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/).

August 20, 2018
Carl Boggs
The Road to Disaster?
James Munson
“Not With a Bomb, But a Whimper” … Then More Bombs.
Jonathan Cook
Corbyn’s Labour Party is Being Made to Fail –By Design
Robert Fisk
A US Trade War With Turkey Over a Pastor? Don’t Believe It
Howard Lisnoff
The Mass Media’s Outrage at Trump: Why the Surprise?
Faisal Khan
A British Muslim’s Perspective on the Burkha Debate
Andrew Kahn
Inhumanity Above the Clouds
Dan Glazebrook
Trump’s New Financial War on the Global South
George Wuerthner
Why the Gallatin Range Deserves Protection
Ted Rall
Is Trump a Brand-New Weird Existential Threat? No.
Sheldon Richman
For the Love of Reason
Susie Day
Why Pundits Scare Me
Dean Baker
Does France’s Economy Need to Be Renewed?
Weekend Edition
August 17, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Daniel Wolff
The Aretha Dialogue
Nick Pemberton
Donald Trump and the Rise of Patriotism 
Joseph Natoli
First Amendment Rights and the Court of Popular Opinion
Andrew Levine
Midterms 2018: What’s There to Hope For?
Robert Hunziker
Hothouse Earth
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Running Out of Fools
Ajamu Baraka
Opposing Bipartisan Warmongering is Defending Human Rights of the Poor and Working Class
Paul Street
Corporate Media: the Enemy of the People
David Macaray
Trump and the Sex Tape
CJ Hopkins
Where Have All the Nazis Gone?
Daniel Falcone
The Future of NATO: an Interview With Richard Falk
Cesar Chelala
The Historic Responsibility of the Catholic Church
Ron Jacobs
The Barbarism of US Immigration Policy
Kenneth Surin
In Shanghai
William Camacaro - Frederick B. Mills
The Military Option Against Venezuela in the “Year of the Americas”
Nancy Kurshan
The Whole World Was Watching: Chicago ’68, Revisited
Robert Fantina
Yemeni and Palestinian Children
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Orcas and Other-Than-Human Grief
Shoshana Fine – Thomas Lindemann
Migrants Deaths: European Democracies and the Right to Not Protect?
Paul Edwards
Totally Irrusianal
Thomas Knapp
Murphy’s Law: Big Tech Must Serve as Censorship Subcontractors
Mark Ashwill
More Demons Unleashed After Fulbright University Vietnam Official Drops Rhetorical Bombshells
Ralph Nader
Going Fundamental Eludes Congressional Progressives
Hans-Armin Ohlmann
My Longest Day: How World War II Ended for My Family
Matthew Funke
The Nordic Countries Aren’t Socialist
Daniel Warner
Tiger Woods, Donald Trump and Crime and Punishment
Dave Lindorff
Mainstream Media Hypocrisy on Display
Jeff Cohen
Democrats Gather in Chicago: Elite Party or Party of the People?
Victor Grossman
Stand Up With New Hope in Germany?
Christopher Brauchli
A Family Affair
Jill Richardson
Profiting From Poison
Patrick Bobilin
Moving the Margins
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail