GUEST COMMENTARY
Montana Democratic Platform Convention: The Wrap Up
By Pete Talbot, 8-08-06
 | |
|
Sex, love, marriage and civil rights: this was the debate in a committee at the Democratic Party’s platform convention last weekend.
And while it wasn’t the only issue discussed, it was indicative of how a political party crafts its message.
The background on this debate is as follows: An amendment to Montana’s Constitution making it illegal for same-sex partners to marry was passed in 2004 by 66 percent of the voters. At the convention, a resolution was proposed to try to overturn this constitutional amendment.
The debate was heated. Here are some excerpts:
“Look deep in your hearts and pass this resolution,” said a Great Falls delegate.
“This is a political football,” said another. “I’m not willing to saddle our candidates with this resolution,”
“The constitution shouldn’t be used to restrict people's rights,” a Helena delegate said.
“Grassroots Montana Democrats need to stand up and be counted,” another delegate added in an attempt to counter Democratic Party leadership.
Because leadership, sensing that some candidates didn’t want this issue showing up in TV commercials, lobbied against the pro-gay marriage resolution vigorously. And so the resolution went down, with about two-thirds of the delegates voting against it.
(I define Democratic leadership as Gov. Schweitzer, Sen. Baucus – and to a lesser extent the Jon Tester and Monica Lindeen campaigns – plus the state party chairman and the executive director.)
A resolution recognizing same-sex civil unions passed – by three votes, out of the approximately 100 delegates on hand. Other controversial planks, withdrawal from Iraq for example, made it into the platform but with considerably softer language than was initially proposed.
Can pragmatism and principles live together in the “big tent?” (Party officials love to call the Montana Democratic Party “the big tent,” with room for lots of different kinds of people.) Striking a balance between the more conservative elements and those that lean left can be a challenge.
You see, Montanans are an independent lot. While there are a few more Republicans in the state than Democrats, it’s the independents that get people elected. And to win an election, you need to get 50 percent of the voters, plus one person. So Montana Democratic leadership is trying to craft a message that appeals to the independent voters while still keeping the party base happy. It’s a fine line to walk.
It’s also baby steps. When it comes to advancing controversial, progressive issues, according to a delegate from Trout Creek, “you have to walk before you can run.”
However, one woman delegate equated the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement of the 1960’s. To paraphrase: What are you going to say to your kids when they ask you what you did to advance the rights of gay people?
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
The debate you've drawn your quotes from was on a motion to change language using the word "marriage" and a significantly longer "should do" message to language that would, effectively, do the same thing. Either language would recognize civil unions as having the same legal rights and access as married couples.
Both paragraphs would recognize the sanctity of civil union. One was longer than the other, and used the "word"...and therefore the debate.
As I stated on the floor during the debate, if I were to write a treatise on my personal beliefs, strong language would be included regarding gay marriage. The debate was not about me, however, and it wasn't about our ideal world. Platforms, are about politics - not policy. It's grody to say out loud, but it's helpful to do so.
I am a resident of a state where a constitutional ban on gay marriage passed with 67% of the vote - which means that many, many Democrats voted for it. Know what that tells me? That I have not, personally, done a good enough job educating my friends and neighbors about the issue. It also means that it would be arrogant for me to argue for inclusion of language in our platform that is directly contrary to so many Democrats' beliefs.
Instead of insulating myself in my bastion of Democratic politics - instead of rolling my eyes at those fools who feel good about restricting rights through constitutional amendments - this next year I plan on taking action to change the minds of Dems who don't think that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. I will seek out smart people who disagree with me. I will not speak down to them. I will listen to what they say, and I will work to convince them that I am right. I encourage all who read this to do the same.
AND - the party leadership to which you refer had Tester and Lindeen...and ONLY Tester and Lindeen...in mind when they fought the fight they did. They were right to do so. Our chair and Exec. Dir. are professionals, and are doing a stellar job.
A resolution was added to the judiciary plank that said the party supported publicly funded judicial (read:non-partisan) races. It passed on the floor.
And...your passive aggressive "so-called leadership" comment is weak. I will assume from your misinformation on the previous issue you get most of your news second/third hand. I invite you to actually participate next time.
It would be nice if a candidate needed a majority of votes to win ("50% of the voters plus one person" as you write). That is, however, not the case according to article IV section 5 of the state constitution: In all elections held by the people, the person or persons receiving the largest number of votes shall be declared elected.
If three or more cadidates are vying for a lone seat, the winner could collect far fewer than a majority of votes. I'd like to this changed so that a majority of votes was required to win.
You are right, the "so-called leadership" might be construed as passive aggressive which I rarely am. Who are leaders and what is leadership should be a separate discussion and a very interesting one. When do you take "baby steps" and when do you forge forward with big bold ideas that independent minded folks are looking for? How do you "hitch the new to the tried and true?"
A lot of people I know are firmly behind public financing which I have been studying for a long time, so I was curious what the arguments might be against it. I am always interested in finding the new idea out of a spirited and intelligent discussion amongst a large group of informed people. That's because I am a believer in small "d" democracy. Yes, I am a Tom Painite/Tom Jeffersonian and not a follower of the Hamilton/Adams side of the discussion which does not trust the grass roots/ the common sense of the people to make decisions.
protecting the environment?
securing a sustainable, renewable energy supply?
paying for education & health care?
building an economy based on sustainable jobs?
assisting the poor, etc
It is hard to imagine that the platform addresses one issue.
