The Massachusetts Democratic convention is two weeks away, and there is now a working version that will be discussed in Worcester on June 3rd. Some have applauded the new draft – including three progressive groups that contributed amendments – for being the “most progressive” Massachusetts Democratic platform in history.

Good Stuff

To its credit, the 2013 draft includes calls for

• single-payer healthcare – although it’s not clear why it also propose a hodgepodge of other healthcare programs
• making the Commonwealth a sanctuary state
• public funding of elections – but will the state’s Democrats really give up their PACs?
• paid family leave
• free college education – well, maybe, because it also calls for “exploring” debt-free models of higher education
• a “decent living wage” – though a specific amount is not given
• infrastructure development, including broadband – though no mention of regulating monopolies like Comcast or ensuring net neutrality within the state
• a “millionaire’s tax” – along with tax breaks for “job creators”
• universal background checks for guns –”balanced” by more money for law-enforcement
• more money for veterans – which irks me for the same reason as the Commonwealth subsidizing ICE

And, to be fair, there are many good things in the platform. But some caution.

Their hearts weren’t in it

Massachusetts Democrats have been pushed to embrace many progressive positions they would normally have rejected – and they have been translated into ambiguities and weasel-words. Some positions are just a road too far for Democrats in a state that thinks it’s much more liberal than it actually is. The hearts of those who had to draft this “progressive” platform just weren’t in it.

In a previous post I looked at what was missing in the 2013 MassDems platform – and some things have indeed been fixed in a 2017 draft. At the time I observed that “the 2013 platform isn’t bad as a statement of liberal values – and the 2017 Progressives’ changes aren’t so radical as to give Democrats much heartburn.”

I was wrong. Apparently there was heartburn.

For example, the platform committee deleted the following plank from the 2013 final version:

“We want strong diplomacy and support nonviolent conflict resolution as a first resort in our domestic and foreign relations and call for a reduced military budget that allows for investment in human needs”

Attempts by progressive delegates to insert anti-militarism and foreign policy language into the platform were flatly rejected. The word “military” only appears in the Veterans section. Thank you for your service. Here, have some state money.

What’s still missing

• Foreign Policy and Militarism – stop supporting autocratic and undemocratic regimes – no more weaponry for Saudi Arabia – slash the military budget – end undeclared wars – insist on Congress’ right to declare wars – no more aid to Israel until they end settlements – no more aid for Egypt’s dictatorship
• Democratization of the Democratic Party – will we ever be rid of superdelegates?
• End the Surveillance State – enhance citizen privacy (a word that doesn’t appear even once in the document) – get rid of the Patriot Act – eliminate FISA courts – get rid of or make No Fly lists transparent – breathe life back into the 4th Amendment
• End useless tax breaks – remove vague language guaranteeing favorable tax rates for “businesses that generate community growth and participation” – Wal*Mart? really?
• Environment – now that EPA and Superfund money has been slashed, Massachusetts should sue for remediation (for example, Aerovox dumped PCBs in New Bedford’s harbor and then moved to Mexico) – strengthen our own MA Dept of Environmental Protection
• Healthcare backup plan – create with other Blue States a Single-Payer Healthcare system
• Restore Net Neutrality to the FCC
• Create a Citizen’s Data Bill of Rights guaranteeing that your personal and online data belongs to you and not to Comcast (Europeans have had this for years)

The platform is really the side-show

While the platform appears to be the main attraction, anything ironed out like this amounts to so much word salad. Modifying the party’s charter may appear to be a side-show, but it is arguably the more important objective. It turns out the platform is really the side-show.

Though there will be thousands of delegates and guests at the convention, the Massachusetts Democratic State Committee is the body that actually makes the decisions – think of it as your friendly Politburo. It’s also a fund-raising machine, so whatever values the platform holds are completely separate from those of the candidates the Committee funds.

The MassDems State Committee is the nation’s largest, weighing in at 418 members. Of this number only 80 members are actually voted upon by town delegates. Over 120 have permanent status and cannot be unseated as long as their bodies continue to twitch. Every year the number of these functionaries grows larger.

So let there be no confusion: the platform we are voting upon in two weeks is theirs, not ours. And in the long term, it’s changing the party charter that will actually make the difference.

What’s the difference between a pragmatist and a sell-out? When do you defend your line in the sand and when do you move away from it in compromise or for pragmatic reasons? What happens when others don’t see things your way? Do you take your marbles and go home? Invoke the nuclear option?

These questions confront us all the time when we consider how parliamentary democracies, our own Congress, our own party, and factions within it struggle with issues. We need not return to the 2016 Primary to see a Democratic party still licking its wounds and hashing out differences. Many of those differences are significant and painful ones that will require balancing principles and pragmatism.

As the Massachusetts Democratic Party convention approaches, two issues in particular have generated some heat. The first is abortion rights as a litmus test for Democrats, and the second is condemnation of Israeli settlements as a taboo for Democrats.

Choice as a Litmus Test

The first controversy was triggered by the endorsement of Omaha mayoral candidate Heath Mello by Bernie Sanders. Mello was an opponent of abortion whose views on the subject, like both Hillary Clinton’s and Tim Kaine’s, have supposedly “evolved.” Sanders made the case for “pragmatism” in endorsing Mello but many, including Ilyse Hogue of NARAL, pushed back. In a party without much tolerance for disagreement the issue is seen as “divisive.”

But compromising reproductive rights should be controversial – and painful. After all, these rights are written into not only the national party platform but the state party platform. It’s no trifling matter.

In an online discussion among “Our Revolution Massachusetts” (ORMA) members, which was a miniature of the national debate, one man drew a line in the sand, writing that support for abortion should be a litmus test for any Democratic candidate. But Betsy Smith, who signs off as a revolutionary grandma, answered him by suggesting that a constellation of progressive views might be more appropriate:

You wrote: “Even though I am a diehard Sanders supporter I wouldn’t vote for an anti-abortion candidate regardless of his otherwise progressive views. It’s one issue and one compromise I’m not willing to make.” So are you saying that if a candidate supported funding for science and the arts, proposed or signed onto legislation for single payer health insurance, was in favor of free college for all and a living wage, rather than just $15/hour, which is not always a living wage – are you saying that if a candidate who supported all these and other progressive ideas but was not pro-choice, you wouldn’t vote for them? What would you do? I’m assuming that it wouldn’t be to vote for the Republican. Would you write in your own name (or mine) as a protest or just not vote? I cannot understand, even as a woman who has seen friends damaged and unable to have children subsequent to an illegal abortion, being willing to throw everything else positive in the trash because of this one issue.

Israeli Settlements

The second controversy concerns an amendment to the Massachusetts Democratic platform to condemn Israeli settlements. It’s an issue that pits peace and human rights advocates against a party with strong links to AIPAC, including former AIPAC lobbyist Steve Grossman. Once again the party hopes to censor the debate by sticking a “divisive” label on it, pronouncing it toxic.

But settlements and, more broadly, the Israeli occupation, are human rights issues every bit as important as a woman’s right to choose. In a video seen this week a group of armed settlers descends on a group of Palestinian shepherds accompanied by a rabbi. They club and wound the rabbi. An Israeli helicopter immediately appears after the attack, reminding viewers that Israel’s government is complicit in settler violence and uses American “defense” gear to perpetuate an occupation and secure settlements.

Despite the reality seen in the video, the Democratic national party platform is filled with references to defending Israeli “democracy,” protecting it from Iran, assuring its military superiority, even insisting it be called a “Jewish” and “democratic” state – quite a departure from the usual separation of church and state the party and the nation stand for. Surely with all this love a little constructive criticism might be in order. But apparently it’s a bridge too far for some Democrats, particularly those receiving lobbyist cash.

Principles and Pragmatism

These two issues illustrate two very different ways of balancing principles and pragmatism.

In the case of reproductive choice the Democratic Party has a progressive principle some are willing to bend (or even abandon under the right circumstances) to win an election. Those who cry “divisive” the loudest are not willing to abandon that principle – and they’re right to cling to it tightly. Moreover, every one of us knows a woman, has a daughter or a niece. The issue has a personal dimension.

In the case of Israel, the party hold a deficient, even reactionary, principle that promotes militarism, occupation, and betrays the principle of separation of church and state. Those who cry “divisive” the loudest are not willing to abandon that principle – but it’s one that needs fixing. What’s different about this issue is that many Americans – and this includes Democrats – have little idea or much interest in knowing what really goes on in the rest of the world. Only about five or six percent of Americans care about foreign policy, and most don’t see the connection between foreign policy and our domestic reality. But just this week Democrats signed off on a $1.1 trillion spending package that sacrifices many domestic programs, and more than 60% of that package is money for war. There’s a connection.

Bernie Sanders took considerable flak for endorsing Heath Mello, particularly by party centrists. But if Democrats want to take back the cities, states, governors’ offices, and Congress, many argue it requires a 50-state strategy. As long as the candidate does not actively oppose a central principle (and Mello is not), the party can endorse him or her. But what if the candidate strongly opposes reproductive rights? Or marriage equality? Or some other Democratic constituency. What then?

Such a “pragmatic” approach includes the issue of Israeli settlements as well. If, for example, Elizabeth Warren, Ed Markey, and Bill Keating have deficient views on Israel – and they do – progressives might nevertheless support them because their good deeds outweigh their sins. Bernie Sanders’ positions on Israel anger some progressives, for example. Just last week Sanders voted with the entire US Senate to defend Israeli settlements from UN censure. Is it pragmatism or selling out? When it comes to resolutions and not legislation, can’t the party at least defend principles worth defending?

A party platform must be a document that serves not as a litmus test but as a set of principles representing our best values. A platform embraces principles that should never be compromised – or only compromised in the most extreme and critical of situations. Was the Omaha mayoral race critical? Doubtful. The Democratic Party must never espouse principles opposed to fundamental American values – and certainly none that violate human or civil rights. Which is why the party’s positions on Israel are so shameful. And if Mello had still been staunchly anti-abortion, Sanders’ endorsement would also have been shameful.

I hope we will have forthright and uncensored discussions about matters of principle at the MassDems convention on June 3rd. Those of you who are fellow delegates, please support the settlements amendment proposed by peace activist Carol Coakley. Alternatively I have proposed that the Massachusetts Democratic Party adopt the Washington State Democratic Party’s foreign policy planks. There are many more planks relating to economic and social justice issues worthy of support.

The Democratic party not only requires new and better management, it needs some new and better principles as well.