Why the Democrat Platform Is Boring on Purpose

The Democrat Party Platform, released for public scrutiny on July 27, reads like the late-night, tired comments of a teacher of economics reviewing existing legislation and possible improvements as he prepares for a lecture.  The document lacks verve, originality, and wisdom.

The goal in writing the document clearly is not to enlighten, inform, or inspire, but to put the reader to sleep within the reading of three or fewer pages.  In case anyone thinks that's the way platforms "always are," he needs only look at the Democratic Platform of 1936 which, deep into the Great Depression, is written in succinct, lively prose and could be read and found informative by most voters.

To say their platform is boring is not in itself newsworthy unless one sees that while this document was being written, and since then, the Democrats have supported so many extreme positions that would and should wake up anyone concerned about the future of our country.  In fact, they are the "woke" party par excellence.  The new morality is built around acceptance of gender fluidity; rejection of white privilege; disgust about supposed prevalent racism in our culture; contempt for law enforcement, whether it be ICE or our men in blue; the assumption that great wealth is not earned; and the belief that all debt is unjust — but especially educational debt — and repayment should not be expected, let alone required (it is inherently a rip-off).  Further, the woke mindset includes the view that equality trumps liberty all the time.

Additionally, the Green New Deal to which most wokesters subscribe would abolish meat production because of the environmental threat of cattle passing gas.  They believe that our enjoyment of steaks and hamburgers poses a living threat to the existence of planet Earth.  Automobiles, buses, and airplanes are destructive in similar ways.  Emission reduction is not good enough; emission elimination is the challenge for civilization. If you doubt this, you are not fully woke.  What voices in the Woke-ocrat Party are openly challenging this idiocy?

Further, a spirit of world cooperation, especially regarding climate issues, means that a global government may be needed as nation-state priorities and relevance begin to wane.  In fact, we are still members of the United Nations, which has agreed to Agenda 21 and following that to Agenda 2030, which is a projected early-stage world government.  Both documents emphasize sustainability and "needs."  Yet the original U.N. Declaration of Rights signed in the 1940s focused not upon needs, but upon rights, which are mentioned repeatedly.  The U.N. was smaller then, and its existence was beholden to Western countries and the U.S. in particular insofar as Pres. Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill had laid the groundwork for the U.N. at the Atlantic Conference in 1941. 

The wokesters connect all or most of the above issues with the concept of "intersectionality."  The theoretical assumptions underlying the above issues individually inevitably lead them to see the conclusions of one issue leading to support for the assumptions and conclusions of the other issues.

Many of the Woke-ocrats believe that the U.S. Constitution is evolving ("sociological jurisprudence") and may be evolving itself out of existence.  World government and a diminution of national sovereignty are the way to go.  This writer heard deceased justice Ruth Ginsburg state in an interview that she believed that the best Constitution in the world was not that of the USA, but that of South Africa.  That is why they are so hostile to the SCOTUS conservative appointments like Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

The radicalized woke Democrats are practically jumping out of their skins because President Donald Trump has taken us out of the Paris Climate Accords, taken us out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and rewritten NAFTA.  To them, multi-lateral agreements are more sacrosanct and ultimately more peaceful than assertion of our nation-state principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Woke-ocrats have been anything but cautious or circumspect about what they believed.  Some, like the "Squad," Sen. Bernie Sanders, and Rep. Eric Swalwell, have openly supported the Green New Deal and other items of the woke agenda, but many others — including the present leadership of their party — have not spoken out against wokeness, but by their silence have supported woke contamination.

The 91-page length of the Dem platform itself should make it clear that they do not expect people to read it, but have put it forward as a deception to create the impression that they are detail- and fact-oriented, and not the flaming ideologues on the left that they have become.  The boring, turgid composition of the platform was part of its purpose — namely, obfuscation of the truly radical agenda of the Party.

Prior to the release of the platform in July, in the same month, candidate Joe Biden and one of his opponents, Sen. Bernie Sanders, signed a document setting forth their points of agreement.  For Biden to do this is to openly demonstrate alliance with the far left in a way that other Democrat leaders never did, even though they may have had leftist tendencies.  For example, Henry Wallace was to the left of Pres. Harry Truman in 1948, and Truman never signed a peace pact with Wallace.  Wallace ran his own campaign as a candidate for president and as leader of the Progressive Party.

In this case, Biden took the extreme step of signing a lengthy policy statement with Sanders even though Sanders is not even a Democrat.  Rather, Sen. Sanders sits as the one and only Democratic Socialist in the Senate, although he convenes with the Democrat caucus.  Although this writer watched Sen. Sanders differentiate his brand of "socialism" from communism at a town hall meeting, he was unconvincing.  He said to one woman that his version of socialism should not be confused with "authoritarian communism."  When I hear a hardcore leftist like Bernie say something like this, I assume he is dissembling.  The only reason he is not "authoritarian" is simply because he cannot be since our system does not allow him to be the dictator that, in his heart, he is.

Sanders always claims to have various socialist Scandinavian countries as his models.  He claims, mistakenly or purposely, that they are socialist when they are not — they do not have government ownership of their major industries.  He thus wants to portray himself as more like the Scandinavians in his views, but he and his wife did not honeymoon in Scandinavia.  He and his wife spent their honeymoon in the USSR in 1988.  Additionally, Sanders has traveled to Cuba three times and has made obscenely complimentary, sycophantic comments about various aspects of Fidel Castro's leadership.  He also visited Nicaragua in 1985. 

