Examining the Democratic Platform Part VIII: “Renewing the American Community” Part II: Micro-Level Issues

This is continued from Parts I-VII of my examination of the Democratic Platform.


"Firearms": Ah, now this is a touchstone issue: is the Second Amendment unassailable, or can we restrict firearm purchases to help keep them out of the hands of criminals and children?

We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

The platform may have been written (in August) before a Supreme Court ruling that was a big victory for the "unassailable" position. Being a city slicker, I've never quite understood why some people cling so tightly to their guns, bitterly or otherwise. It's not like you're likely to be in a situation where you'll both need to and be able to shoot someone trying to break in or something. That, combined with my exposure to the "militia-only" interpretation of the Second Amendment, makes me think I might not be in the best position to comment on this, pending more clarification of what I think about the Second Amendment. More on this when we return to the Republicans.

"Faith": Is it a coincidence that both halves of the infamous "bitter" comment come back to back here? "We honor the central place of faith in our lives. Like our Founders, we believe that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith and the countless acts of justice and mercy it inspires." Some people might be a bit confused at the depiction of the Founders as faith freaks.

We believe that change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up, and that few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques. To face today's challenges–from saving our planet to ending poverty—we need all hands on deck. Faith-based groups are not a replacement for government or secular non-profit programs; rather, they are yet another sector working to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

So... would you attempt to influence the direction the churches would attempt to lead the flock? To say that "faith-based groups are not a replacement for government" might outrage some on the Right who think we should dial down on government as much as possible, and "that which governs best governs least", but it also works the other way around, and it's saying we need everything and can't just dial down government to zero.

We will empower grassroots faith-based and community groups to help meet challenges like poverty, ex-offender reentry, and illiteracy. At the same time, we can ensure that these partnerships do not endanger First Amendment protections – because there is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and respecting our Constitution. We will ensure that public funds are not used to proselytize or discriminate. We will also ensure that taxpayer dollars are only used on programs that actually work.

The line about how "there is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and...our Constitution" sounds like the Democrats taking a stand; if you just parachuted in from a distant planet you might be surprised to learn that this is actually a concession to the Republicans. It only violates the First Amendment if those groups use public funds to only serve their own faith or try to convert others, which begs the question of how you ensure that doesn't happen, especially considering they probably don't want to be interfered with. And how can we trust the Democrats to "ensure that taxpayer dollars are only used on programs that actually work"? The Republicans have lambasted the Democrats left and right for wasting money on programs that don't work.

"The Arts":

Investment in the arts is an investment in our creativity and cultural heritage, in our diversity, in our communities, and in our humanity. We support art in schools and increased public funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. We support the cultural exchange of artists around the world, spreading democracy and renewing America's status as a cultural and artistic center.

So you do assure us you won't reduce school to preparing for the test with nothing but rote learning, but how will art fit in? Is more funding for the arts throwing money away? The "cultural exchange of artists" certainly sounds... okay.


"Americans with Disabilities": "We will once again reclaim our role as world leaders in protecting the rights of people with disabilities" and will sign the UN convention on the topic. "We will ensure there is sufficient funding to empower Americans with disabilities to succeed in school and beyond." Sounds good. "We will fully fund and increase staffing for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission." Better make sure it works. "We will restore dignity for Americans with disabilities by signing the Community Choice Act into law, which will allow them the choice of living in their communities rather than being warehoused in nursing homes or other institutions." This certainly sounds like a good idea, but what's keeping them from "living in their communities" now, and would that mean an unfair burden being placed on those communities?


"Children and Families": "If we are to renew America, we must do a better job of investing in the next generation of Americans. For parents, the first and most sacred responsibility is to support our children: setting an example of excellence, turning off the TV, and helping with the homework." Once again, trying to tell parents how to raise their families; I've still yet to hear much of an assurance one way or the other on whether the Democrats would actually meddle in home life. "But we must also support parents as they strive to raise their children in a new era. We must make it easier for working parents to spend time with their families when they need to." The phrase "must also support" seems to imply the previous sentence is somewhat antagonistic to parents... How do you intend to help working parents in this way? "We will make an unprecedented national investment to guarantee that every child has access to high-quality early education, including investments in Pre-K, Head Start, and Early Head Start, and we will help pay for child care." Covered already.


"We will ensure that every child has health insurance, invest in playgrounds to promote healthy and active lifestyles, and protect children from lead poisoning in their homes and toys." The investment in playgrounds is the only thing new here. "Improving maternal health also improves children's health, so we will provide access to home visits by medical professionals to low-income expectant first-time mothers." Certainly sounds good, but how good will the pros be? "We must protect our most vulnerable children, by supporting and supplementing our struggling foster care system, enhancing adoption programs for all caring parents, and protecting children from violence and neglect." Sounds good but short on details – of what the problems are. "Online and on TV, we will give parents tools to block content they find objectionable." Parents already have quite a few tools of this nature, but no one uses the V-chip and successor technologies. Besides, it can breed what seems to be a wild goose chase, especially online. "We also must recognize that caring for family members and managing a household is real and valuable work." That's it. Nothing on what follows from that. Perhaps some sort of tax credit for stay-at-home parents? Certainly no mention of that or any other possible reward or load-lightening.


"Fatherhood Too many fathers are missing–missing from too many lives and too many homes. Children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and are more likely to commit crime, drop out of school, abuse drugs, and end up in prison." Um, maybe that's because they're more likely to be in poverty? "We need more fathers to
realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to understand that what
makes a man is not the ability to have a child–it's the courage to raise one." Sounds like more meddling in people's lives. "You'll believe what we want you to believe!"

We will support fathers by providing transitional training to get jobs, removing tax penalties on married families, and expanding maternity and paternity leave. We will reward those who are responsibly supporting their children by giving them a tax credit and we will crack down on men who avoid child support payments and ensure those payments go directly to families instead of bureaucracies.

"Removing tax penalties on married families"? That serves as reassurance to people who read the part of the Republican platform in my Part III that warned that rolling back the Bush tax cuts would mean "[t]he 'marriage penalty' would return for two-earner couples" – but it may be false reassurance. Expanding paternity leave is reasonable, but I'd like to make sure you aren't just expanding maternity leave to allow more people to escape work. I'm not sure lack of a job is entirely the problem for fathers who leave their kids, but maybe it's part of it (and covered earlier I believe). What form would the tax credit for "those who are responsibly supporting their children" take? Would it put more money in the pockets of the rich who are more likely to be able to be responsible fathers? Keeping bureaucracies out seems like a paean to people who've been reading the Republican platform.


"Seniors": Compare this to a section late in Part VI of my examination of the Republican platform. "We will protect and strengthen Medicare by cutting costs, protecting seniors from fraud, and fixing Medicare's prescription drug program." The Republicans expand on Medicare's susceptibility to fraud, but neither party provides specifics of their respective plans to fix it. The Democrats described one way they would cut costs in their Part I.


"We will repeal the prohibition on negotiating prescription drug prices, ban drug companies from paying generic producers to refrain from entering drug markets, and eliminate drug company interference with generic competition–and we will dedicate all of the savings from these measures towards closing the donut hole." Many of these things were covered earlier in the Democrats' discussion of health care, way back in Part I, although I'm not sure what the "donut hole" is. I presume it probably has something to do with being "in the center"... Other than "the benefits of competition" the Republicans don't talk about this.


"We will end special preferences for insurance companies and private plans like Medicare Advantage to force them to compete on a level playing field." Awkward grammar in this sentence. It almost suggests an ulterior motive for the Democrats' health care reform proposal, perhaps accidentally suggesting a move to get rid of private insurance. Speaking of which, the paragraph ends by calling back to the health care reform plan in relation to "older Americans who are not yet eligible for Medicare".


The parties have different priorities with regard to Medicare. The Democrats talk about lowering prescription drug prices for seniors and creating "a level playing field" for insurance. The Republicans want to encourage doctors to "coordinate care", increasing "choice" in doctors, and allowing people in Medicare to add their own funds. Although I'm skeptical of that last one, I think it's worthy to pick some from column A and some from column B.


"We will take steps to ensure that our seniors have meaningful long-term care options that are consistent with their individual needs, including the option of home care." Sounds good; might have been mentioned already. "We believe that we must pay caregivers a fair wage and train more nurses and health care workers so as to improve the availability and quality of long-term care." SGWTM. What wages are caregivers being paid now? "We must reform the financing of long-term care to ease the burden on seniors and their families." Sounds reasonable... The Republicans don't seem to have touched on this so far at all. "We will safeguard Social Security. We will develop new retirement plans and pension protections that will give Americans a secure, portable way to save for retirement. We will ensure a safe and dignified retirement." The Democrats discussed Social Security in my Part II, which this refers to. "We will work to end abuse of the elderly." But you give that cause a single sentence that's shorter than this one. "We will safeguard from discrimination those who choose to work past the age of 65." Good thinking, both to help save Social Security from bankrupting the government as the baby boomers retire and to help keep our economy moving, but will that mean companies won't be able to kick out employees who legitimately aren't able to work anymore?


"Choice": The Republicans will cover this in their section on "values", which I'm no longer sure I'm going to get to; the Democrats touched on it in (surprise!) their discussion of health care. "The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right." This is such a strong position it suggests you support it in all circumstances regardless of moral sketchiness. I generally don't like abortion except in the first three months, in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the mother is at stake.


"The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to comprehensive affordable family planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives." The Republicans earlier called for ending "'family planning' programs for teens" in order to back abstinence-only sex ed. The Democrats claim that "such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions." "The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs." Mostly covered already. I'd be interested in seeing what forms the "programs for... parenting skills [and] income support" take.


This is about where the work I did before dropping off right before the election ends, and the work I ended up doing right before posting this begins. So if my positions start evolving, now you know.


"Criminal Justice": The Republican position on this will be examined in my Republican Part VIII (which I've done no work on, and assuming I get to that), so for now, we're covering the Democrats alone. "As Democrats, we are committed to being smart on crime. That means being tough on violent crime, funding strategic, and effective community policing, and holding offenders accountable, and it means getting tough on the root causes of crime by investing in successful crime prevention, including proven initiatives that get youth and nonviolent offenders back on track. " Let's see if the rest of the section tells us what all this is.

We will reverse the policy of cutting resources for the brave men and women who protect our communities every day. At a time when our nation's officers are being asked both to provide traditional law enforcement services and to help protect the homeland, taking police off of the street is neither tough nor smart; we reject this disastrous approach. We support and will restore funding to our courageous police officers and will ensure that they are equipped with the best technology, equipment, and innovative strategies to prevent and fight crimes.

This all sounds good, but the way the Democrats so vigorously defend this position, I'm curious to find out how the Republicans could possibly justify the position it implies. With their get-tough stance to everything, how do they not properly fund the "First Responders"? What's really going on here? On the flip side, this is also a SGWTM situation. Really, how do the Democrats intend to be fiscally responsible with all the stuff they want to "increase funding" to?


"We will end the dangerous cycle of violence, especially youth violence, with proven community-based law enforcement programs such as the Community Oriented Policing Services." You mentioned COPS already. When I saw "the cycle of violence" I thought it had something to do with poverty, and wondering how "community-based law enforcement", no matter how laudable, had anything to do with that other than providing jobs, but this certainly sounds good. "We will reduce recidivism in our neighborhoods by supporting local prison-to-work programs." Do those work, or do they just increase joblessness among the law-abiding citizens? "We believe that the death penalty must not be arbitrary. DNA testing should be used in all appropriate circumstances, defendants should have effective assistance of counsel. In all death row cases, and thorough post-conviction reviews should be available." Some people would argue the death penalty itself is immoral, and certainly we're on a shrinking list with some bad company of countries that still use it, and while all of these are good and add up to something formidable I'm not completely certain they're going to be enough.


"We must help state, local, and tribal law enforcement work together to combat and prevent drug crime and drug and alcohol abuse, which are a blight on our communities. We will restore funding for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program and expand the use of drug courts and rehabilitation programs for first-time, non-violent drug offenders." Some people would say "drug crime" isn't really crime and we should stop treating it like one. But the second half of the second sentence sounds good, though I don't know what the BJAG program is. "We support the rights of victims to be respected, to be heard, and to be compensated." Sounds good, but who would disagree with it, and why a single-sentence paragraph on that? Truth be told, the Democrats' education program will have as much of an effect on crime as anything in this section.


"Ending violence against women must be a top priority. We will create a special advisor to the president regarding violence against women." Really? You're going that far? "We will increase funding to domestic violence and sexual assault prevention programs." SGWTM. "We will strengthen sexual assault and domestic violence laws, support the Violence Against Women Act, and provide job security to survivors." This is more no-brainer stuff. On the flip side, you can't keep strengthening the laws forever, because you reach a point where the remaining abusers are driven by things more powerful than concern for the law. No, I do not know this from personal experience. "Our foreign policy will be sensitive to issues of aggression against women around the world." No details, of course.


"A More Perfect Union": This is part summation of the entire part, part miscellaneous section, part section on discrimination in general.

We believe in the essential American ideal that we are not constrained by the circumstances of birth but can make of our lives what we will. Unfortunately, for too many, that ideal is not a reality. We have more work to do. Democrats will fight to end discrimination based on race, sex, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, and disability in every corner of our country, because that's the America we believe in.

All an agreeable sentiment, although the forces discriminating on the basis of "sexual orientation [or] gender identity" remain disturbingly strong. "We all have to do our part to lift up this country, and that means changing hearts and changing minds, and making sure that every American is treated equally under the law." "Changing hearts and changing minds" sounds disturbingly like something the Republicans would say, not to mention something people in an Orwellian government would say. "We will restore professionalism over partisanship at the Department of Justice, and staff the civil rights division with civil rights lawyers, not ideologues." Some people may have heard the stories about DoJ being used for political purposes under Bush. I'm wondering what the Democrats are talking about regarding the civil rights division, however. Will they be fair, or will they give alleged victims the benefit of the doubt too much? "We will restore vigorous federal enforcement of civil rights laws in order to provide every American an equal chance at employment, housing, health, contracts, and pay. We are committed to banning racial, ethnic, and religious profiling and requiring federal, state, and local enforcement agencies to take steps to eliminate the practice." All sounds good, though money may be a concern.


"We are committed to ensuring full equality for women: we reaffirm our support for the Equal Rights Amendment, recommit to enforcing Title IX, and will urge passage of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women." The ERA is still around??? The Republicans objected to the convention because it dared to mention abortion, as I talked about in my Republican Part II. I'm ambivalent about most of this pending knowing some of what they contain; I know at least a little about Title IX and I am concerned that it may have some negative side effects that no one really sees as necessary or desirable. "We will pass the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act." What does that involve?

We will restore and support the White House Initiative on Asian-American and Pacific Islanders, including enforcement on disaggregation of Census data. We will make the Census more culturally sensitive, including outreach, language assistance, and increased confidentiality protections to ensure accurate counting of the growing Latino and Asian American, and Pacific Islander populations, and continue working on efforts to be more inclusive.

I have no idea what the Initiative involves. Why do these ethnic groups in particular need more "confidentiality protections"? What's the problem with how the Census deals with them now? "We will sign the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and restore the original intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act. That is the America we believe in." I'm very curious how the Democrats would "restore the original intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act." Has it been strengthened to the point of absurdity, or weakened too much? The former would be something you'd expect the Democrats to carry out, and the Republicans to fix, yet that's the one I've actually heard a little about...


"We support the full inclusion of all families, including same-sex couples, in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections. We will enact a comprehensive bipartisan employment non-discrimination act. We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and all attempts to use this issue to divide us." No mention of gay marriage, however. Incidentally, why all the outrage over Prop 8 now, after the election? Where was the outrage when it could have actually influenced the outcome?

"But it is no good to be able to ride the bus when you can't afford the bus fare. We will work to provide real opportunities for all Americans suffering from disadvantage; we will pioneer new policies and remedies against poverty and violence that address real human needs and we will close the achievement gap in education and provide every child a world-class education." This all sounds good, if begging for details, especially in the middle part of the second sentence. But: "We support affirmative action, including in federal contracting and higher education, to make sure that those locked out of the doors of opportunity will be able to walk through those doors in the future." If there's one thing I unequivocally disagree with the Democrats over, it's affirmative action, AKA "reverse racism". I have grown convinced it may be useful if applied solely to the basis of economic standing (poor over rich), because really, all the self-perpetuating differences caused by past discrimination really come down to the advantages rich people have over poor people. Otherwise discriminating on the basis of ethnicity is wrong one way or the other.

We've cleared out Part III, and if we get around to Part IV, it could well close out the series for the Dems in one part!

Examining the Democratic Platform Part VII: “Renewing the American Community” Part I: Macro-Level Issues

This is continued from Parts I-VI of my examination of the Democratic Platform. It's been a long time since the last part in this series, hasn't it?


For anyone wondering what to expect from the new Administration, on the eve of the Inauguration. To see the rest of the series, click on the Democratic Platform Review label. Part VIII tomorrow, which combine to knock out the Democrats' Part III. My heading for each part is somewhat arbitrary and a generalization, especially this one, but I think it works.


The platform itself – not just my rendering of the headings – changes format for Part III, "Renewing the American Community". The section headings I had placed in bold earlier in the platform? They're gone. Part III cuts straight down two levels of headings to the individual topics without grouping them. The introductory paragraph talks "of the need for compassion, empathy, a commitment to our values, and the importance of being united in order to take on the challenges and opportunities of the new century."

They said that they valued Barack Obama's message that alongside Americans' famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga: a belief that we are connected to each other. We could all choose to focus on our own concerns and live our lives in a way that tries to keep our individual stories separate from the larger story of America. But that is not who we are. That is not our American story. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to us, even if it's not our child. Similarly, if there's a senior citizen in Elko, Nevada who has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes our lives poorer, even if it's not our grandmother. Because it is only when we join together in something larger than ourselves that we can write the next great chapter in America's story.

Those examples don't appear, at least, to give this part much of a distinction from Part I. It expresses an agreeable attitude rather than a policy position: "we're all in this together". But we'll press on anyway. "Service":

The future of our country will be determined not only by our government and our policies but through the efforts of the American people. That is why we will ask all Americans to be actively involved in meeting the challenges of the new century. In this young century, our military has answered the call to serve, even as that call has come too often. We must now make it possible for all citizens to serve. We will expand AmeriCorps, double the size of the Peace Corps, enable more to serve in the military, create new opportunities for international service, integrate service into primary education, and create new opportunities for experienced and retired persons to serve.

Expanding AmeriCorps, the Peace Corps, and "opportunities for experienced and retired persons" sounds good; hopefully it's not burning money. By "enable more to serve in the military", are you referring to increasing the military's size or just loosening requirements for people to serve? What are these "opportunities for international service" and are they welcomed in those countries or seen as unneeded meddling? Are you really trying to get children to serve their communities somehow?


"And if you invest in America, America will invest in you: we will increase support for service-learning, establish tax incentives for college students who serve, and create scholarships for students who pledge to become teachers." Some of this you mentioned already. "We will use the Internet to better match volunteers to service opportunities." What form will this take, a search engine, or would you ask people who want to serve to join a service and be matched? All this will "meet America's challenges in a uniquely American way."


"Immigration": This touches on a topic the Republicans covered all the way back in Part I. It starts with some expected platitudes: we're a nation of immigrants, you can make it here, immigrants contribute to who we are, and so on. "Like the immigrants that came before them, today's immigrants will shape their own destinies and enrich our country."

Nonetheless, our current immigration system has been broken for far too long. We need comprehensive immigration reform, not just piecemeal efforts. We must work together to pass immigration reform in a way that unites this country, not in a way that divides us by playing on our worst instincts and fears. We are committed to pursuing tough, practical, and humane immigration reform in the first year of the next administration.

We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. The American people are a welcoming and generous people, but those who enter our country's borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law. We need to secure our borders, and support additional personnel, infrastructure, and technology on the border and at our ports of entry.

I'm a bit surprised to see the Democrats be as high on trying to secure the border as the Republicans were, albeit much later in the platform in a way that makes this seem like a "miscellaneous" part. Still, if I gave you the above last three sentences, you might think they came from the Republican platform. They even say that "those who employ [illegal immigrants] disrespect the rule of the law", which I was concerned about when it came up in the Republican platform. Compare the Republicans' call for "more effective enforcement, giving our agents the tools and resources they need to protect our sovereignty, completing the border fence quickly and securing the borders, and employing complementary strategies to secure our ports of entry." No call to add "personnel", but the Democrats don't directly say what "infrastructure[] and technology" are referring to. Yet. Of course, that's arguably more specific than "tools and resources".

"We need additional Customs and Border Protection agents equipped with better technology and real-time intelligence." That's basically a slightly more specific version of the last sentence replacing "infrastructure" with "intelligence". "We need to dismantle human smuggling organizations, combating the crime associated with this trade." The Republicans want to "impos[e] maximum penalties on those who smuggle illegal aliens into the U.S., both for their lawbreaking and for their cruel exploitation." But now comes something that looks to be a bit of a break with the Republicans: "We also need to do more to promote economic development in migrant-sending nations, to reduce incentives to come to the United States illegally." That pretty much took the words right out of my mouth – from my Republican platform examination, when I suggested that perhaps the best long-term solution to illegal immigration was to help rise Mexico out of abject poverty.

And we need to crack down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants. It's a problem when we only enforce our laws against the immigrants themselves, with raids that are ineffective, tear apart families, and leave people detained without adequate access to counsel. We realize that employers need a method to verify whether their employees are legally eligible to work in the United States, and we will ensure that our system is accurate, fair to legal workers, safeguards people's privacy, and cannot be used to discriminate against workers.

"[E]mployers need a method to verify whether their employees are legally eligible to work in the United States" could be considered a backing of the Republicans' E-Verify system or could be saying that system is flawed enough not to count. Possibly pointing to the latter, the Democrats naturally proceed to throw in a bunch of caveats: it needs to be "fair to legal workers, safeguard[] people's privacy, and cannot be used to discriminate against workers." Would that result in making the system ineffective, especially the last two parts? I'm all for privacy and ending discrimination, but...

We must also improve the legal immigration system, and make our nation's naturalization process fair and accessible to the thousands of legal permanent residents who are eager to become full Americans. We should fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy that hampers family reunification, the cornerstone of our immigration policy for years. Given the importance of both keeping families together and supporting American businesses, we will increase the number of immigration visas for family members of people living here and for immigrants who meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill, as long as appropriate labor market protections and standards are in place. We will fight discrimination against Americans who have always played by our immigration rules but are sometimes treated as if they had not.

The idea of easing access for the many people who become illegal immigrants despite not flouting the law otherwise is one of my touchstones on this issue. Both parties use the exact phrase "dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy", which by this point is, in the case of the Republicans, part of a larger campaign against Big Bad Gov'ment Bur'cracy that needs to be "simplified", but the Republicans don't seem to put much of an emphasis on "family reunification". Hopefully the Democrats won't allow family members to be used as a Trojan horse to sneak in lawbreakers.

For the millions living here illegally but otherwise playing by the rules, we must require them to come out of the shadows and get right with the law. We support a system that requires undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, pay taxes, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens. They are our neighbors, and we can help them become full tax-paying, law-abiding, productive members of society.

What's the size of the fine? Is this enough penalty for breaking the law (a sore point for Republicans)? If not, is this a one-time deal to deal with the current crisis (similar to the bailout)? How will you make sure those people that aren't "otherwise playing by the rules" (or trying to avoid crimes committed in Mexico) don't sneak into the legal immigration system this way? (Actually, the "back of the line to become citizens" part may be crucial here, because presumably anyone who continued to break the law here could still be deported if they're still not citizens, and if they stayed law-abiding in this country for long enough they're probably reformed anyway.) On the plus side, this is the biggest assurance the Democrats have yet given that they won't let America turn into Quebec, and it's not quite "en masse legalizations" like the Republicans tried to paint it. I have a number of concerns with both sides' policies here.


"Hurricane Katrina": I don't think the Republicans have touched on Katrina, but I'm not sure what section it would be in – possibly the "Values" section I haven't gotten to yet. I'm going to cover this paragraph from the perspective of thinking we need to stand by Americans in times of need, and make sure New Orleans can thrive again, and then offer my actual, alternative, opinions.


"The people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast are heroes for returning and rebuilding, and they shouldn't face these challenges alone. We will partner with the people of the Gulf Coast to assist the victims of Hurricane Katrina and restore the region economically." Sounds good. "We will create jobs and training opportunities for returning and displaced workers as well as contracting opportunities for local businesses to help create stronger, safer, and more equitable communities." That's especially important, that part about offering "opportunities for local businesses". Hopefully it won't be Iraq 2.0.


"We will increase funding for affordable housing and home ownership opportunities for returning families, workers, and residents moving out of unsafe trailers." On top of everything else you want to fund? "We will reinvest in infrastructure in New Orleans: we will construct levees that work, fight crime by rebuilding local police departments and courthouses, invest in hospitals, and rebuild the public school system." That's important and it can help create jobs, which also helps with the recovery. The matter of levees will be covered in my alternative opinion below. "We also commit to the rebuilding and restoration of the Iowa communities affected by the floods of 2008." Kind of a token gesture sentence.


But honestly, I think this is a case where it is possible that the best approach may well be something that no politician – no one, period – in a million years would ever get away with. It would seem too cold, too inhumane. But practically, when you consider how much of New Orleans sits below sea level, and especially global warming potentially melting the ice caps and raising sea levels, it may well be that keeping building bigger and bigger levees is a waste of money and it's an open question whether or not the city is much worth saving. In the same vein, we need to assess how much our levees on our rivers are helping or hurting. Levees don't lower the amount of water flowing, just hold it back, and eventually all that water has to go somewhere and it results in megafloods instead of just plain floods. Certainly we need to reconsider using levees to protect agricultural lands, where floodwaters could actually help in some ways, as long as the farmhouses are properly protected and the rivers aren't being used to dump waste that's toxic to crops.


"Preventing and Responding to Future Catastrophes":

We will also work to prevent future catastrophic response failures, whether the emergency comes from hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, wild fires, drought, bridge collapses, or any other natural or man-made disaster. Maintaining our levees and dams is not pork barrel spending—it is an urgent priority. We will fix governmental agencies like the Federal Emergency Management Agency, ensure that they are staffed with professionals, and create integrated communication and response plans. We will reform the Small Business Administration bureaucracy, and develop a real National Response Plan.

All important points; "levees and dams" are only "pork barrel spending" if the money is being spent inequitably, so the levees are being maintained in places where powerful politicians come from and not in places where they aren't. I notice the Democrats are again saying a "bureaucracy" needs to be fixed, and are returning to gimmicks like a "National Response Plan". "We will develop a National Catastrophic Insurance Fund to offer an affordable insurance mechanism for high-risk catastrophes that no single private insurer can cover by itself for fear of bankruptcy. This will allow states and territories to deal comprehensively with the economic dislocation of natural disasters." Sounds reasonable and important enough, but where will the money for it come from?


"Stewardship of Our Planet and Natural Resources": Ah, it's back to the well of global warming again, back in my wheelhouse! "Global climate change is the planet's greatest threat, and our response will determine the very future of life on this earth. Despite the efforts of our current Administration to deny the science of climate change and the need to act, we still believe that America can be earth's best hope." Once again, the sentiment I like to hear!


"We will implement a market-based cap and trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary to avoid catastrophic change and we will set interim targets along the way to ensure that we meet our goal." I mentioned last time we talked about climate change that I was a little less skeptical about cap-and-trade than the time before. Why "the amount scientists say is necessary to avoid climate change"? I know you might want to hide from businesses how much you expect them to reduce their carbon emissions, but you could just as easily be hiding from me that you're not really going to be as aggressive as "scientists say". Hey, when you consider the lack of aggressiveness in the targets you actually have given, you can't blame me for feeling this is a bit uncharacteristic.


"We will invest in advanced energy technologies, to build the clean energy economy and create millions of new, good "Green Collar" American jobs. Because the environment is a truly global concern, the United States must be a leader in combating climate change around the world, including exporting climate-friendly technologies to developing countries." This all repeats stuff talked about in previous global-warming sections. "We will use innovative measures to dramatically improve the energy efficiency of buildings, including establishing a grant program for early adopters and providing incentives for energy conservation." Those certainly sound like more good ideas. "We will encourage local initiatives, sustainable communities, personal responsibility, and environmental stewardship and education nationwide." More good ideas, especially for the long term.


The rest of the section deals mostly with non-global warming environmental issues, by and large not touched on by the Republicans. "We will help local communities in the American West preserve water to meet their fast growing needs." Some of those are pretty big "communities", and how are you going to do that? "We support a comprehensive solution for restoring our national treasures—such as the Great Lakes, Everglades, and Chesapeake Bay—including expanded scientific research and protections for species and habitats there." Not quite sure what the problems are in those places, what those "protections" would involve, or what.


"We will reinvigorate the Environmental Protection Agency so that we can work with communities to reduce air and water pollution and protect our children from environmental toxins, and never sacrifice science to politics." All sounds good; have you noticed how often the Democrats harp on focusing on "sound science" or the like? "We will protect Nevada and its communities from the high-level nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, which has not been proven to be safe by sound science." Normally I'd be all over this statement, loving every minute of it, but since you already backed nuclear power earlier in the platform as a way of combating global warming, how do you intend to deal with the waste instead? "We will restore the "polluter pays" principle to fund the cleanup of the most polluted sites, so that those who cause environmental problems pay to fix them." Certainly a reasonable way to do things – you broke it, you clean it up.

Federal Lands
We will create a new vision for conservation that works with local communities to conserve our existing publicly-owned lands while dramatically expanding investments in conserving and restoring forests, grasslands, and wetlands across America for generations to come. Unlike the current Administration, we will reinvest in our nation's forests by providing federal agencies with resources to reduce the threat of wildland fires, promote sustainable forest product industries for rural economic development and ensure that national resources are in place to respond to catastrophic wildland fires.

Do you intend to put more lands under federal control? Is this a SGWTM situation? And while the second sentence sounds good, it's important to remember that wildfires are often natural and should be let burn to reduce the impact of future wildfires and improve the overall ecosystem. Federal authorities should only protect humans living in or near the wilderness and any other important investments. "We will treat our national parks with the same respect that millions of families show each year when they visit. We will recognize that our parks are national treasures, and will ensure that they are protected as part of the overall natural system so they are here for generations to come." Certainly sounds reasonable. "We are committed to conserving the lands used by hunters and anglers, and we will open millions of new acres of land to public hunting and fishing." I wouldn't have expected the Democrats to expand hunting and fishing, which would put them at odds with environmentalists – certainly vegetarians.

"Metropolitan and Urban Policy": "We believe that strong cities are the building blocks of strong regions, and strong regions are essential for a strong America." The Democrats want "equitable development strategies that create opportunities for those traditionally left behind by economic development efforts." As long as it doesn't take away most of the motivation to work. "For the past eight years, the current Administration has ignored urban areas. We look forward to greater partnership with urban America. We will strengthen federal commitment to cities, including by creating a new White House Office on Urban Policy and fully funding the Community Development Block Grant." You notice I haven't even been pointing out the shots at the Bush Administration. What sort of role will the "Office of Urban Policy" take? Will it be a Cabinet-level position, or more similar to the federal drug commission? Would this mean more bureaucracy? Funding the CDBG was mentioned much earlier, in my Part III.

"We support community-based initiatives, such as micro-loans, business assistance centers, community economic development corporations, and community development financial institutions." All sound nice, but are they more government meddling? Ideally, when the lower classes start investing in themselves it can help the whole economy, but hopefully these really are "community-based". "To help regional business development we will double federal funding for basic research, expand the deployment of broadband technology, increase access to capital for businesses in underserved areas, create a national network of public-private business incubators, and provide grants to support regional innovation clusters." Many of these were mentioned earlier – more broadband and "incubators", for example. Pretty much all of these are SGWTM, but ideally they can all result in more money for the government as a result of economic advancement. Expanding research, especially, helps all levels of the economy. Not sure what "regional innovation clusters" would be.

"Since businesses can only function when workers can get to their place of employment, we will invest in public transportation including rail, expand transportation options for low-income communities, and strengthen core infrastructure like our roads and bridges." Ding ding ding! The Democrats just mentioned the "p-t" word! Once again, though, it's part of a larger clause that also includes "roads and bridges". Between the first and last items, especially the first, the middle item seems somewhat superfluous, and what does it actually mean? "We will provide cities the support they need to perform public safety and national security functions, reinvest in Community Oriented Policing Services, and keep children off the streets by supporting expanded after-school and summer opportunities." Helping cities perform vital functions certainly seems important, and for all their "national security" emphasis the Republicans didn't really hint at anything like helping cities invest in national security. (They probably would have wanted to privatize it.) Everything sounds good from here, as long as it doesn't invite more government waste and throwing money away.

"Finally, we will work to make cities greener and more livable by training employees to work in skilled clean technologies industries, improving the environmental efficiency of city buildings, and taking smart growth principles into account when designing transportation." And tying this all back into my own personal big issue! This all sounds good – I wouldn't quite consider myself a "smart growth" backer but it's possible I am without knowing it. I hinted at it with my discussion of "transit-oriented development" back when I was on a mass transit kick. There are a couple other things that are rolled up into "smart growth" but one of the things most of them have in common is the idea that the car has ruined things, so this may well be hinting at more emphasis on "public transportation" over "roads and bridges" than the Democrats have so far let on. More on this in a later post (maybe).

Yes, we are splitting the Democrats' Part III into two parts even though both parts barely top 4,000 words, and this part requires me to write a long concluding paragraph (this one) to carry it over 4,000, but the combined examination topped 8,000 and the split is in an odd place, almost smack-dab in the middle of the discussion of "Firearms". Be sure to come back tomorrow!

To say this has not been a good year for me is an understatement...

If I were offered the chance to relive the past month over again, with the knowledge that the platform examinations I would work on would take up eight 5,000-word parts per party, and it would take me a day to complete a 5,000-word part after sacrificing most other priorities and with a nagging feeling I could complete two, three, or even more without the distractions and by giving up even more priorities, but I never would... I think I'd take the offer.

Even going back three weeks, when my first attempt at writing Part I of the Democratic examination hit a snag in the form of the belated discovery that Blogger's post editor "in draft" can still lock up after several successive successful uses of the clipboard, if I had then the foresight not to let the frustration of that stop me from starting over somewhat immediately, or even had the foresight to follow my own motto of "never assume" and had taken the simple step of composing the examination in Notepad in the first place, that would remain a very tempting target to go back to and revive the plans I had in mind all along.

(Or maybe I could have worked on most of my plans in advance like I always thought about in the back of my mind.)

Honestly, the platform examinations were only supposed to be the beginning. Against the backdrop of the ongoing series in Sandsday, I would start out largely as I did start out - proclaiming the urgent importance of global warming and the role of mass transit as being the solution - but would continue into an examination of several large cities' mass transit plans, any expansion plans, and anything on the ballot today. I would cut into the platform examinations but would spin from that into a deconstruction of every level, big and small, of our political system, including an investigation into what sort of plan we really need to get away from the Bush years and a deconstruction of the positions of those who place themselves outside the two-party political system. Hopefully I could clarify some of my own political positions in the process. (No, my almost-constant agreeing with the Democrats does not mean my positions were fully clarified. That was nothing new.)

If you still need to read up on the platforms before voting (assuming you haven't voted already), you can read the last two parts of each platform from here and here. I've considered pressing on with my platform examinations and trying to salvage something out of my original plans, but it's kind of pointless after the election, and it might result in a situation where some of you are telling me "Oh, now you tell me about some of these positions!" On the other hand, some of the things I had in mind might still be extant after the election, but it might be considered a bit jarring to launch into them without the structure provided by the platform examinations. (By which I mean the examinations being completed in full.)

So I'm starting a new Da Blog Poll. If you still find the platform examinations useful and want me to complete them, even after you've already voted, let me know and I might launch back into them, and try and salvage the rest of my plans as well. If you don't find them useful anymore, we'll... move on, I guess.

Examining the Democratic Platform Part VI: “Advancing Democracy, Development, and Respect for Human Rights”, “Protecting our Security and Saving our Planet”, and “Seizing the Opportunity”

This is continued from Parts I-V of my examination of the Democratic Platform. Today was not a good day for work on my platform examinations.


"Advancing Democracy, Development, and Respect for Human Rights":

No country in the world has benefited more from the worldwide expansion of democracy than the United States. Democracies are our best trading partners, our most valuable allies, and the nations with which we share our deepest values. The United States must join with our democratic partners around the world to meet common security challenges and uphold our shared values whenever they are threatened by autocratic practices, coups, human rights abuses, or genocide.

It sounds like the Democrats may be up for "joining with other democracies" as well – there may be some hints here that the Republican program of expanding democracy and forming a clique of democracies isn't 100% disagreed to by the Democrats. But really, this sentiment and the actual position taken with it is very reasonable.

"Build Democratic Institutions": "The Democratic Party reaffirms its longstanding commitment to support democratic institutions and practices worldwide. A more democratic world is a more peaceful and prosperous place. Yet democracy cannot be imposed by force from the outside; it must be nurtured with moderates on the inside by building democratic institutions." I may have jumped the gun on making this point during my examination of the Republican Platform. We've seen what happens when democracy is "imposed by force from the outside" in Iraq: it doesn't work and creates lingering resentment, and it doesn't help that Iraq may not have had the cultural values that nurture a democracy.

"The United States must be a relentless advocate for democracy and put forward a vision of democracy that goes beyond the ballot box. We will increase our support for strong legislatures, independent judiciaries, free press, vibrant civil society, honest police forces, religious freedom, equality for women and minorities, and the rule of law." Does that mean a "strong legislature" in the United States, where even with the opposition party in power Congress has basically rolled over for whatever the President wants? And the "rule of law" makes a comeback! And this all deserves a call back to the Republicans' statement that "[s]ocieties that enjoy political and economic freedom and the rule of law are not given to aggression or fanaticism. They become our natural allies." So the US has some interest in all of this!

These are all good goals but they touch on what I mean by being "culturally ready for democracy". In some societies, "independent judiciaries, free press," and "civil society" is unheard of; religious freedom is literally heretical; women have defined, inferior roles that are seen as the natural order of things; and minorities are naturally inferior. The cultural underpinnings of democracy, we sometimes forget, are almost all Western; trying to institute democracy on a very different culture with very different values, without understanding that culture and its differences, could be courting disaster. Democracy seems to be working well in India and Israel, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule, as they have had strong, historical Western influence.

"In new democracies, we will support the development of civil society and representative institutions that can protect fundamental human rights and improve the quality of life for all citizens, including independent and democratic unions." Gotta plug those unions! If you know what civil society is, you may be wondering how government can "promote" it, since it consists mostly of institutions outside of government. This is pretty much all an agreeable platitude. "In non-democratic countries, we pledge to work with international partners to assist the efforts of those struggling to promote peaceful political reforms." Sounds reasonable. Keep funding our pro-democracy programs as well, because that "reflects American values and serves our interests". After the Democrats put in all their social programs, will there be any money to fund those programs?

"Invest in Our Common Humanity":

To renew American leadership in the world, we will strengthen our common security by investing in our common humanity. In countries wracked by poverty and conflict, citizens long to enjoy freedom from want. Because extremely poor societies and weak states provide optimal breeding grounds for terrorism, disease, and conflict, the United States has a direct national security interest in dramatically reducing global poverty and joining with our allies in sharing more of our riches to help those most in need.

This all sounds reasonable and an important point. Compare the Republican statement that "Societies that enjoy political and economic freedom and the rule of law are not given to aggression or fanaticism. They become our natural allies."

It is time to make the U.N. Millennium Development Goals, which aim to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015, America's goals as well. We need to invest in building capable, democratic states that can establish healthy and educated communities, develop markets, and generate wealth. Such states would also have greater institutional capacities to fight terrorism, halt the spread of deadly weapons, and build health-care infrastructures to prevent, detect, and treat deadly diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and avian flu.

Sounds good and could help build our own prosperity. Certainly controlling terrorism and stopping weapons trafficking are important goals. "We will double our annual investment in meeting these challenges to $50 billion by 2012 and ensure that those new resources are directed toward worthwhile goals." Could be considered throwing money away, especially when you consider all the other ways Democrats want to spend money, but then you feel like a bastard for not caring about people in third world countries. But: "We will work with philanthropic organizations and the private sector to invest in development and poverty reduction." Sounds good – allow entities outside government to do their work – but would the government meddle in their operations? Nudging the private sector into development in third world countries is certainly good, though.

But if America is going to help others build more just and secure societies, our trade deals, debt relief, and foreign aid must not come as blank checks. We will recognize the fragility of small nations in the Caribbean, the Americas, Africa, and Asia and work with them to successfully transition to a new global economy. We will couple our support with an insistent call for reform, to combat the corruption that rots societies and governments from within.

What's the carrot on the stick that will actually make them reform? At least the Democrats recognize the Republicans' challenge when they said: "Decades of massive aid have failed to spur economic growth in the poorest countries, where it has often propped up failed policies and corrupt rulers." But they don't answer the Republicans' "call for... greater accountability by recipient countries so as to ensure against malfeasance, self-dealing, and corruption, and to ensure continued assistance is conditioned on performance." The Republicans supported democratization over token gestures of food and monetary aid, and the Democrats supported democratization in the previous section and "development" here. And education:

As part of this new funding, we will create a $2 billion Global Education Fund that will bring the world together in eliminating the global education deficit with the goal of supporting a free, quality, basic education for every child in the world. Education increases incomes, reduces poverty, strengthens communities, prevents the spread of disease, improves child and maternal health, and empowers women and girls. We cannot hope to shape a world where opportunity outweighs danger unless we ensure that every child everywhere is taught to build and not to destroy.

More throwing money away, but "bring[ing] the world together" implies that not all the money would come from the American government. This makes education sound like the "magic bullet" that will solve all the Third World's problems. The Republicans just list education on a list of "core development programs" to give "greater attention" to, but they also listed "emphasizing literacy and learning" on a list of "high-impact goals" for aid, as part of their "no more handouts" program.

"Our policies will recognize that human rights are women's rights and that women's rights are human rights. Women make up the majority of the poor in the world. So we will expand access to women's economic development opportunities and seek to expand microcredit." The first half of the first sentence is a tautology; the second is simultaneously a tautology and bound to be controversial. Republicans also called for "microcredit funding for small enterprises" as one of the "foundations of economic development", but that's not really what the Democrats are talking about. "Women produce half of the world's food but only own one percent of the land upon which it is grown. We will work to ensure that women have equal protection under the law and are not denied rights and therefore locked into poverty." In places primed for the idea of women's equality, where trying to "make women into men" won't cause riots, that's fairly common sense. The Republicans would reject the UN convention on women's rights because it gave some sort of support to abortion, so the GOP could protect "traditional" "marriage and family". I'm still smarting from that.

"We will modernize our foreign assistance policies, tools, and operations in an elevated, empowered, consolidated, and streamlined U.S. development agency. Development and diplomacy will be reinforced as key pillars of U.S. foreign policy, and our civilian agencies will be staffed, resourced, and equipped to address effectively new global challenges." I'm sure Republicans should sound relieved that the development agency would be "consolidated and streamlined", but I don't know what needs "modernization". And there's a lot of other stuff that needs to be "staffed, resourced, and equipped" as well.

Time to take another shot at Bush: "American leadership on human rights is essential to making the world safer, more just, and more humane. Such leadership must begin with steps to undo the damage of the Bush years. But we also must go much further. We should work with others to shape human rights institutions and instruments tailored to the 21st century." What are the new challenges of the 21^st century that current human rights institutions are not prepared for? "We must make the United Nations' human rights organs more objective, energetic, and effective." You already mentioned keeping human rights violators off the Human Rights Council, but good. "The U.S. must lead global efforts to promote international humanitarian standards and to protect civilians from indiscriminate violence during warfare." Sounds good. "We will champion accountability for genocide and war crimes, ending the scourge of impunity for massive human rights abuses." Would that include joining the International Criminal Court?

"We will stand up for oppressed people from Cuba to North Korea and from Burma to Zimbabwe and Sudan. We will accord greater weight to human rights, including the rights of women and children, in our relationships with other global powers, recognizing that America's long-term strategic interests are more likely to be advanced when our partners are rights-respecting." I'm not 100% sure what the connection is between respecting human rights and advancing "America's long-term strategic interests". But as a human rights-advancing move, it certainly sounds like a good idea to restrict negotiations and/or make tougher demands unless human rights abuses are tamped down (an approach the Republicans espouse on several specific occasions). It is worth noting that you just came close to the Republican position of making our diplomats "advance[] America's values". Although if you insist on the right to an abortion I know some people who will scream bloody murder. And I notice you finally name-dropped Burma in there.

"Global Health":

Democrats will invest in improving global health. It is a human shame that many of the diseases which compound the problem of global poverty are treatable, but they are yet to be treated.

The HIV/AIDS pandemic is a massive human tragedy. It is also a security risk of the highest order that threatens to plunge nations into chaos. There are an estimated 33 million people across the planet infected with HIV/AIDS, including more than one million people in the U.S. Nearly 8,000 people die every day of AIDS. We must do more to fight the global HIV/AIDS pandemic, as well as malaria, tuberculosis, and neglected tropical diseases. We will provide $50 billion over five years to strengthen existing U.S. programs and expand them to new regions of the world, including Southeast Asia, India, and parts of Europe, where the HIV/AIDS burden is growing. We will increase U.S. contributions to the Global Fund to ensure that global efforts to fight endemic disease continue to move ahead.

More potential throwing money away, and this entire section will tie back into the Democrats' health care plan. I know I'll sound like a bastard again, but this has the added problem of being of unclear national interest, aside from the "plunge nations into chaos" line. It's also worth noting that some people, especially Republicans, will tell you that there are cultural problems that make AIDS worse in Africa, and combating it more difficult.

"We also support the adoption of humanitarian licensing policies that ensure medications developed with the U.S. taxpayer dollars are available off patent in developing countries." Not sure what the practical effect of that would be... "We will repeal the global gag rule and reinstate funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)." The "global gag rule" is the Republicans' policy of refusing to provide any support to organizations that aid abortion in any way, which I tore to shreds in Part II of my Republican examination. "We will expand access to health care and nutrition for women and reduce the burden of maternal mortality." Sounds good. A lot of good-sounding platitudes in here. "We will leverage the engagement of the private sector and private philanthropy to launch Health Infrastructure 2020–a global effort to work with developing countries to invest in the full range of infrastructure needed to improve and protect both American and global health." Obviously, very gimmicky.

"Human Trafficking":

We will address human trafficking—both labor and sex trafficking–through strong legislation and enforcement to ensure that trafficking victims are protected and traffickers are brought to justice. We will also address the root causes of human trafficking, including poverty, discrimination, and gender inequality, as well as the demand for prostitution.

The Republicans preferred to take on human trafficking by establishing the gimmicky "Inter-Agency Task Force on Human Trafficking, reporting directly to the President", prodding other governments to crack down, and extending the American policy of "publicizing the identity of known offenders" to international travel. The Democrats don't have anything as specific but they do want to focus on the "root causes" in addition to their "strong legislation and enforcement".

"Protecting our Security and Saving our Planet": Yes, it's a return to the topic of climate change, this time specifically focused on climate change and not just "energy independence"! But what does it have to do with national security and foreign affairs?

We must end the tyranny of oil in our time. This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the longer-term threat from climate change, which will lead to devastating weather patterns, terrible storms, drought, conflict, and famine. That means people competing for food and water in the next fifty years in the very places that have known horrific violence in the last fifty: Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. That could also mean destructive storms on our shores, and the disappearance of our coastline.

We understand that climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern–this is a national security crisis.

I almost want to say, you better touch on climate change in both of the remaining parts as well. Before we begin, I want to make some clarifying remarks about "cap-and-trade" schemes. Back in Part II, I said I was deeply suspicious of cap-and-trade schemes but gave a description of them that was not necessarily accurate. At least some cap and trade schemes involve setting a hard limit not on each individual producer's carbon emissions, but on the emissions of the whole economy. To produce any emissions at all, companies would have to purchase carbon credits from the government, and have to deal not only with other companies producing carbon but also environmentalists buying credits to lower emissions even further. It all sounds like a good way to move us towards a green future while raising money for the government and green research projects, but there are enforceability concerns and it encourages energy efficiency more than new energy sources. Anyway, enough talking; on with the show!

"Establish Energy Security": The Democrats take an oblique shot at Bush and the Iraq war, saying "achieving energy security in the 21st century requires far more than simply expending our economic and political resources to keep oil flowing steadily out of unstable and even hostile countries and regions."

Rather, energy security requires stemming the flow of money to oil rich regimes that are hostile to America and its allies; it requires combating climate change and preparing for its impacts both at home and abroad; it requires making international energy markets work for us and not against us; it requires standing up to the oil companies that spend hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying and political contributions; it requires addressing nuclear safety, waste, and proliferation challenges around the world; and more.

