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!

A more optimistic view of Obama's term and our future

I think I depressed myself with my predictions for Obama's future and the future of the nation. So I want to use this space to present a more optimistic vision - a realistic optimistic vision, mind you.

Obama pulls the military out of Iraq before a year's time expires... and into Iran, which swiftly becomes a replay of Iraq. Obama compromises virtually everything the Left stands for in the stimulus package, including steps to repair the environment but not in the way Democrats would like. Obama does nothing to repair the damage done to the Constitution by the Bush Administration.

America slowly but surely pulls out of its economic funk, but very little actual "change" happens, even from the policies of the last eight years. Democrats gain a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in 2010 but lose some seats in the House. Many in the "netroots" decide to form their own nascent political movement for 2012, which attracts attention from both parties. The Republicans start to attract new attention as well, creating a climactic three-way showdown for the Presidency.

Who comes out on top... is anyone's guess.

Wait. That's still too depressing no matter what happens. Even if the new political movement wins, it will have less real experience in all its leaders combined than Obama alone, and it'll have fallen behind in the past four years. Let's try that again.

Obama enters office aware as few are of the many critical problems facing America and just how much we stand at a critical moment in American history.

Obama swiftly pulls the military out of Iraq before a year's time expires, and the country becomes relatively stable, though hardly the stablest in the region. Recognizing the immense magnitude of the problem of the environment, Obama loads over half the stimulus package with programs intended to help correct American greenhouse gas emissions, with the goal of lowering those emissions as much as humanly possible by the end of his first term. The rest of the package, including new education programs, is essentially Obama's own version of the New Deal.

By 2010, America is already - slowly but surely - pulling out of its economic funk. Republicans claim it was never going to be as bad as a second Great Depression unless Obama screwed it up, but that falls on deaf ears. Many are disappointed at how little actual "change" has occured so far, as Obama has been preoccupied by the economic meltdown and tension in various foreign nations, not to mention growing into the job of President, as well as balancing economic stimulus with not becoming a vassal of China. Nonetheless the Democrats once again increase their lead in both houses of Congress.

By 2012, Obama has probably been a B president, maybe slightly worse than Clinton, which isn't really a knock on Obama. The main knock on his record is that foreign leaders seem to respect Obama the person more than America the country, but the anti-America rallies have greatly subsided, and things have mostly returned to a Clinton-era status quo, as though the years 2001-2008 never happened, although America is still aggressively pursuing terrorists, this time with greater cooperation with foreign governments and greater success. After taking greater control of Congress in 2010, Obama starts to make far greater headway on his various proposals, previously stonewalled by Republicans. With America peaceful and prosperous, and much of the damage done to the Constitution and the environment either repaired or in the process of being repaired, Obama and the Democrats win a resounding victory and the Republicans fall into disarray.

By 2014, the Republicans are no longer in the top two largest third parties in America.


How much did you like that assessment? How much did you like it compared to the other two?

Here's the important part: From the present vantage point, all three of those predictions could be equally likely to happen.

Obama could be so grossly incompetent as to fracture the country, lead to the rise of a modern Hitler, and combined with the ravages to the environment, end modern civilization as we know it. He could turn out to be a Trojan horse, Bush 2.0, who forces the Left to break with the Democrats to get their agenda moving. He could turn out to be a modern FDR who effectively kills the Republican party by contrasting his Presidency with George W. Bush's.

Any or all of those things may happen.

Republicans would probably prefer the second of these scenarios happened, maybe the first in some radical sectors (quasi-fascist areas, religious righters who think the first scenario would trigger the Second Coming). Democrats would probably prefer the third. We don't know enough about Obama to know which direction things would take if left to their own devices.

But the rest of you would not like it to be the first scenario.

Politics, much as we hate to admit it, matters. It matters in our own daily lives and those of countless others. If we don't pay attention to politics and what's happening in our world, we can be blindsided by the consequences - and we won't even know why they're happening.

But if it turns out to be the first scenario, what can be done to stop it?

The power lies with you.

You have the power to vote for the people you agree with, the people who will best represent your own interests and those of the country.

You have the power to keep yourself informed and see what's coming before it happens.

You have the power to educate yourself and make sure you're confident in the direction you think the country should take.

You have the power not to stand for it if things start to go to hell in a handbasket. Stage protests, circulate petitions, gin up opposition, do whatever you need to to stand for what you believe in.

In ten years, America could be fighting in Armageddon... or it could be in the middle of one of its biggest Golden Ages.

Your vote matters. What happens over the next 4-8 years matters.

And some fairly small differences could determine which path America takes.

The ball, right now, is in Barack Obama's court. But however he serves it back, it's far more important to determine what happens after that.

The ultimate power lies with you.

Da Blog's Predictions for 2009

Because a lot of sites I visit are putting up predictions for the new year, so am I, and I'll check back in at year's end to see how I did:

• The year in sports is a massive disappointment. The Super Bowl pits the Dolphins against the Vikings. North Carolina, after an undefeated regular season, loses in the Final Four and the national championship pits UCLA against UConn. The game is a laugher. Cleveland beats San Antonio in the NBA Finals; the Knicks just barely miss the playoffs and LeBron James signs a contract extention to stay in Cleveland after winning his first championship. Mike D'Antoni agrees to a buyout soon thereafter to coach LeBron in Cleveland, condemning the Knicks to a decade of mediocrity. The Stanley Cup Playoffs pit the Calgary Flames against the Montreal Canadiens, and America tunes out. So does Canada when it turns into a four-game sweep that's not that close. Neither the Red Sox nor Yankees make the ALCS, and one of them misses the playoffs as Tampa Bay and Philadelphia square off again in the World Series.
• Tiger Woods comes back too soon, finishing second in the Masters, and misses most of 2009, raising concerns he may retire. Jimmie Johnson wins yet another Sprint Cup in a laugher, and by the end of the season he's winning races basically by showing up, with all the teams quitting. Rafael Nadal is the only player to win at least two majors of either gender, and Roger Federer never makes a major final. USC, Cincinnati, and Alabama are the only three undefeated teams by week 4; they stay that way through the end, and USC routs Alabama in the national championship. There are no BCS buster mid-majors. At least one minor league cancels either the 2009 or 2010 season, and at least one MLS team folds. The IRL cuts back drastically on the 2010 season, and doesn't so much pass NASCAR as NASCAR passes it backwards. By 2012, though, the IRL is back to 2008 levels, and returns to ESPN in 2018. UFC effectively becomes NASCAR's replacement as one of the four major sports, and shows it wasn't moving to pay-per-view that killed boxing.
• The Olympics moves to ESPN and ABC after landing in Chicago. NBC immediately pulls out of the NHL following the 2009-2010 season. ESPN becomes the exclusive cable home of the NHL (beyond NHL Network) after 2011.
• The Saints challenge for the NFC South, and the Lions are at least respectable. Brett Favre retires and the Jets become the new Lions. Matt Cassel bolts from New England to join the Jaguars, who instantly become a Super Bowl contender. Tom Brady comes back a clearly different player, and the Pats begin a slow slide into mediocrity. The Cowboys self-destruct and don't even challenge for the playoffs. The Titans trade Vince Young to Houston in the offseason.
• Barack Obama finds himself frazzled by the vexing economic crisis and various foreign crises. Troops are out of Iraq by June, but by August Iraq is effectively ruled by several cabals of warlords. Obama uses the money freed up by exiting Iraq to institute his own version of the New Deal, but it doesn't work very well. Meanwhile little actual "change" happens, even from the politics of the last eight years, and when Obama calls in the military to break up a food riot in November, many in his own party compare him to Bush, and the "netroots" begin forming their own nascent political movement for 2012.
• By 2012, that movement has gained enough steam to attract attention (and support) from both major parties. However, the economic crisis has only gotten worse and the US has effectively become a vassal state of China... and the Republicans, as a result, prove far more resilient than expected after adopting a bizarre fascist-anarchist policy, a strange kitbashing of the politics of Ron Paul and George W. Bush. Before 2020, World War III has erupted, and America is Nazi Germany after the GOP win the 2012 elections, the last to be held under the Constitution of 1776. The 2016 Olympics become America's 1936 Munich Games, and come complete with a past-his-prime Michael Phelps being dragged back to the pool. The world comes out of the war with the economy back on track, but set back to the Middle Ages if not before. China, India, and Japan become the new "modern" world powers with Depression-era technology, set back from reaching 1950s-era technology by the ravages to the environment. The Amazon becomes a desert; Canada and Russia become the world's new breadbasket.
• The Internet undergoes its latest metamorphosis. By the end of the year, it is as good at watching video as the average television. In the short term, it only benefits from the deepening economic crisis. When the Obama administration passes a universal broadband bill, it sparks an Internet revolution, and blogs become the new MySpace, since you can at least theoretically make money off them. Internet advertising finally becomes viable, if only because nothing else is.
• Webcomics undergo an explosion during this time. A Penny Arcade TV series is commissioned for Cartoon Network's Adult Swim block by year's end. By 2010, a Girl Genius movie is in development, and rumors of an Order of the Stick movie persist as well. Sandsday becomes the biggest new thing in webcomics, and by year's end I'm fighting off TV series offers of my own.
• Da Blog attracts two huge followings in particular: people looking for webcomics criticism, who singlehandedly make it ten times more popular than Websnark ever was, rendering my getting a real job unnecessary, and people looking for straight-dope political analysis. Da Blog plays a significant role in attracting new audiences to politics, healing the rifts of our political landscape, and shaping the aforementioned nascent political movement.

And that just left me incredibly drained and depressed. I think it's better if I don't try to predict what happens, and just try and enjoy the ride. You should try it some time.

A Notice to People Without a Horse in This Race

If you're a third party, who do you root for to win today?

Obviously you want your own candidates to win. But chances are your candidates don't really have a chance to win, and the President, I can guarantee with 99.9% certainty, will either be John McCain or Barack Obama. Which one would you prefer to see become President of the United States?

If your party is just an extreme version of the Democrats or Republicans, you probably back the candidate that will do the most to advance your views. But what if you're a party that genuinely sees no difference between Democrats and Republicans - that legitimately thinks it can draw some support from both political parties, that sees Obama and McCain as equally objectionable? Equally intolerable, even?

What do you root for then, in a race between Satan and Satan? Which one might exceed your expectations, which one might turn out to be a half-decent president?

I'll tell you who you root for.

You root for Obama to win... and subsequently turn out to be a Bush third term.

Because nothing else would underscore the lack of a difference between Democrats and Republicans better. With an abusive Democratic president and the abuses of Bush still fresh in the minds of the electorate, the field in 2012 would be ripe for a third party or independent to come along and propose real change. The Democrats have done nothing for two years to stop Bush's power grab for the executive branch. There is very little to suggest that Barack Obama won't say, "Hey Bush, thanks for leaving me all this power! Why would I ever get rid of it?"

Rooting for Obama is a crap shoot. If the Democrats, given a mandate by a resounding Obama victory, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and a massive majority in the House, successfully roll back the abuses of Bush, pull us out of Iraq, and helm four years of increasing peace and (relative) prosperity, they have a blank check for a generation. That would utterly destroy the Republican party, and it also would sour the mood against the sorts of thoughts on which third party and independent campaigns most flourish - like "neither party has my interests in mind anyway".

To be sure, having a Democratic blank check could create a field in which a multitude of third parties attempt to fill the vacuum left by the decline of the Republicans, trying to focus in on various parts of the Republican coalition, or trying to position themselves to the left of the Democrats. And it can certainly seem pyrrhic to hope that Obama becomes Stalin to Bush's Lenin, for pure partisan political purposes, while also hoping he doesn't abolish the election system entirely. But if it does happen, if Obama makes Bush look like Lincoln, a third party candidate could well have the opportunity to win right away - and win seats in Congress.

That's not the reason I'm likely voting for Obama today - from what I can tell (and with a shockingly low level of actual, firm policy positions linked to on either the candidate's or the party's site, that's not much), the third party candidate closest to my views on the environment (that's not outwardly socialist) seems to almost brush off the Bush abuses of power, with no reference to Guantanamo Bay in the version of the party's platform I encountered, and the Patriot Act reduced to a sentence in a section on "criminal justice". But it is why I intend to keep a VERY close eye out on what the Democrats actually do once they have power. This election may be historic, but the days and months following it could well be equally historic.

Examining the Republican Platform Part VII: “Education Means a More Competitive America”

This is continued from Parts I-VI of my examination of the Republican Platform. If you saw Sports Watcher Friday after I reposted it, you know I made a big understatement there.


We move on to Part VII, "Education Means a More Competitive America", and what funny buzzwords the Republicans have for bilingual students that can measure up to "English Language Learners"! "Maintaining America's preeminence requires a world-class system of education, with high standards, in which all students can reach their potential. That requires considerable improvement over our current 70 percent high school graduation rate and six-year graduation rate of only 57 percent for colleges." That certainly sounds bad and needing improvement. That's a C (maybe D) and an F respectively. But as with the Democrats, let's make sure we're not using grade inflation to improve them.

Education is essential to competitiveness, but it is more than just training for the work force of the future. It is through education that we ensure the transmission of a culture, a set of values we hold in common. It has prepared generations for responsible citizenship in a free society, and it must continue to do so. Our party is committed to restoring the civic mission of schools envisioned by the founders of the American public school system. Civic education, both in the classroom and through service learning, should be a cornerstone of American public education and should be central to future school reform efforts.

This is almost a bizarre paragraph for the admissions it makes. Education is responsible for the transmission of "a set of values"? The family has nothing to do with it? The meat of the paragraph – about preparing people to be good citizens – is pretty much all stuff you can say "hear, hear!" to, it's just, I don't know what the stuff about "values" is about.

"Principles for Elementary and Secondary Education":

All children should have access to an excellent education that empowers them to secure their own freedom and contribute to the betterment of our society. We reaffirm the principles that have been the foundation of the nation's educational progress toward that goal: accountability for student academic achievement; periodic testing on the fundamentals of learning, especially math and reading, history and geography; transparency, so parents and the general public know which schools best serve their students; and flexibility and freedom to innovate so schools and districts can best meet the needs of their students.

Odd to see some of those things called the "foundation" of the education system, but okay. These things sound like good principles, but it'd be nice to see how they come forth in practice, especially the one about testing.

We advocate policies and methods that are proven and effective: building on the basics, especially phonics; ending social promotion; merit pay for good teachers; classroom discipline; parental involvement; and strong leadership by principals. We reject a one-size-fits-all approach and support parental options, including home schooling, and local innovations such as schools or classes for boys only or for girls only and alternative and innovative school schedules.

What the heck is "social promotion"? Most of these seem to be good approaches, pending whatever "social promotion" is. Do any of these give any unfair advantages to the rich over the poor? It sounds like home schooling does. One-gender education sounds risky. "[A]lternative and innovative school schedules" seem worth trying though. "We recognize and appreciate the importance of innovative education environments, particularly homeschooling, for stimulating academic achievement." Wow, it seems so odd to see the Republicans so high on homeschooling, dropping it twice in as many sentences. It's damn near impossible for the poor to implement, so do you have any help for them there? Would any help even be possible? "We oppose over-reaching judicial decisions which deny children access to such environments." Well, that helps explain the emphasis on homeschooling. I'd like to know what these "over-reaching judicial decisions" were and what the grounds for them were.

"We support state efforts to build coordination between elementary and secondary education and higher education such as K-16 councils and dual credit programs." Sounds good. "To ensure that all students will have access to the mainstream of American life, we support the English First approach and oppose divisive programs that limit students' future potential. All students must be literate in English, our common language, to participate in the promise of America." The Democrats never directly say they would keep us from turning into Quebec, but at least nominally, their early-stage second language program is intended to raise students' future potential and allow them to compete in the global economy. So Democrats support teaching kids second languages but neglect to reassure us sufficiently they will protect English as the primary language, while the Republicans reject such programs altogether as "divisive" (a valid point, maybe not necessarily sound, but valid) and don't suggest they would do anything to help Americans compete in the global economy like kids in Europe learn English.

"Early Childhood Education":

The family is the most powerful influence on a child's ability to succeed. As such, parents are our children's first and foremost teachers. We support family literacy, which improves the literacy, language, and life skills of both parents and children along with the continued improvement of early childhood programs, such as Head Start, from low-income families. We reaffirm our support for the child care tax credit that helps parents choose the care best for their family.

Not sure what "family literacy" means in this sense. Democrats proposed their "Children's First Agenda" to boost Head Start and invest in Pre-K, among other things – it was short on specifics and long on buzzwords. Democrats want "quality, affordable early childhood care and education" but don't say much about how, other than the above, and the Republicans back the existing "child care tax credit". Neither party seems to make this much of a priority, to say the least.

"Giving Students the Best Teachers":

For students to meet world class standards, they must have access to world class teachers, whether in person or through virtual public schools that can bring high-quality instruction into the classroom. School districts must have the authority to recruit, reward, and retain the best and brightest teachers, and principals must have the authority to select and assign teachers without regard to collective bargaining agreements.

These are all valid points. We need to be able to keep the best teachers and not keep bad ones just because the union would complain. The Democrats also recognized this need, but would fix it by providing more support and training, and even where there are lost causes "find a quick and fair way—consistent with due process—to put another teacher in that classroom."

"Because qualified teachers are often not available through traditional routes, we support local efforts to create an adjunct teacher corps of experts from higher education, business, and the military to fill in when needed." Well, that's a bizarre idea. "Kids, we couldn't find enough teachers to staff the school today. Here's a college professor who knows so much he'd probably die if he had to bring himself to your level! Or, here's a businessperson who wants to get back to the office and has no teaching experience whatsoever! Or, here's a soldier! Don't you love getting the same educational experience as a third world country?" Wouldn't encouraging more people to become teachers like the Democrats propose be a better approach in the long term? (Although that might create a bunch of crap teachers... and the Democrats did want to "streamline the certification process for those with valuable skills who want to shift careers and teach", which I was concerned about causing more wannabe teachers slipping through the cracks and coming out crap.)

BAM BAM BAM! You know what that sound means! Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiit's Take A Shot At Trial Lawyers Time! "Teachers must be protected against frivolous litigation and should be able to take reasonable actions to maintain discipline and order in the classroom." As always, what about legit lawsuits? "We encourage the private-public partnerships and mentoring that can make classroom time more meaningful to students by integrating it with learning beyond school walls. These efforts are crucial to lowering the drop-out rate and helping at-risk students realize their potential." Privatize! Privatize! Privatize! Actually this is all pretty much agreeable and arguably important, and the Democrats want to "address the dropout crisis by investing in intervention strategies in middle schools and high schools", once again ignoring the line about how an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. (I don't see the word "tutor" in either party's discussion of education.)

"We encourage state efforts to ensure that personnel who interact with children pass thorough background checks and are held to the highest standards of conduct." Well, that's just common sense.

Partnerships between schools and businesses can be especially important in STEM subjects: science, technology, engineering and math. The need to improve secondary education in those fields can be measured by the number of remedial courses now offered at the college level. Our country's reliance upon foreign talent in those areas begins with insufficient emphasis upon them in the high school years. We applaud those who are changing that situation by giving young people real-world experience in the private sector and by providing students with rigorous technical and academic courses that give students the skills and knowledge necessary to be productive members in a competitive American workforce.

The first half of this paragraph makes some very good points and pretty much convinces me of more investment here. Not sure if we need to go all the way to "real-world experience in the private sector" and other things that seem to have college more in mind, especially when you consider the "remedial" courses which suggests bringing our secondary-school courses back to "normal" would be a more important first step. Does someone who's going to become a journalist need to go through "rigorous technical and academic courses" in high school? Or are you only addressing ways to fix the problem in college? Because it seems like from your own assessment of the problem, let's see what happens when we fix secondary teaching of these subjects first. Unfortunately, the Democrats don't really touch on this at all. The Democrats don't touch on most of these things, in fact. On the other hand, the Republicans aren't as concerned at creating more "best and brightest" teachers, or about making sure the poor have the best teachers they can. Bringing up the poor, after all, is part of the point of the public school system.

