The View from Here

I would like to share a newsletter from Representative Brad Sherman, who is on the Republican National Platform Committee. I am concerned about how this meeting was conducted and encourage all citizens to stay engaged at all points in the political process. Our representative republic cannot stand if our citizens are not watching carefully what our elected officials are doing. I appreciate Representative Sherman’s perspective, which has been reinforced by Tamara Scott, also of Iowa, and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.

I am writing to report on the events at the recent Republican National Platform Committee in Milwaukee. Many of you had reached out encouraging me, as a member of the National Platform Committee, to stand strong for life, family, faith and freedom. Tamara Scott and I went to Milwaukee prepared to do exactly that.  This letter will address two general issues: 1) How the platform process was abused, and 2) the content of the platform itself.

The Abuse of the Process

We (the 2 Iowa members of the National Platform Committee) arrived in Milwaukee on Sunday evening for an orientation that lasted about an hour. This orientation is usually when we get copies of the proposed platform (if not earlier), and members of the Platform Committee are assigned to subcommittees. Then most people try to find as much time as possible to do homework before the next day. However, at this orientation…

•We were told copies of the platform were not yet available and would be passed out the next morning;

•We were told, when the platform was handed out, it was not to leave the room;

•We were also informed that our cell phones and electronic devices would not be allowed in the next morning’s meeting. The purpose was supposedly to keep platform content from being leaked to the press prematurely;

•The chairpersons for the subcommittee meetings were announced, but no one was assigned to a subcommittee and no locations for subcommittees were known;

•We were assured that everyone would have time to speak on Monday.

We gathered on Monday morning with the events of the previous evening having produced speculations of what might be in store for the day. After the opening preliminaries, copies of the draft platform were handed out and several speeches ensued while we were trying to read the document for the first time.  The speeches were all about how wonderful this new platform was.

After the speeches, a gentleman made a motion to approve the platform (which we were in the process of reading) without further modification. According to the rules, there has to be discussion on the motion, so a brief discussion ensued.  Most of those in favor of the motion seemed to be well instructed on how to carry out the script we were watching play out in front of us.  A few raised questions about why we were voting on something we had not had time to read. But with people waiting in line to speak, someone called for the vote and that call was approved. Then we voted on the new platform, it was approved, and that was basically it. New Platform.

I voted no because I had seen just enough of the content to know that some key issues had been watered down and because I had not had time to read it fully. I was reminded of the famous statement made by Nancy Pelosi a few years ago regarding a controversial bill in the U.S. Congress that was voted on under similar rushed circumstances. She said, “We have to pass the bill to see what is in it.”  For a moment there, I thought I had wandered into the Democrat Convention by mistake!  Here are a few bullet points that summarize how we were set up:

•We didn’t get the document until Monday and a vote was forced without having time to read and consider it.

•We were led to believe there would be subcommittees but apparently that was never the plan.

•With no subcommittees, there was no opportunity to offer amendments to the platform.

•During the minimal time we had possession of the document, our ability to communicate and collaborate as delegates was restricted because our phones and electronic devices were sequestered.

•Discussion on the floor had been limited to only 1 minute per person. Many people objecting didn’t get to finish their point.

•Discussion was cut off after only a few minutes by a call for the vote with many people waiting in line. So much for the promise that all would have opportunity to speak.

It was a heavy-handed exercise that disregarded the work and the process that brought the delegates to the national level. This exercise also disregarded and dismissed the platform work at caucuses, county, district, and state levels. The voice of the people through the republican process was silenced. Some of us were left wondering why we went to the trouble and expense to come.

This plan had obviously been scripted and laid out in advance. There had been a coordinated effort in many states to select delegates who would go along with this plan which apparently was quite successful. This explains why there had been an attempt to keep Tamara Scott and me off the Platform Committee  – they knew we would not fall in line with this scheme.

The Platform

The new platform is drastically reduced in size from the previous one. I am okay with a streamlined platform as long as it still covers the important points. However, I voted “no” on accepting the platform, largely because we had not had the time to read and consider it. Having now looked it over more closely, there are two main things that are disappointing, which is what we had suspected.

1. The Pro-life language was weakened. The call to recognize and protect life from conception as a federal position was taken out. Now the language is basically to leave it to the states.  Note:  I will be providing an explanation as to why I believe life must be protected from conception at a national level in a later email.

2. The language on marriage was also weakened. Though the new platform says “Republicans will promote a culture that values the Sanctity of Marriage,” the language defining marriage as being between a man and a woman was removed.

There are some other issues but in general, the rest of the platform is pretty good and covers the conservative points we would expect.

Summary
Streamlining the platform makes ambiguity inevitable, so, assuming President Trump is elected in November, we will have to see how that ambiguity plays out. On the Life and Marriage issues, the ambiguity means there is room for policy to go in a bad or a good direction, depending upon how it is interpreted. This means we have to stay engaged, continue to pray and influence where we can.