play out when even a proposed Public Option was not included in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). However, the ACA does allow states to develop a state-based program in 2017. Senator Sanders was instrumental in this provision of the ACA.

Better than a symbolic platform plank, Sanders should negotiate with Hillary Clinton that if she is the candidate and elected, she will facilitate the conversion of at least two states, urban and rural, as a single payer pilot program. The ability to do this already exists under the ACA and various other existing statutory Health and Human Services (USDHHS) waiver and demonstration programs. State-based single payer systems can begin without new legislation and without flipping the House and/or Senate to D control.

While not perfect, and not national, the demonstration programs will work. Over the years Vermont, New Mexico, Minnesota, Alaska and other states have studied single payer and some have even come close. Federal flexibility and incentives can do a lot more towards demonstrating single payer universal health care than a plank in a party platform.

Just as Canada initially implemented its single payer system one province at a time, the US might follow this same path. The early-adopting provinces led by Saskatchewan in 1947, were able to demonstrate better access and health outcomes for lower cost. It was these facts that led to the adoption of the national health care system of Canada twenty years later. It took 20 years.

The Sanders camp should identify which of their top issues need to be implemented and stop focusing on the platform. One idea is a Joint Commission of the Department of Justice and Treasury Department that opens new investigations of drug-money-laundering banks (HSBC), illegal offshoring of money, the still ongoing housing crisis and the failure to hold banks seriously accountable. Let the Commission and Clinton show that no bank CEO is too big to jail when crimes are committed.

The platform process begins at the county level, moves up to state conventions, and finally up to the national platform committee. The committee meetings are off camera and prior to the televised part of the convention. Taking a stand around a stronger platform is irrelevant. Negotiating some essential agreements with the candidate and then conducting a joint press conference to confirm the agreement seems much more significant.

The agreements strategy has Sanders making a strong speech on the 3 Agreements at the convention with Clinton affirming her commitment to them in her acceptance speech. One might be the single payer strategy described, but of course if Senator Sanders likes this strategy, he will pick his own top three.

More articles by:

Carol Miller is an Independent unable to vote in the New Mexico primary. She has been working on electoral reform and creating a more democratic electoral system since the 1990’s. Miller recommends that people newly awakened to the unfairness of the electoral system support Ballot Access News (http://ballot-access.org/), Coalition for Free and Open Elections (http://www.cofoe.org/), and Fair Vote (http://www.fairvote.org/).

Weekend Edition
May 25, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Melvin Goodman
A Major Win for Trump’s War Cabinet
Andrew Levine
Could Anything Cause the GOP to Dump Trump?
Pete Tucker
Is the Washington Post Soft on Amazon?
Conn Hallinan
Iran: Sanctions & War
Jeffrey St. Clair
Out of Space: John McCain, Telescopes and the Desecration of Mount Graham
John Laforge
Senate Puts CIA Back on Torture Track
David Rosen
Santa Fe High School Shooting: an Incel Killing?
Gary Leupp
Pompeo’s Iran Speech and the 21 Demands
Jonathan Power
Bang, Bang to Trump
Robert Fisk
You Can’t Commit Genocide Without the Help of Local People
Brian Cloughley
Washington’s Provocations in the South China Sea
Louis Proyect
Requiem for a Mountain Lion
Robert Fantina
The U.S. and Israel: a Match Made in Hell
Kevin Martin
The Libya Model: It’s Not Always All About Trump
Susie Day
Trump, the NYPD and the People We Call “Animals”
Pepe Escobar
How Iran Will Respond to Trump
Sarah Anderson
When CEO’s Earn 5,000 Times as Much as a Company’s Workers
Ralph Nader
Audit the Outlaw Military Budget Draining America’s Necessities
Chris Wright
The Significance of Karl Marx
David Schultz
Indict or Not: the Choice Mueller May Have to Make and Which is Worse for Trump
George Payne
The NFL Moves to Silence Voices of Dissent
Razan Azzarkani
America’s Treatment of Palestinians Has Grown Horrendously Cruel
Katalina Khoury
The Need to Evaluate the Human Constructs Enabling Palestinian Genocide
George Ochenski
Tillerson, the Truth and Ryan Zinke’s Interior Department
Jill Richardson
Our Immigration Debate Needs a Lot More Humanity
Martha Rosenberg
Once Again a Slaughterhouse Raid Turns Up Abuses
Judith Deutsch
Pension Systems and the Deadly Hand of the Market
Shamus Cooke
Oregon’s Poor People’s Campaign and DSA Partner Against State Democrats
Thomas Barker
Only a Mass Struggle From Below Can End the Bloodshed in Palestine
Binoy Kampmark
Australia’s China Syndrome
Missy Comley Beattie
Say “I Love You”
Ron Jacobs
A Photographic Revenge
Saurav Sarkar
War and Moral Injury
Clark T. Scott
The Shell Game and “The Bank Dick”
Seth Sandronsky
The State of Worker Safety in America
Thomas Knapp
Making Gridlock Great Again
Manuel E. Yepe
The US Will Have to Ask for Forgiveness
Laura Finley
Stop Blaming Women and Girls for Men’s Violence Against Them
Rob Okun
Raising Boys to Love and Care, Not to Kill
Christopher Brauchli
What Conflicts of Interest?
Winslow Myers
Real Security
George Wuerthner
Happy Talk About Weeds
Abel Cohen
Give the People What They Want: Shame
David Yearsley
King Arthur in Berlin
Douglas Valentine
Memorial Day
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail