On a Platform: Candidates are Standing on their Party’s Ideas

The party conventions offer more than presidential candidates; they also deliver clearly-stated goals and principles in the form of party platforms.

Each party writes a (typically quite long) document that outlines its recent accomplishments, beliefs, and plans for the future. By carefully comparing party platforms, one can see where the parties agree and where they diverge.

The platforms also reveal the weight and power of the parties themselves, since platform committee members (who are typically powerful people within the party) compose and finalize the platforms which guide the candidates. Though candidates are not bound to party platforms, John Kerry and George W. Bush are likely to follow their platforms closely.

Structure

The Democratic and Republican 2004 party platforms are remarkably similar in structure. Both begin with discussions about security and the war on terror, in order to underscore these issues as top priorities. Next, both offer lengthy sections on the economy and tax cuts. Healthcare and education come next, followed by views of human behaviors which some people wish to control through law and others wish to leave to personal choice. These behaviors such as abortion and same-sex marriage are often glossed over by calling them "social issues".

Perhaps the Republican platform follows the format of the Democratic platform (which came out first) because, in many ways, it is an answer to Democrats’ claims.

Following this structure, WomenMatter looks at the two parties’ proposals on security and the war on terror, the economy, healthcare, and "social issues".

Platform analysis: the war on terror

Both parties recognize the safety and security of the American people as their number-one priority.

The Democrats’ platform discusses the war on terror as a global struggle. It claims that international cooperation is vital, since terrorists are operating in at least 60 nations. Democrats want to strengthen current alliances and to create new ones. They say that Bush failed in diplomacy and has alienated the international community, thereby leaving the U.S. more vulnerable.

In contrast, the Republican platform claims various successes in the war on terror. In response to Democrats’ claims, Republicans contend that Bush has effectively utilized alliances and reminds voters that more than 30 nations have contributed armed forces to the efforts in Iraq. Both parties propose to strengthen and modernize the U.S. military, to stabilize Iraq, and to decrease U.S. dependence on Mideast oil. To accomplish the latter, Democrats propose to develop renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and hydrogen power while Republicans want to explore possible crude oil resources in Alaska, along with some development of renewable energy sources.

Overall, the Democrats’ and Republicans’ positions on security are fairly similar. Both consider the war on terror to be an urgent priority, both support the war in Iraq, and both promise to fully fund homeland security and operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. To influence voters, Democrats point out specific ways in which security could be strengthened (i.e. port and rail security and increased funding to first responders), while Republicans focus on progress made (Saddam’s capture, increased security).

Both parties are trying to convince voters that they won’t be safe if they vote for the other guy. But both parties are clearly committed to homeland security -- it’s a top priority for everyone.

Platform analysis: the economy

Democrats emphasize the importance of job growth to a strong economy. They attribute the slow job growth of recent years to Bush’s tax policies, which they say encourage companies to outsource jobs overseas.

Democrats promise to add jobs to the economy by repealing these tax cuts. However, they pledge to continue the tax cuts that benefit the middle class, such as the child tax credit. Democrats propose to repeal any tax cuts for people who earn $200,000 or more, but guarantee that they will not raise taxes on the middle class.

The Democratic Party is trying to shake its reputation as the party that increases taxes. Whether or not that characterization is true, middle-class families are not likely to see tax hikes under either party - that is - if the parties stick to the proposals in their platforms.

While Democrats focus on the differences between tax cuts for the wealthy and tax cuts for the rich, Republicans tend to speak of tax cuts in more general terms. They plan to make all current tax cuts permanent - including those that Democrats criticize.

According to its 2004 platform, the Republican party believes that taxes should be few and not used to fund social programs or to redistribute wealth.

In addition, the economic section of the Republican platform (called "Ushering in an Ownership Era") proposes the privatization of several public programs, including Social Security.

The Bush administration favors private retirement accounts over traditional Social Security. The Republican philosophy here is that transferring public programs into the hands of private citizens gives them "ownership" over their economic situations and increases their stake in their communities and their country. It is the idea of a free enterprise system built on the energy and ideas of individual risk takers. This is the Republican major philosophical position. In this system each individual must know enough to know how to invest their wages, probably in the stock market, and must take the consequences for those decisions - for better or worse.

Democrats, on the other hand, state in their platform that they are committed to preserving the Social Security program as a public entitlement. The Democratic philosophical position is that all citizens should be in a basic retirement pool together, since any one person could have both good or bad luck in employment. These differences, in addition to the parties’ different philosophies on tax reform, mark divergent paths for the economy.