"Asserting Family Rights in Schooling": "Parents should be able to decide the learning environment that is best for their child. We support choice in education for all families, especially those with children trapped in dangerous and failing schools, whether through charter schools, vouchers or tax credits for attending faith-based or other non-public schools, or the option of home schooling." Harping on home schooling again. It certainly sounds like a worthy goal to get kids out of "dangerous and failing schools" whenever possible, even though it sounds like you would abandon them instead of trying to reform them; I said in my Democratic platform examination (Part II) that "[p]unishing a school for failure only perpetuates and deepens the divide between rich and poor schools", but it sounds like you may have something in mind to get around that problem. But I've heard there's some debate on the topic of vouchers, and you're getting into dodgy territory if you're helping people get into "faith-based" schools, both on First Amendment grounds and on whether "faith-based" schools are really the best education. But charter schools sound good – and were proposed by the Democrats as well.

"We call for the vigilant enforcement of laws designed to protect family rights and privacy in education." Sounds good; if you're not going to enforce them, change them. "We will energetically assert the right of students to engage in voluntary prayer in schools and to have equal access to school facilities for religious purposes." As long as that prayer is voluntary and respected yet not overly supported, and as long as it respects Muslim prayer to the same extent as Christian prayer (to the same extent as atheist non-prayer).

We renew our call for replacing "family planning" programs for teens with increased funding for abstinence education, which teaches abstinence until marriage as the responsible and expected standard of behavior. Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS when transmitted sexually. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for abortion and contraception.

If only abstinence education, you know, worked. Turns out teens don't stop being horny just because they're told not to. It's understandable that you would oppose offering abortion services, but at least tell kids "if you do give in to temptation, at least have a condom handy". "Schools should not ask children to answer offensive or intrusive personal non-academic questionnaires without parental consent." Sounds like a good stance to take, but what are these "offensive or intrusive...questionnaires" actually asking? "It is not the role of the teacher or school administration to recommend or require the use of psychotropic medications that must be prescribed by a physician." Again, sounds reasonable.

"Reviewing the Federal Role in Primary and Secondary Education":

Although the Constitution assigns the federal government no role in local education, Washington's authority over the nation's schools has increased dramatically. In less than a decade, annual federal funding has shot up 41 percent to almost $25 billion, while the regulatory burden on state and local governments has risen by about 6.7 million hours – and added $141 million in costs – during that time. We call for a review of Department of Education programs and administration to identify and eliminate ineffective programs, to respect the role of states, and to better meet state needs. To get our schools back to the basics of learning, we support initiatives to block-grant more Department of Education funding to the states, with requirements for state-level standards, assessments, and public reporting to ensure transparency.

This goes along with all the Republicans' emphasis on curbing government waste. Also pushing a "states' rights" tack. This all seems reasonable as stated, although "block-grant"? And more pushing for "standards" and "assessments" that have been pushed for years. "Local educators must be free to end ineffective programs and reallocate resources where they are most needed." Hopefully they would also be free to fix those ineffective programs if they're fixable.

"Maintaining Our Commitment to IDEA": "Because a federal mandate on the states must include the promised federal funding, we will fulfill the promise of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to cover 40 percent of the costs incurred because of that legislation. We urge preventive efforts in early childhood, especially assistance in gaining pre-reading skills, to help many youngsters move beyond the need for IDEA's protections." The Democrats also "support full funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act" and I'm not sure the Republicans are pushing "full funding" here. So either the Republicans aren't giving enough support to "individuals with disabilities" or the Democrats are throwing more money away. I hope the Republicans aren't brushing off learning disabilities in that last sentence.