For the most part, this all sounds good, but I notice the Democrats are also standing up for nuclear (sigh) but they are calling to address its "challenges". Not sure what the problem with "international energy markets" is. "Democrats will halt this dangerous trend, and take the necessary steps to achieving energy independence. We will make it a top priority to reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or ten million barrels per day, by 2030. This will more than offset the amount of oil we are expected to import from OPEC nations in 2030." Once again, the Dems aren't being ambitious enough. 35 percent by 2030? Ideally we should be able to get rid of our oil consumption almost entirely by then, between electric cars and mass transit – and we should, especially in the likely scenario we start running out of oil.

"Lead to Combat Climate Change": This is the sort of sentiment I like to see from a major party:

We will lead to defeat the epochal, man-made threat to the planet: climate change. Without dramatic changes, rising sea levels will flood coastal regions around the world. Warmer temperatures and declining rainfall will reduce crop yields, increasing conflict, famine, disease, and poverty. By 2050, famine could displace more than 250 million people worldwide. That means increased instability in some of the most volatile parts of the world.

Never again will we sit on the sidelines, or stand in the way of collective action to tackle this global challenge. Getting our own house in order is only a first step. We will invest in efficient and clean technologies at home while using our assistance policies and export promotions to help developing countries preserve biodiversity, curb deforestation, and leapfrog the carbon-energy-intensive stage of development.

Not only the first sentence of the first paragraph, but most of the policy positions in the second, are "hear, hear" remarks. "[L]eapfrog[ging] the carbon-energy-intensive stage of development" almost takes the words right out of my mouth, and "developing countries" can't just include third-world countries but also nations like China. I pretty much said as much in my hysterical anti-climate-change rant.

"We will reach out to the leaders of the biggest carbon emitting nations and ask them to join a new Global Energy Forum that will lay the foundation for the next generation of climate protocols." Gimmicky but sounds like a good idea. "China has replaced America as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Clean energy development must be a central focus in our relationships with major countries in Europe and Asia." That's a good approach. "We need a global response to climate change that includes binding and enforceable commitments to reducing emissions, especially for those that pollute the most: the United States, China, India, the European Union, and Russia." Another good idea, but I hope the Democrats really will be willing to limit themselves under international pressure. As should the other nations listed. Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats aren't whining that we shouldn't "expect the U.S. to carry burdens which are more appropriately shared by all." "This challenge is massive, but rising to it will also bring new benefits to America. By 2050, global demand for low-carbon energy could create an annual market worth $500 billion. Meeting that demand would open new frontiers for American entrepreneurs and workers." Let's try and create that demand and meet it pretty close to right now.

"Seizing the Opportunity":

It is time for a new generation to tell the next great American story. If we act with boldness and foresight, we will be able to tell our grandchildren that this was the time we confronted climate change and secured the weapons that could destroy the human race. This was the time we defeated global terrorists and brought opportunity to forgotten corners of the world. This was the time when we helped forge peace in the Middle East. This was the time when we renewed the America that has led generations of weary travelers from all over the world to find opportunity and liberty and hope on our doorstep.

Hyperbole much? This "section" is really a summary of the whole part. I have a feeling it'll be difficult for future generations to grasp the magnitude of the WMD threat today. Similarly, some people may not even realize that "the America that has led generations of weary travelers...to find opportunity and liberty and hope on our doorstep" even needed renewing, except from the Bush years. It sounds good that you're going to "help[] forge peace in the Middle East", but well, there's a reason that would be "the next great American story". But defeating terrorists and combating the climate crisis? That is the next great American story.


The Democrats devote another two very short paragraphs to a past when America was a beacon of hope around the world instead of a flashpoint of hatred, and call for America to return to the former, but I'm going to "seize the opportunity" to look back on the part and whether the Democrats met their goals. They said "today's threats" "come from weapons that can kill on a mass scale and from violent extremists who exploit alienation and perceived injustice to spread terror." So the Democrats will take steps to reduce and hopefully end any worldwide need for nuclear weapons, and secure materials that could be used to make them. They have a superior strategy to the Republicans' (provisionally) in dealing with Iran, but the Republicans are tougher on North Korea. But my biggest problem I have with the Democrats here is that I'm not sure they're willing to invest in actually preventing biological and chemical weapon attacks, only in reducing their impact. The Democrats might be soft on cyberterrorism as well. As for terror, the Democrats are superior to the head-in-the-sand Republicans on Pakistan, but their real strength lies in their quest to restore America's integrity and likability, and in their quest to aid development in countries prone to the message of extremism. The one concern I have is whether the Democrats have a system to monitor terrorists that won't impinge on America's civil liberties.


"They come from rogue states allied to terrorists and from rising powers that could challenge both America and the international foundation of liberal democracy." This is a vague sentence, and sometimes the Democrats address it and sometimes they don't. "They come from weak states that cannot control their territory or provide for their people." So the Democrats put a focus on development and democratization to build up third world countries – goals the Republicans espouse as well. "They come from an addiction to oil that helps fund the extremism we must fight and empowers repressive regimes. And they come from a warming planet that will spur new diseases, spawn more devastating natural disasters, and catalyze deadly conflicts." And both of those are dealt with in the same way. The Democrats are far superior to the Republicans in combating the urgent matter of climate change. There is plenty of room for improvement and they take a liking to a number of alternative energies I don't like, but realistically, given the choice between the Democratic or Republican plan, I would rather take the Democrats. I'm just concerned they might not have an urgent enough stance on the problem.


Short part, isn't it? Well, the Democrats' Part III is right around the bend – we might be entering the home stretch here as well!

Examining the Democratic Platform Part V: “Revitalizing and Supporting the Military, Keeping Faith with Veterans” and “Working for Our Common Security”

This is continued from Parts I-IV of my examination of the Democratic Platform. To make up for not having an examination yesterday or even shortly after midnight, I guaran-damn-tee two examinations today and maybe even three. So naturally I'm getting a late start with this one...


"Revitalizing and Supporting the Military, Keeping Faith with Veterans": Well, if it wasn't obvious before, this section makes it blatantly obvious that the Democrats are not the party of pacifism, especially the Orwellian sentiment that "A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace."

Ending the war in Iraq will be the beginning, but not the end, of addressing our defense challenges. We will use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests. But we must also become better prepared to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale.

We will not hesitate to use force to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened. But we will use our armed forces wisely, with others when we can, unilaterally when we must. When we send our men and women into harm's way, we must clearly define the mission, listen to the advice of our military commanders, objectively evaluate intelligence, and ensure that our troops have the strategy, resources, and support they need to prevail.

We believe we must also be willing to consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability–to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities. But when we do use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others. The consequences of forgetting that lesson in the context of the current conflict in Iraq have been grave.

"Unilaterally if we must"? "We must also be willing to consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense"? Read those two things and you might think there really is no difference between Democrats and Republicans! But both have caveats attached to them: we should always have allies whenever possible, we should make clear exactly what we intend to do, and pay attention to the information we're given. Common sense stuff; maybe the part about allies isn't common sense but it's wise anyway.

"Expand the Armed Forces": Army +65k, Marines +25k, which "help[s] units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments and decrease[s] the strain on military families." Decreases the strain on military families?!? At least they didn't earlier claim we already had "the best-manned...military in the world" in the introduction to the section like the GOP.

"Recruit and Retain":

A nation of 300 million people should not struggle to find additional qualified personnel to serve. Recruitment and retention problems have been swept under the rug, including by applying inconsistent standards and using the "Stop Loss" program to keep our servicemen and women in the force after their enlistment has expired. We will reach out to youth, as well as to the parents, teachers, coaches, and community and religious leaders who influence them, and make it an imperative to restore the ethic of public service, whether it be serving their local communities in such roles as teachers or first responders, or serving in the military and reserve forces or diplomatic corps that keep our nation free and safe.

The Republicans only talk about "retention of combat veterans" and pretty much slide past the issue of recruitment, though they do address it indirectly. The Democrats also sort of slide past the issue of recruitment by going from that to general community service. But all in all, an agreeable sentiment.

"Rebuild the Military for 21^st-Century Tasks":

We will rebuild our armed forces to meet the full spectrum needs of the new century. We will strongly support efforts to: build up our special operations forces, civil affairs, information operations, engineers, foreign area officers, and other units and capabilities that remain in chronic short supply; invest in foreign language training, cultural awareness, human intelligence, and other needed counter-insurgency and stabilization skill sets; and create a specialized military advisor corps, which will enable us to better build up local allies' capacities to take on mutual threats. We also will ensure that military personnel have sufficient training time before they are sent into battle. This is not the case at the moment, when American forces are being rushed to Iraq and Afghanistan, often with less individual and unit training than is required.

All those seem to be reasonable, if potentially expensive, goals. Although weren't "advisors" how we first started slipping into Vietnam?

"Develop Civilian Capacity to Promote Global Stability and Improve Emergency Response":

We will build the capacity of U.S. civilian agencies to deploy personnel and area experts where they are needed, so that we no longer have to ask our men and women in uniform to perform non-military functions. The creation of a volunteer Civilian Assistance Corps of skilled experts (e.g., doctors, lawyers, engineers, city planners, agriculture specialists, police) who are pre-trained and willing to aid in emergencies will involve more Americans in public service and provide our nation with a pool of talent to assist America in times of need at home and abroad.

Sounds reasonable; jobs should be done by the people best suited to do them. And I'm pretty sure the Republicans don't even acknowledge this issue. But this suggests we might be doing more "nation-building" in the future... Not addressed in the Democrats' improvements in our military, at least so far: medical care for "injured military personnel", speeding along the process of National Guardsmen's return to civilian jobs, women in the military, and military culture. If you're thinking "damn, the Democrats are secretly kind of heartless", they may be sliding together care for veterans and care for the active military in the next section or two.

