![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I wrote this as an answer to a question over on Askville about the so-called "Platform of the American People". If you haven't heard of it, it's a list of Republican talking points slightly figleafed to pretend that it's non-partisan. Turns out that Newt Gingrich is behind it.
The question was asked by a religious-right idiot I've dealt with before; he wouldn't even respond to my points in a previous discussion, after a while. So rather than post my answer AS an answer (which would allow said idiot and his friends to down-rate me) I'm going to abandon the answer and post it in the discussion area instead.
Why give them a shot if I don't have to? :D
One problem: that's NOT the platform of the American People
I think that the people of the United States should always set the agenda. Of course, it's worth noting that politicians and the people who make up the parties are also a part of the people of the USA. It's not as if our politicians and political party members are martians, or foreigners!
That said, I think it would be a fine thing for a platform to be worked out expressing those ideals and policy goals that are shared by the vast majority of the American people. Unfortunately, this "Platform of the American People" isn't that document. It's mainly a list of right-wing Republican goals, as evidenced by the fact that Republican leader Newt Gingrich is sponsoring it.
Both parties always declare that only THEIR goals represent the true wishes of the American People. Both parties are full of it, of course.
This "Platform" is nothing more than a political tool to further Gingrich's Presidential aspirations, I suspect. It panders to the religious right, revising history to undermine the basic protections that all Americans enjoy under the First Amendment. It also makes some blatantly false statements.
For example, take the fourth bullet point under "AMERICAN CIVILIZATION": "We reject the idea that the times change and the language in the Pledge of Allegiance and the Declaration of Independence must change with the times." The Pledge was, of course, revised several times since it was first written in 1982, most recently with the addition of the phrase "under God" in 1954. This was adopted during the height of the Cold War for political reasons and to distinguish the USA from the officially-atheistic USSR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegience
Since then, many proponents of American theocracy have used the presence of the "under God" phrase in the Pledge (as well as "In God We Trust", which was adopted as the national motto in 1956) to claim that the Founding Fathers intended the USA to be an officially Christian nation. Since the religious addition to the Pledge was added long after all the Founding Fathers had died, this claim is entirely specious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
As for the rest of the document, it's pretty much a laundry list of Republican political points. For example, bullet #9 in the Freedom of Religion section: "We reject banning all prayer in public schools." Since no one has ever banned prayer in public schools - how can you stop someone from praying? - this can only be a back-door way of trying to justify the institution of organized group prayer in classes, with the ultimate goal being mandatory teacher-led Christian prayer in public schools. This is, of course, a popular issue with the religious right.
But it's hardly a shared goal of the American people.
Just to be absolutely clear: the Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment did not allow organized, mandatory prayer in public schools, and has ruled that a "moment of silence" (as recommended by the "Platform of the American People") is simply a back-door way to get mandatory prayer back into the classroom. But no one can control silent prayer. As for spoken, mandatory prayer, shouldn't children be spending their time in school learning, instead of being forced to recite prayers?
It's a pity; this document represents a wasted opportunity. An honest attempt to work out true points of general agreement among the vast majority of the American people would have been a worthwhile accomplishment. For example, it could have included the goal that no American child should be without adequate health care, food, and education. It could have said that Americans should be able to count on having clean water to drink, food and medicines that are untainted, and clean air to breathe. It could have advocated the elimination of Congressional earmarks and the revolving door between industry lobbyists and the agencies which regulate those industries. I'm sure there are other goals which could have been worked out.
But this so-called "platform" is just another cynical political ploy. It's Newt Gingrich and his cronies pretending once again that their goals are, of course, what the American People really agree with. If that were the case, though, the Republicans would still hold Congress and Newt would still be Speaker of the House. Instead, he's nothing more than a pundit on TV and an inveterate hinter that he'd really like to be President.
Only the credulous would take this document as the impartial and idealistic platform that it claims to be, rather than the cynical political tool that it actually is.
The question was asked by a religious-right idiot I've dealt with before; he wouldn't even respond to my points in a previous discussion, after a while. So rather than post my answer AS an answer (which would allow said idiot and his friends to down-rate me) I'm going to abandon the answer and post it in the discussion area instead.
Why give them a shot if I don't have to? :D
One problem: that's NOT the platform of the American People
I think that the people of the United States should always set the agenda. Of course, it's worth noting that politicians and the people who make up the parties are also a part of the people of the USA. It's not as if our politicians and political party members are martians, or foreigners!
That said, I think it would be a fine thing for a platform to be worked out expressing those ideals and policy goals that are shared by the vast majority of the American people. Unfortunately, this "Platform of the American People" isn't that document. It's mainly a list of right-wing Republican goals, as evidenced by the fact that Republican leader Newt Gingrich is sponsoring it.
Both parties always declare that only THEIR goals represent the true wishes of the American People. Both parties are full of it, of course.
This "Platform" is nothing more than a political tool to further Gingrich's Presidential aspirations, I suspect. It panders to the religious right, revising history to undermine the basic protections that all Americans enjoy under the First Amendment. It also makes some blatantly false statements.
For example, take the fourth bullet point under "AMERICAN CIVILIZATION": "We reject the idea that the times change and the language in the Pledge of Allegiance and the Declaration of Independence must change with the times." The Pledge was, of course, revised several times since it was first written in 1982, most recently with the addition of the phrase "under God" in 1954. This was adopted during the height of the Cold War for political reasons and to distinguish the USA from the officially-atheistic USSR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegience
Since then, many proponents of American theocracy have used the presence of the "under God" phrase in the Pledge (as well as "In God We Trust", which was adopted as the national motto in 1956) to claim that the Founding Fathers intended the USA to be an officially Christian nation. Since the religious addition to the Pledge was added long after all the Founding Fathers had died, this claim is entirely specious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
As for the rest of the document, it's pretty much a laundry list of Republican political points. For example, bullet #9 in the Freedom of Religion section: "We reject banning all prayer in public schools." Since no one has ever banned prayer in public schools - how can you stop someone from praying? - this can only be a back-door way of trying to justify the institution of organized group prayer in classes, with the ultimate goal being mandatory teacher-led Christian prayer in public schools. This is, of course, a popular issue with the religious right.
But it's hardly a shared goal of the American people.
Just to be absolutely clear: the Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment did not allow organized, mandatory prayer in public schools, and has ruled that a "moment of silence" (as recommended by the "Platform of the American People") is simply a back-door way to get mandatory prayer back into the classroom. But no one can control silent prayer. As for spoken, mandatory prayer, shouldn't children be spending their time in school learning, instead of being forced to recite prayers?
It's a pity; this document represents a wasted opportunity. An honest attempt to work out true points of general agreement among the vast majority of the American people would have been a worthwhile accomplishment. For example, it could have included the goal that no American child should be without adequate health care, food, and education. It could have said that Americans should be able to count on having clean water to drink, food and medicines that are untainted, and clean air to breathe. It could have advocated the elimination of Congressional earmarks and the revolving door between industry lobbyists and the agencies which regulate those industries. I'm sure there are other goals which could have been worked out.
But this so-called "platform" is just another cynical political ploy. It's Newt Gingrich and his cronies pretending once again that their goals are, of course, what the American People really agree with. If that were the case, though, the Republicans would still hold Congress and Newt would still be Speaker of the House. Instead, he's nothing more than a pundit on TV and an inveterate hinter that he'd really like to be President.
Only the credulous would take this document as the impartial and idealistic platform that it claims to be, rather than the cynical political tool that it actually is.