And why are Republicans seemingly completely unconcerned about bridging the gap for minority and poor students? The Democrats also gave more emphasis to special education (beyond IDEA) and those "English Language Learners" – other than that bit of "learn English" at the start, which was aimed for native-born Americans, the Republicans never mentioned bilingual students at all. On the flip side, the GOP vowed to allow teachers to maintain order without threat of frivolous lawsuit, help students see the things they're learning in action, make sure we're not hiring sex offenders as teachers, and make us more competitive in our math and science education. The Democrats also don't address prayer in schools, sex education, or (so far) cutting Department of Education waste. Republicans also refrain from trying to "hold [parents] accountable", as the Democrats did, but other than their fixation on home schooling, neither do they take the opposite tack and say what would have been an easy line: "we do not believe government should tell parents how to raise their kids" or "government should not interfere in parenting".

Had I included this section in Part VI it would have been around 6,000 words.

"Higher Education": The GOP praises higher education of all stripes "for its excellence, its diversity, and its accessibility. ...Post-secondary education not only increases the earnings of individuals but advances economic development. Our colleges and universities drive much of the research that keeps America competitive. We must ensure that our higher education system meet the needs of the 21st century student and economy and remain innovative and accessible." Certainly important points and good sentiments.

"Meeting College Costs": College costs are outpacing inflation, and seem immune to normal market forces (something I'd like to see explored further if true). "We commend those institutions which are directing a greater proportion of their endowment revenues toward tuition relief."

The Republican vision for expanding access to higher education has led to two major advances, Education Savings Accounts and Section 529 accounts, by which millions of families now save for college. While federal student loans and grants have opened doors to learning for untold numbers of low- and middle-income students, the overall financial aid system, with its daunting forms and confused rationales, is nothing less than Byzantine. It must be simplified. We call for a presidential commission to undertake that task and to review the role of government regulations and policies in the tuition spiral. We affirm our support for the public-private partnership that now offers students and their families a vibrant marketplace in selecting their student loan provider.

Here's an idea for a drinking game. Start from Part I of this examination and continue going through part by part, or just read the platform itself. Drink once every time the Republicans take a shot at trial lawyers and "frivolous lawsuits", once every time the Republicans propose privatizing something, and twice for any permutation of the exact phrase "public-private partnership" (or "private-public partnership"). You'll be stoned in no time. Throw in a drink for any permutation of the phrase "___ Savings Accounts" for good measure. Throw in a drink for any time the Republicans complain something has gotten too complex and wasteful and must be "simplified" or otherwise reformed.

The only policy position listed is this "presidential commission" to review the financial aid process; the rest is affirming policies and practices that already exist. The Democrats wanted to create a gimmicky "American Opportunity Tax Credit" of $4,000, with the "expectation" of community service attached (Republicans may have taken a shot at this requirement much earlier in the platform, and they see the GOP's "presidential commission" and raise them a checkbox on the tax form. I had doubts about the checkbox at the time, but now it just sounds like actually doing something about a problem instead of talking about it like the GOP wants to do. Think about that as you look back on previous parts and previous "studies" and "commissions".

"Innovation Will Lead to Lifelong Learning":

The challenge to American higher education is to make sure students can access education in whatever forms they want. As mobility increases in all aspects of American life, student mobility, from school to school and from campus to campus, will require new approaches to admissions, evaluations, and credentialing. Distance learning propelled by an expanding telecommunications sector and especially broadband, is certain to grow in importance – whether through public or private institutions – and federal law should not discriminate against the latter. Lifelong learning will continue to transform the demographics of higher education, bringing older students and real-world experience to campus.

To truly assess any of this we need to compare it to Democratic positions. The Democrats "support education delivery that makes it possible for non-traditional students to receive support and encouragement to obtain a college education, including Internet, distance education, and night and weekend programs." The Republicans don't really mention the first and last on that list. The Democrats don't address student mobility, though, and sort of talk around the idea of "lifelong learning" in two sentences: "we will invest in short-term accelerated training and technical certifications for the unemployed and under-employed to speed their transition to careers in high-demand occupations and emerging industries" and a call to "invest in training and education to prepare incumbent job-holders with skills to meet the rigors of the new economic environment and provide them access to the broad knowledge and concrete tools offered by apprenticeships, internships, and postsecondary education."