"Do Right by Our Veterans and Their Families": "We believe that every servicemember is a hero who deserves our respect and gratitude, not just on Veterans Day or Memorial Day, but every day. When they put on their uniforms, these servicemembers all become all of our daughters and all of our sons, and it is time we started treating them as such." The Democrats then take the opportunity to take yet another shot at the Bush administration for the events at Walter Reed and "growing numbers of homeless and unemployed veterans".

"We will build a 21st century Department of Veterans Affairs that reflects the reality of America's all volunteer military and has the resources, without returning every year to fight the same battles, to uphold America's sacred trust with our veterans." Sounds good, but too vague for me to really consider whether the Republicans are thinking about the same thing. "We will make sure that members of our Armed Forces have a fair shot at the American Dream by implementing the new GI Bill." Gah, even the Democrats talk about "our Armed Forces"! The Republicans liked the GI Bill as well and wanted to "build" on it. "We will ensure that every veteran has access to quality health care for injuries both physical and mental, and we will require that health professionals screen all servicemembers upon their return from combat." The Republicans did not specifically reference the latter in their platform, but did come close; they did pretty much copy this sentence into a paragraph.

"We will aggressively address Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury." The Republicans did talk about "an unprecedented incidence of traumatic brain injury, which calls for a new commitment of resources and personnel for its care and treatment", without the obnoxious capitals, but did not directly reference PTSD. "We will work to ensure that every veteran receives the benefits he or she has earned and the assistance he or she needs by making the disability benefits process more fair, efficient, and equitable." The Republicans wanted the VA to "eliminat[e] its disability backlog and reduc[e] waiting times for treatment", and that its "current disability compensation formulas need to be restructured and modernized", but those are the only references to "disabilities" in my Part I. Everything's too vague for me to properly assess. But the Democrats would also "dramatically reduce the backlog of disability claims", indicating they would do it themselves instead of palming it off on the VA (bad! Government meddling!), or alternately, would actually get it done instead of saying "the VA must" do it, although for all I know the Republicans would have an actual plan to get something done. So why isn't it getting done?

"We will combat homelessness, unemployment, and underemployment among veterans and improve the transition for servicemen between the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs." The former is good and pretty much something the Republicans said; the latter is good, and not a Republican topic, but short on details on why it's necessary. "We will continue to honor our promises to all veterans, including the Filipino veterans, especially with regards to citizenship and family reunification." Well, that's out of left field; I wonder if the Republicans would object to the "citizenship" line.

"Lift Burdens on Our Troops and Their Families": "We must better support those families of whom we are asking so much. We will create a Military Families Advisory Board to help identify and develop practical policies to ease the burden on spouses and families." Sounds gimmicky but reasonable. "We will protect our military families from losing their homes to foreclosure. We will work for pay parity so that compensation for military service is more in line with that of the private sector." Both of those sound reasonable, again. "We will end the stop-loss and reserve recall policies that allow an individual to be forced to remain on active duty well after his or her enlistment has expired, and we will establish regularity in deployments so that active duty and reserve troops know what they must expect and their families can plan for it." Sounds good for soldiers and their families, but how does it affect our men and women in the field and how they do? The Republicans basically devoted a sentence to this.

"Support the Readiness of the Guard and Reserve": "Democrats will provide the National Guard with the equipment it needs for foreign and domestic emergencies and provide time and support to restore and refit between deployments." Sounds reasonable, and should help our men in the field.

We will also ensure that reservists and Guard members are treated fairly when it comes to employment, health, education benefits, deployment, and reintegration. We will do this by adequately funding reintegration programs to assist returning service members and by enforcing the Service Members Civil Relief Act and the Uniformed Service Employment Rights and Readjustment Act, laws too often observed in the breach today.

The above is important because reintegration is the main thing the Republicans focused on in their discussion of the Guard and Reserves. The Republicans, however, "call[ed] for greater transition assistance from employers" but the Democrats are doing something about it. Of course, they're spending a lot of money in the process, which is typical. "To ensure that the concerns of our citizen soldiers reach the level they mandate, Democrats will elevate the Chief of the National Guard to be a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff." That's a good idea, especially if the Guard is being sent to Iraq.

"Allow All Americans to Serve":

We will also put national security above divisive politics. More than 12,500 service men and women have been discharged on the basis of sexual orientation since the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was implemented, at a cost of over $360 million. Many of those forced out had special skills in high demand, such as translators, engineers, and pilots. At a time when the military is having a tough time recruiting and retaining troops, it is wrong to deny our country the service of brave, qualified people. We support the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and the implementation of policies to allow qualified men and women to serve openly regardless of sexual orientation

This is a big difference between Democrats and Republicans. Recall that the Republicans declared that "[e]sprit and cohesion are necessary for military effectiveness and success on the battlefield. ...we affirm...the benefits of traditional military culture, and the incompatibility of homosexuality with military service." Democrats say if you keep out the gays, you're keeping out what could be valuable skills and reducing the military's manpower when it's needed most. Republicans say that "homosexuality" is "incompatib[le]" "with military service" and would destroy "traditional military culture". Which is a bigger loss, the loss of the "necessary" "[e]spirit and cohesion", or the loss of the raw manpower and skills? Which is more important, camaraderie among the men or more of them? I don't know. I just don't know. (But if you put a gun to my head, I'd go for the raw manpower and skills, but then again I'm a hardcore loner.)

"Reform Contracting Practices and Make Contractors Accountable": "We believe taxpayer dollars should be spent to invest in our fighting men and women, not to fatten the pockets of private companies. We will instruct the Defense and State Departments to develop a strategy for determining when contracting makes sense, and when certain functions are "inherently governmental" and should not be contracted out." Hopefully they won't be biased in either direction, and are there cases of "inherently governmental" jobs that are being contracted out? Would government doing those jobs have resulted in waste? "We will establish the legal status of contractor personnel, making possible prosecution of any abuses committed by private military contractors, and create a system of improved oversight and management, so that government can restore honesty, openness, and efficiency to contracting and procurement." So Democrats would crack down on shoddy contracting jobs and make sure contractors actually do the job they were hired for, and institute other systems to prevent future abuses, but don't call for an end to no-bid contracts as directly as Republicans. And this issue gets the same paragraph the Republicans gave it.

"Working for Our Common Security":

To renew American leadership in the world, we will rebuild the alliances, partnerships, and institutions necessary to confront common threats and enhance common security. Needed reform of these alliances and institutions will not come by bullying other countries to ratify American demands. It will come when we convince other governments and peoples that they too have a stake in effective partnerships. It is only leadership if others join America in working toward our common security.

Makes sense as stated, if possibly distorting of the Republican position. It's not worth it to have an alliance that says "do what we say or we go 'regime change' all over your ass". That's not an alliance, that's a vassal. All this sounds like a good idea, and it's telling that "alliance" occurs only once in my Republican first two parts. The devil, as they say, is in the details. The Democrats promptly take a shot at Bush ("Too often, in recent years, we have sent the opposite signal to our international partners") and list some examples of Bush ignorance of the rest of the world: European opposition to the War in Iraq and leadership on climate change; "belittl[ing] South Korean efforts to improve relations with the North" (?), failing to confront the problems of Latin America, and standing idly by while genocide broke out in Darfur.

"Support Africa's Democratic Development": While the Republicans started their discussion of Africa by listing the well-known problems and tooting their own horn, the Democrats start things out by reflecting on Africa's place in the world economy. "We recognize Africa's promise as a trade and investment partner and the importance of policies that can contribute to sustainable economic growth, job creation, and poverty alleviation. We are committed to bringing the full weight of American leadership to bear in unlocking the spirit of entrepreneurship and economic independence that is sweeping across markets of Africa." If it's already "sweeping across markets of Africa", hasn't it already been unlocked? Other than that, that's an incredibly important point.

"We believe that sustainable economic growth and development will mitigate and even help to reverse such chronic and debilitating challenges as poverty, hunger, conflict, and HIV/AIDS. We are committed to bringing the full weight of American leadership to bear to work in partnership with Africa to confront these crises." A good, compassionate point. (Of course some might argue, "It doesn't affect me.") "We will work with the United Nations and Africa's regional organizations to prevent and resolve conflict and to build the capacity of Africa's weak and failing states. We must respond effectively when there is a humanitarian crisis–particularly at this moment in Sudan where genocide persists in Darfur and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement is threatened." Sounds like a good approach, although I hope you're also willing to work with the actual sides in any conflict, and if a state is structurally deficient do you really want to prop it up? Although then the alternative would be barging in and instituting regime change... and how did the Clinton administration deal with the genocide in Rwanda, eh? How would you rather government "respond effectively [to] a humanitarian crisis"?

(Fun fact: I was alive at the time, and still didn't hear about the Rwanda genocide in a way that made me remember it until I did a research project on the country in middle school.)

Many African countries have embraced democratization and economic liberalization. We will help strengthen Africa's democratic development and respect for human rights, while encouraging political and economic reforms that result in improved transparency and accountability. We will defend democracy and stand up for rule of law when it is under assault, such as in Zimbabwe.

Ah, so finally the Democrats mention the "rule of law"! You're basically stating a lot of goals without saying a lot about how you would achieve those goals. Republicans just devoted a sentence to expanding trade with Africa, and that was the extent of their coverage outside Darfur and Zimbabwe. Republicans actually specified they wanted sanctions and pillars of democracy to be reinstated instead of just name-dropping the situation. The Democrats actually want to work things out with other African nations to get them involved in Darfur instead of just demanding it, though.

"Recommit to an Alliance of the Americas": What? What is it?! Is it NAFTA II?! Is it an American Union?!? "We believe that in the 21st century, the U.S. must treat Latin America and the Caribbean as full partners, just as our neighbors to the south should reject the bombast of authoritarian bullies." Wow, them's fighting words! The Democrats blandly call for building on our bond with Canada. "An alliance of the Americas will only succeed if it is founded on the bedrock of mutual respect and works to advance democracy, opportunity, and security from the bottom-up." I still don't know what this "alliance of the Americas" is, but those sound like worthy goals independent of how they are to be achieved.

