1/31/09
The Massachusetts Democratic Party Platform is our covenant with one another and is the foundation on which our party leaders and we generally stand. While the Platform reflects our common commitment, we are also a party of individuals with personal and private beliefs. In joining together to pursue our Democratic agenda, we recognize and respect individual points of view. As Democrats, we embrace one another and the essential tenets of the Massachusetts Democratic Party.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Platform Proposal*
ReplyDeleteAs Democrats we are ever committed to betterment and reform in both the electoral process and in the procedures and practices of every branch government on the local, state and federal level. As such we will always actively advocate for meaningful improvements in election law, ethics law and rules reform with the constant goal of an ever “more perfect” ethical, accessible and accountable government and political process.
Further, as Democrats and democratic activists we believe party unity, energy and effectiveness are best advanced from the “grass roots” up —with an engaged and inclusive process that engenders constructive discourse and produces quality candidates who merit support through their policies and approaches —not from “top down” party discipline measures which provide for censure and removal of members who “step out of line” in the exercise of their individual judgements and voting rights in general election contests.
We therefore advocate that the Massachusetts Democratic party should remove from its Charter and By-laws such provisions that call for removal of State Committee and Local Town Committee members solely on the grounds of such a supposed infraction as “support” for an opponent candidate.
* I realize this proposal might include more argument than is appropriate, more than what might finally be resolved into Platform language. I offer it here as a point of beginning for discussion. I notice that there is not a dedicated platform plank addressing government improvement such as ethics law or rule reform. Any witness to the debate (and the distractions from the debate) both on the national scene and on Beacon Hill would recognize this as an oversight. I strongly urge the Platform Committed to consider correcting that oversight. Perhaps the second point is only a related argument and not a platform point but a genuine belief in the values of open and earnest debate works from the premise of political support that is earned from an engaged citizenry, not extracted from them under threat of disciplinary action.
Tom Driscoll
508-429-0950
tom.driscoll2@verizon.net