Look for it at http://www.montanademocrats.org/
Democrats stand for equality and the protection of civil rights, they are obviously not in Montana.
Every six years we re-evaluate what our Senator has done. In the last 6 years, Joe Lieberman has lost touch with the people of Connecticut and has become a shrill and scolding apologist for the failed policies of the Bush Administration. There is a big difference between compromise and conciliation. And that's what Joe has done. He's become a collaborator. And look at it this way, If the other side doesn't give you anything, what's the point of you giving them political cover? So you can brag about being a nice guy? No, it was all about Joe and not about the people. It was about an elite holding on to his power.
What irks a lot of liberals too is that Lieberman has criticized his party time and time again, but won't allow Democrats to criticize Bush. For Ct voters, He has lost his judgement and lost his way. A vote here and there for good social issues that don't have any impact was not fooling the voters in Connecticut anymore. He may want to "stay the course" in Iraq, but the voters saw clearly that he was steering them off a cliff.
That doesn't pass the giggle test. Ned Lamont is worth somewhere between $90 and $300 million, AND has investment interests in Halliburton and Wal-Mart. Lamont didn't take his cigarette money, buy a lottery ticket, wake up rich, and move out of his double-wide.
My reading of events and recent polls indicate that most Americans want a change in direction for this country. Joe represented the status quo and a Congress that rubber stamped Bush's policies even when they have failed over and over. Joe represents a Congress that is just not doing its job from Katrina to Iraq to high gas prices and high energy costs. We're in a barrow pit spinning our wheels. Congress is also supposed to be a check and balance to an overreaching executive. They haven't done this either. Looks to me like the American people want to clean house and they started with Joe, but it won't end there for any incumbent that loses touch with the people back home. If in 6 years Ned Lamont has become too cozy with corporate interests, then the people of Connecticut will vote him out.
Elections are the way the American voter can make their voices heard rather than having term limits.
Like a peer review or an evaluation of your boss every so often, we the people look at how our representatives and judge whether they are working for us or somebody else.
As far as these two particular candidates, I am not talking about either of their personal bank accounts and how they earned their money and what mutual funds they have invested in in the past.
Ned Lamont is a newcomer and has no record of bowing to Big Money Interests and voting for them.
But Joe Lieberman does. People in both parties that I've been talking to are tired of the coziness with Big Money interests that most of our Congress critters have. Being funded by these monopolies have produced bad bills like the pharmaceutical companies yielding a bad prescription drug bill in which the government is not allowed to negotiate for lower price. The finanacial services sector aka credit card companies helped write the terrible bankruptcy bill aimed at the middle class while corporations can declare bankruptcy and screw their investors with much more ease it seems. Joe and Jean Public are smart enough to make the connection between Enron and World Com going bankrupt and Joe and Jean going bankrupt. Joe and Jean can make the connection between record oil profits and what they are paying at the pump and how their representatives have voted time and time again to give the oil companies huge tax breaks.
Until we have public financing of campaigns, we are stuck with a legal but corrupt system where only millionaires like Ned Lamont can challenge the "pigs at the trough". In Arizona and Maine, public financing is letting ordinary citizens not only run for office, but spend all their time talking and listening to their constituents instead of raising money and shaking down corporate and special interests.
Lieberman has and still embraces Bush's failed policies. The angry middle of America has spoken loud and clear.
Ned Lamont is the great-grandson of the former chairman of JP Morgan & Co. It's hard to get more Big Money Interest than that. His voting record on a local level doesn't lend itself to the inference you make since the local issues were local. It did not escape my attention that you conviently 'left' out the corruption by Big Money Labor.
Given the direction of your argument that business interests corrupt politics are you suggesting that Governor Schweitzer is part of the trough feeders since he promotes coal development and ehtanol, ADM's new darling honey pot?
I didn't mention labor but, yes, I would include labor as well as groups like the Sierra Club, NARAL, the NRA, and other special interests as having influence on our representatives. However, it's been a long time since labor has had much influence on policy. Rather the reverse. Labor has lost all kinds of battles from relaxation of OSHA rules to no minimum wage raise to closing of textile mills and Maytag factories to an assault on pensions at Delphi and GM to taking away overtime pay from nurses. It just goes on and on.
The ability to corrupt a politician is not restricted to corporations or special interests. The ability to be corrupted is not restricted to Republicans or Democrats.
It is important for we voters to continue to hold all our officials' feet to the fire.
You previously claimed that Ned Lamont is a man of the people. His type of people are born to silver spoons in their mouths and trust funds from old Big Money. They go to private schools and receive every advantage from family connections that back scratch each other. They live in lavish upper-crust communities such as Greenwich with the wealth to afford espousing far left ideology for "others" to live by. (Do you remember that one great line by Howard Hughes in "The Aviator" at dinner with her family?) They have nothing in common with the people they seek to rule. Just my opinion.
How is it in the same MDP and platform that Governor Schweitzer is pro-coal, pro-Highwood coal plant, and pro-Holcim while Jon Tester is against these vary same development and business interests? Which of these two gentlemen actually represents the interests of Montanans and the MDP?