Platform analysis: healthcare

Following from their different philosophies on public programs, the Democratic and Republican platforms discuss different proposals for health care.

Democrats claim that health insurance is a right and not a privilege. They plan to provide tax cuts that make health coverage more affordable for individuals and small businesses. They plan to expand public health programs like SCHIP and Medicare that provide low-cost or free healthcare to low-income Americans. They also want to give all Americans access to the public health insurance that members of Congress use.

The Republican platform criticizes the Democrats’ solution as one that would burden taxpayers. They propose private health savings accounts (HSAs) instead, which they say would allow people to own and control their healthcare. These accounts are currently available, but Republicans hope to increase the tax benefit of HSAs.

The Democratic platform presents a broad restructuring of the healthcare system, while the Republican platform proposes a strengthening of the current private employer-based system. The differences in the healthcare platforms underscore the parties’ philosophical differences on healthcare: Democrats see healthcare as an entitlement that the government must protect, Republicans see healthcare as an issue that should be directed by the market - not the government.

Platform analysis: social issues

Democrats and Republicans are clearly dissimilar on government action on individual’s behavior -- so-called "social issues" - namely abortion and same-sex marriage.

The Democratic platform clearly and decidedly states its pro-choice position. Though it is not thoroughly discussed, the Democrats’ stance is a stark contrast to the Republicans’ platform on this issue.

The Republican platform supports a human life amendment to the Constitution, which would effectively undo Roe v. Wade.

While the Democratic platform says little about legislation passed by Congress and signed by President Bush to ban some forms of abortion, the Republican platform praises Bush and makes it clear that the party will attempt to outlaw all forms of abortion and continue to limit funding to any social programs that advocate for the right to an abortion.

In addition, the Republican platform discusses the party’s opposition to same-sex marriage and unions at length, while the Democratic platform offers only a short paragraph on the party’s views about gay and lesbian families.

The Democratic platform declares that same-sex couples should be allowed the benefits and protections that opposite-sex couples enjoy, but that states should decide whether marriage licenses or civil unions are the appropriate approach.

Republicans hail George Bush for proposing the federal marriage amendment, which would ban states from legalizing same-sex marriages. The party also disapproves of civil unions or any state-sanctioned "living arrangements" equivalent to marriage.

Although some Republicans are pro-choice, and many do not support the federal marriage amendment, the Republican party has taken a conservative stance on these issues because it hopes to appeal to its base of religious voters, which, in the 2000 election, did not show full support of Bush because they felt he was too moderate.

Platforms: a strategy to win undecided voters

Both the Democratic and Republican platforms are efforts to win the votes of undecided swing voters. For that reason, the Democratic platform attempts to appeal to moderates (it does not whole-heartedly endorse gay and lesbian marriages or condemn the war in Iraq), as does the Republican platform (it acknowledges the rising cost of healthcare and vows to help control it.) And the Republican convention is highlighting the term "the big tent," to suggest that everyone is welcome in the party. Republicans’ efforts seem to be split between moderate, undecided voters and the party’s religious, conservative base of voters, while Democrats are strictly focused on swing voters. The Democratic Party base is unified against George W. Bush.

Both parties hope to appeal to women voters, but only the Democrats trust a woman to make her own reproductive decisions and only the Republican platform includes a section on women’s health and the international problem of sex trafficking. Although the platform does not lay out a detailed strategy for improving these problems, the mention of these issues appeals to women voters.

Although the parties are battling over moderate voters, they are distinctive on many (if not most) issues. When voting, be sure that your philosophies line up with the philosophies of the party you vote for - because when you vote for a candidate you vote for his or her party as well.

Affect party platforms

Although both parties are considering the women’s vote, fuller political participation by women would affect future party platforms. Neither party looks at the issues from the personal perspective that most women share. And the allocation of dollars to the issues would certainly be different if more women voted and sent a small contribution to the party whose philosophy matches theirs.

Is there something that you care about that the parties don’t include in their platforms?

Discuss the issues you care about with other WomenMatter readers by logging on to one of our online forums.

To continue to educate yourself on our Life Issues, click here.

You can also sign up for an e alert, and we’ll keep you posted. And don’t forget to register to vote and contact your representatives, because your voice matters.

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate in the political process. To make a donation, click here.

Update Posted on: 9/10/2004