"We must work with close partners like Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia on issues like ending the drug trade, fighting poverty and inequality, and immigration." Fairly bland, get-done-with-it-and-move-on sentence. Those seem to be worthy goals though, but by "immigration", do you mean strictly illegal immigration? Are you talking about lowering the need for immigration or are you just saying "help us keep the brownies out"? Certainly not as much of a focus as the Republicans on "narco-terrorism". "We must work with the Caribbean community to help restore stability and the rule of law to Haiti, to improve the lives of its people, and to strengthen its democracy." Sounds like a good idea, and not touched on at all by the Republicans.

"And we must build ties to the people of Cuba and help advance their liberty by allowing unlimited family visits and remittances to the island, while presenting the Cuban regime with a clear choice: if it takes significant steps toward democracy, beginning with the unconditional release of all political prisoners, we will be prepared to take steps to begin normalizing relations." The Republican approach to Cuba was to call on the other nations in the region to "lay[] the groundwork for a democratic Cuba", "restrictions on trade with, and travel to, Cuba as a measure of solidarity with the political prisoners and all the oppressed Cuban people", transmitting American propaganda into Cuba, the gimmicky "Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba", and helping more Cuban refugees into the US. Most of these aren't really touched on in this sentence by the Democrats, but introducing more Cuban refugees into the US is probably the only part that's both uncontroversial and substantial.

Republicans want to maintain restrictions on trade and travel to show we're sticking up for the people of Cuba; Democrats think allowing such travel will "help advance their liberty" and "build ties" and is only using "normaliz[ed] relations" as the carrot on the stick to drag Cuba into democracy and releasing political prisoners. It seems like that's not enough of a carrot to drag Cuba in, unless there's a virtual embargo on trade that isn't travelling in and out but that almost seems to be a loophole. And it's possible that the current confrontational approach is retarding progress to a Democratic Cuba – isn't most of the Republican plan what we've been doing for the past 50 years? But I'd need to know what's the base of the Castro government's power and what the Cuban economy runs on to make a firm decision one way or the other as to what's the best strategy...

"Lead in Asia": We need to maintain our relationships with nations with which we have them, and build relationships with "vital democratic partners, like India" to help build "a stable and prosperous Asia". "We must also forge a more effective framework in Asia that goes beyond bilateral agreements, occasional summits, and ad hoc diplomatic arrangements." Good idea, but hopefully it's one that doesn't amount to the US lording over Asia. "We need an open and inclusive infrastructure with the countries in Asia that can promote stability, prosperity, and human rights, and help confront transnational threats, from terrorist cells in the Philippines to avian flu in Indonesia." Those sound like good goals.

We will encourage China to play a responsible role as a growing power–to help lead in addressing the common problems of the 21st century. We are committed to a "One China" policy and the Taiwan Relations Act, and will continue to support a peaceful resolution of cross-Straits issues that is consistent with the wishes and best interests of the people of Taiwan.

A "One China" policy is inherently pro-PRC, because there is no way the government in exile in Taiwan is going to ever become the government in charge of all of China, so that might contradict being committed as well to "the wishes and best interests of the people of Taiwan". The Republicans also supported the Taiwan Relations Act and that "all issues regarding the island's future must...be acceptable to the people of Taiwan." The Democrats have no call to prevent unilateral steps to shake up the status quo, or pledge of support to Taiwan in defense or as an ally (other than the TRA). Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

It's time to engage China on common interests like climate change, trade, and energy, even as we continue to encourage its shift to a more open society and a market-based economy, and promote greater respect for human rights, including freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, uncensored use of the internet, and Chinese workers' right to freedom of association, as well as the rights of Tibetans.

Good things to support but (unlike the Republicans) short on specifics. "Chinese workers' right to freedom of association" sounds like a shout-out to unions. Nothing here on Burma or anything more than a name-drop of Japan. The Democrats do want to keep the military junta in Burma under control and/or bring it towards democracy, right?

"Strengthen Transatlantic Relations": "We support the historic project to build a strong European Union that can be an even stronger partner for the United States." Hopefully not in a way that threatens the sovereignty of EU members. NATO has done a good job of turning into a peacekeeping organization, "but today, NATO's challenge in Afghanistan has exposed a gap between its missions and its capabilities. To close this gap, we will invest more in NATO's mission in Afghanistan and use that investment to leverage our NATO allies to contribute more resources to collective security operations and to invest more in reconstruction and stabilization capabilities." Shouldn't other NATO members also invest more in Afghanistan?

(Incidentially, a correction from my Republican Part II, when I said in jest that if "all democratic nations who share our values" could join NATO, so could such far-flung nations as Israel and Australia, but the rest of that sentence, which I quoted, involves "meet[ing] the requirements for NATO membership". Israel and Australia might not do that.)

"As we promote democracy and accountability in Russia, we must work with the country in areas of common interest–above all, in making sure that nuclear weapons and materials are secure." A worthy goal, but will that weaken our attempts to "promote democracy and accountability"? "We will insist that Russia abide by international law and respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbors." Obviously, but how will you make sure Russia actually does that? The Republicans would try and shut off Russian acceptance in various "world organizations".

We are committed to active Presidential leadership in the full implementation of the Irish Good Friday Agreement and St. Andrews Accords. We will seek to strengthen and broaden our strategic partnership with Turkey, end the division of Cyprus, and continue to support a close U.S. relationship with states that seek to strengthen their ties to NATO and the West, such as Georgia and Ukraine.

This is more coverage given to Cyprus and Northern Ireland than in the Republican platform.

"Stand with Allies and Pursue Diplomacy in the Middle East": America has long had the leading role in negotiating peace in the Holy Land. "Our starting point must always be our special relationship with Israel, grounded in shared interests and shared values, and a clear, strong, fundamental commitment to the security of Israel, our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy." So much for courting the support of groups that want Israel wiped off the face of the Earth.

That commitment, which requires us to ensure that Israel retains a qualitative edge for its national security and its right to self-defense, is all the more important as we contend with growing threats in the region–a strengthened Iran, a chaotic Iraq, the resurgence of Al Qaeda, the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah. We support the implementation of the memorandum of understanding that pledges $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade to enhance and ensure its security.

Gah. And you wonder why people say there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats even use the same "qualitative edge" phraseology as the Republicans, which I tore to shreds in my examination of the Republican platform. At least here it's "national security" and "self-defense" that are the given reasons for that "qualitative edge". For Israel to defend itself against those threats is important if it has the right to exist, but...

"It is in the best interests of all parties, including the United States, that we take an active role to help secure a lasting settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with a democratic, viable Palestinian state dedicated to living in peace and security side by side with the Jewish State of Israel." The Democrats want a two-state solution as well! Why don't we have it already then? But it needs to make sure the people of that Palestinian state are just as dedicated, and that means changing hearts and minds and holding Israel back from antagonizing the Palestinians. It also means, as I said in my Republican examination, making sure Jerusalem is accessible and open to people of all faiths that wish to come there.

To do so, we must help Israel identify and strengthen those partners who are truly committed to peace, while isolating those who seek conflict and instability, and stand with Israel against those who seek its destruction. The United States and its Quartet partners should continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel's right to exist, and abides by past agreements.

Now "isolating" Hamas is better than just refusing to negotiate with them. Refusing to negotiate prolongs conflict; isolation hastens productive negotiation. But we also need to destroy the underpinnings that strengthen Hamas and its anti-Israel stance, and isolation might make Hamas stronger, not weaker. We need to provide economic development to the Palestinians so they will be less inclined to support terror. It was the Democratic approach everywhere else, why isn't it here? "The creation of a Palestinian state through final status negotiations, together with an international compensation mechanism, should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel." Well, if we're going to have a two-state solution that would seem to be a good idea. "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." The last sentence is pretty much what my stance is, but I remain concerned about naming it the capital of Israel. Almost everything here is virtually identical to the Republican plan, with some details added to ease the concerns I had when the Republicans stated it.

I just passed 5,000 words, but I press on because the last two subsections are very short. "Deepen Ties with Emerging Powers":

We also will pursue effective collaboration on pressing global issues among all the major powers–including such newly emerging ones as China, India, Russia, Brazil, Nigeria, and South Africa. With India, we will build on the close partnership developed over the past decade. As two of the world's great, multi-ethnic democracies, the U.S. and India are natural strategic allies, and we must work together to advance our common interests and to combat the common threats of the 21st century. We believe it is in the United States' interest that all of these emerging powers and others assume a greater stake in promoting international peace and respect for human rights, including through their more constructive participation in key global institutions.

There's not much for me to say here. Of course working with major powers, including the new ones, is important to properly deal with international issues like climate change. Inserted into this is an empty platitude about our relationship with India of the sort the Republicans broke into an entire heading. Note to the Democrats and Republicans: India does not vote in this election.

"Revitalize Global Institutions":

To enhance global cooperation on issues from weapons proliferation to climate change, we need stronger international institutions. We believe that the United Nations is indispensable but requires far-reaching reform. The U.N. Secretariat's management practices remain inadequate. Peacekeeping operations are overextended. The new U.N. Human Rights Council remains biased and ineffective. Yet none of these problems will be solved unless America rededicates itself to the organization and its mission. We support reforming key global institutions —such as the U.N. Security Council and the G-8—so they will be more reflective of 21st century realities.

I'm a bit surprised the Democrats would include a call for UN reform, which is more of a Republican calling. In fact they're even more specific about the UN's problems. And now that you mention it, I do recall hearing stories about the HRC being staffed by the fox guarding the henhouse, the sort of people that should be condemned by the HRC instead of being on it. The Republicans didn't call for America to "rededicate[] itself to the organization and its mission", so how would they propose solving these problems?

There are areas the parties disagree and I agree with the Democrats. There are areas the parties disagree and I agree with the Republicans (though there aren't that many). But there are also a good number of places the parties agree. Is there a difference between Democrats and Republicans? Depends on where you look. More climate change fun ahead!