Skip Navigation

Close and don't show again.

Your browser is out of date.

You may not get the full experience here on National Journal.

Please upgrade your browser to any of the following supported browsers:

Convention Platforms Get One Moment in the Sun Convention Platforms Get One Moment in the Sun

NEXT :
This ad will end in seconds
 
Close X

Not a member or subscriber? Learn More »

Forget Your Password?

Don't have an account? Register »

Reveal Navigation
 

 

CONVENTIONS 2012

Convention Platforms Get One Moment in the Sun

+

Precursor: Reagan pushed the platform to the right in ’76.(AP Photo/BR)

The Republican platform gets its moment in the sun this week. It will be a brief moment. By Friday, it will be back in the political shadows, right alongside most of the other platforms parties have adopted.

This will be a disappointment to Republicans who would like to use the platform to rally like-minded Americans, and to Democrats who would like to use the platform to cast the GOP as out of the mainstream. The reality is that platforms peaked in importance in 1976 when a defeated Ronald Reagan insisted he would campaign only for the party’s platform and not for its nominee. And they essentially withered into irrelevance two decades later in 1996 when Republican nominee Robert Dole boasted that he wouldn’t waste his time reading that year’s document and certainly did not feel bound by any of its provisions.

 

That doesn’t mean that party platforms are unimportant. They are important, but only to party activists, political scientists, and historians, not to any contemporary voter. There is no better document to track the evolution of the political parties and no better way to identify issues that aren’t being resolved by the government in Washington. Historically, the platform is where the two parties first thrash out the really big issues that they can’t handle in Congress. And the platform is where party insurgents traditionally first make their mark, forcing their views into the platform before they can win the nomination. Often, that is because the party wing that has secured the nomination is willing to concede platform points to mollify the vanquished candidate.

So Richard Nixon emerged from a secret meeting with New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller in 1968, giving Rockefeller and the GOP Eastern wing all it wanted on the platform that year. And President Gerald Ford gave platform victories in 1976 even though they often took the party away from policies Ford was currently implementing such as détente with the Soviet Union. In other cases that year, Ford was defeated by the delegates on planks important to the president. Even though he pleaded with the platform committee to maintain the party’s longstanding backing for the Equal Rights Amendment, the delegates went with Reagan’s view instead.

The result was the modern high point for the party platform. Reagan’s only television commercial for Ford was quite pointedly a commercial for the platform. In case any viewers missed the point, Reagan clutched the two party platforms in his hands the entire commercial, frequently raising them to make a point. “These are the party platforms of the Republicans and the Democrats,” said Reagan. “I hope you’ll get copies and read them.” He dismissed the Democrats for offering “more big government and more taxes,” asking, “Do you want more big government? More inflation? I don’t think so. Neither does President Ford. He’s running on this platform.” Almost grudgingly, he closed by asking for votes for Ford.

 

Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, who has helped write several GOP platforms, brings an activist's zeal to the task. “A party platform,” she insists, “is like a creed.” She wrote recently that “most Christians recite their creed over and over again to strengthen their faith in what they believe. A party platform is also like the flag soldiers carry into battle. It’s the symbol of what we think is worth our work and sacrifice.” Looking back on the 1976 platform, she wrote: “With hindsight, we can see that the real importance of the 1976 convention was the platform,” insisting it laid the basis for Reagan’s win four years later.

But no nominee since in either party has paid as much attention to his platform. Most have barely tolerated the exercise, though few risked angering the activists by being as openly scornful as Dole was in 1996. That leaves the platform as primarily a historical document to show how the party is evolving and what problems aren’t being resolved in Washington.

That was true in the first-ever platform, in 1840, when Democrats defined their party as against almost all spending, against a national bank, and against any efforts by the federal government to restrain slavery and state’s rights. Then and for most of the next 60 years, there was no room in the Democratic platform for small issues. (Of course, the early platforms were rarely more than two pages or 2,000 words in length. That is in contrast to unreadable behemoths like the 38,000-word Democratic monstrosity in 1980 or the 41,282-word Republican effort in 2004.) For Democrats, there was no room for anything except slavery, tariffs, reconstruction, and state’s rights at the top of the agenda. Republicans, similarly, used their platforms to talk about big things — though they did take a small detour in 1884 to express concern about “sheep husbandry in the United States,” no doubt the result of a well-placed lobbyist for the shepherds.

This article appears in the August 27, 2012 edition of NJ Convention Daily.

Comments
comments powered by Disqus
 
MORE NATIONAL JOURNAL
 
 
 
 
What should you expect from on Election Night?
See more ▲
 
Hide