"Community Colleges Continue to Play a Crucial Role": (Who says political parties are shy to adopt literary conventions like alliteration?) This is really just a shout-out to community colleges, not stipulating any policy positions whatsoever. The Republicans praise community colleges' role as a "bridge[] between the world of work and the classroom", a place for veterans to gain needed skills to transition to civilian life, and in a weird analogy (especially considering the relatively recent vintage of the key phrase), "[a]s the first responders to economic development and retraining of workers". But unlike the Democrats, they don't "reward successful community colleges with grants so they can continue their good work". Of course, that might be considered throwing money away.

"Special Challenges in Higher Education": "Free speech on college campuses is to be celebrated, but there should be no place in academia for anti-Semitism or racism of any kind." What "anti-Semitism" is this referring to? Are Republicans concerned about professors being critical of Israel? Is "racism" referring to affirmative action, or "whitey sucks"? Do Republicans want institutions of higher education to say Israel and white people can do no wrong, or do they just want to kick out the "death to Israel" and "whitey sucks" people?

We oppose the hiring, firing, tenure, and promotion practices at universities that discriminate on the basis of political or ideological belief. When federal taxes are used to support such practices, it is inexcusable. We affirm the right of students and faculty to express their views in the face of the leftist dogmatism that dominates many institutions. To preserve the integrity and independence of the nation's colleges, we will continue to ensure alternatives to ideological accrediting systems.

This certainly sounds like a good idea, but what about universities that kick out any professors who espouse any "political or ideological belief", on the grounds that they're "indoctrinating their students"? The "affirm[ation]" of "the right of students and faculty to express their views" suggests the Republicans would indeed protect those people, at least if they're on the right. What "alternatives to ideological accrediting systems" do you propose/want to sustain? Regardless, the Democrats haven't touched on this issue at all.

Because some of the nation's leading universities create or tolerate a hostile atmosphere toward the ROTC, we will rigorously enforce the provision of law, unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court, which denies those institutions federal research grants unless their military students have the full rights and privileges of other students. That must include the right to engage in ROTC activities on their own campus, rather than being segregated elsewhere.

For the most part, this sounds good, but what are "ROTC activities", trying to recruit other students? The Republicans didn't really pledge their support for colleges' and universities' research role here either.

This is another short part, but because of going longer than anticipated. The discussion of education passed 3,000 words all on its own, and I made special emphasis to look at the Democratic plan in order to stretch it out, which was good for making it longer than the last part on health care. This last paragraph is carrying us past 4,000. We keep pressing on towards the end of the Republican platform – only two more parts to go! (A note on the Democratic platform series: I may wait to post the last two parts until I have both done...)

The defense rests.

This was supposed to be the Closing Argument for this series. So naturally I didn't get started until 1 AM, so it's a piece of crap, AND it's been raining at just about every time I've attempted to post at the near by, finicky connection that doesn't have any cover, but the longer and more angering trip to a connection under cover, when I tried it once, saw no rain outside, which is almost enough to make one believe in a vindictive God that hates me for something. (It was clear for long enough to upload the strip, but I had to dash under a nearby cover to actually have it show up on the site, and then Buzzcomix started acting finicky on me when I attempted to update the status line.)

You probably think my platform reviews are boring. I think my platform reviews are boring. Honestly, I originally saw them as a fairly minor part of a larger plan, despite the obvious fact they would probably need to be broken up into multiple parts, and I'm going to be rushing to try and salvage anything from that plan. (It didn't help that I got such a late start on them. They should have taken one week: no more. But if I were doing a half decent job of them I should be completing three a day.) But if you find them completely irrelevant and not even worth studying, I don't know what to tell you. If you think it's not worth it to study them, even when you know this is going to determine the direction the country is going to take in the next four years... then click the link at the start of this post. And click the link at the top of the page that appears. And read it. All of it. Tell your friends. Send it to friends in future elections. And if you think I could have done better, by all means let me know how.

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!