Despite Sanders's clear identification with the far left, which includes the new wokesters, candidate Biden in July signed a 110-page agreement with Sanders, which was almost 30 pages longer than the Democratic platform.  The platform is written under ten headings, and six of those ten headings are found in the Biden-Sanders agreement, which came out prior to release of the platform.  Thus, Biden's alliance with the left is lengthy and detailed to an unprecedented degree.

The choice before the American people is a serious one, indeed.

The Democrat Party Platform, released for public scrutiny on July 27, reads like the late-night, tired comments of a teacher of economics reviewing existing legislation and possible improvements as he prepares for a lecture.  The document lacks verve, originality, and wisdom.

The goal in writing the document clearly is not to enlighten, inform, or inspire, but to put the reader to sleep within the reading of three or fewer pages.  In case anyone thinks that's the way platforms "always are," he needs only look at the Democratic Platform of 1936 which, deep into the Great Depression, is written in succinct, lively prose and could be read and found informative by most voters.

To say their platform is boring is not in itself newsworthy unless one sees that while this document was being written, and since then, the Democrats have supported so many extreme positions that would and should wake up anyone concerned about the future of our country.  In fact, they are the "woke" party par excellence.  The new morality is built around acceptance of gender fluidity; rejection of white privilege; disgust about supposed prevalent racism in our culture; contempt for law enforcement, whether it be ICE or our men in blue; the assumption that great wealth is not earned; and the belief that all debt is unjust — but especially educational debt — and repayment should not be expected, let alone required (it is inherently a rip-off).  Further, the woke mindset includes the view that equality trumps liberty all the time.

Additionally, the Green New Deal to which most wokesters subscribe would abolish meat production because of the environmental threat of cattle passing gas.  They believe that our enjoyment of steaks and hamburgers poses a living threat to the existence of planet Earth.  Automobiles, buses, and airplanes are destructive in similar ways.  Emission reduction is not good enough; emission elimination is the challenge for civilization. If you doubt this, you are not fully woke.  What voices in the Woke-ocrat Party are openly challenging this idiocy?

Further, a spirit of world cooperation, especially regarding climate issues, means that a global government may be needed as nation-state priorities and relevance begin to wane.  In fact, we are still members of the United Nations, which has agreed to Agenda 21 and following that to Agenda 2030, which is a projected early-stage world government.  Both documents emphasize sustainability and "needs."  Yet the original U.N. Declaration of Rights signed in the 1940s focused not upon needs, but upon rights, which are mentioned repeatedly.  The U.N. was smaller then, and its existence was beholden to Western countries and the U.S. in particular insofar as Pres. Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill had laid the groundwork for the U.N. at the Atlantic Conference in 1941. 

The wokesters connect all or most of the above issues with the concept of "intersectionality."  The theoretical assumptions underlying the above issues individually inevitably lead them to see the conclusions of one issue leading to support for the assumptions and conclusions of the other issues.

Many of the Woke-ocrats believe that the U.S. Constitution is evolving ("sociological jurisprudence") and may be evolving itself out of existence.  World government and a diminution of national sovereignty are the way to go.  This writer heard deceased justice Ruth Ginsburg state in an interview that she believed that the best Constitution in the world was not that of the USA, but that of South Africa.  That is why they are so hostile to the SCOTUS conservative appointments like Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

The radicalized woke Democrats are practically jumping out of their skins because President Donald Trump has taken us out of the Paris Climate Accords, taken us out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and rewritten NAFTA.  To them, multi-lateral agreements are more sacrosanct and ultimately more peaceful than assertion of our nation-state principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Woke-ocrats have been anything but cautious or circumspect about what they believed.  Some, like the "Squad," Sen. Bernie Sanders, and Rep. Eric Swalwell, have openly supported the Green New Deal and other items of the woke agenda, but many others — including the present leadership of their party — have not spoken out against wokeness, but by their silence have supported woke contamination.

The 91-page length of the Dem platform itself should make it clear that they do not expect people to read it, but have put it forward as a deception to create the impression that they are detail- and fact-oriented, and not the flaming ideologues on the left that they have become.  The boring, turgid composition of the platform was part of its purpose — namely, obfuscation of the truly radical agenda of the Party.

Prior to the release of the platform in July, in the same month, candidate Joe Biden and one of his opponents, Sen. Bernie Sanders, signed a document setting forth their points of agreement.  For Biden to do this is to openly demonstrate alliance with the far left in a way that other Democrat leaders never did, even though they may have had leftist tendencies.  For example, Henry Wallace was to the left of Pres. Harry Truman in 1948, and Truman never signed a peace pact with Wallace.  Wallace ran his own campaign as a candidate for president and as leader of the Progressive Party.

In this case, Biden took the extreme step of signing a lengthy policy statement with Sanders even though Sanders is not even a Democrat.  Rather, Sen. Sanders sits as the one and only Democratic Socialist in the Senate, although he convenes with the Democrat caucus.  Although this writer watched Sen. Sanders differentiate his brand of "socialism" from communism at a town hall meeting, he was unconvincing.  He said to one woman that his version of socialism should not be confused with "authoritarian communism."  When I hear a hardcore leftist like Bernie say something like this, I assume he is dissembling.  The only reason he is not "authoritarian" is simply because he cannot be since our system does not allow him to be the dictator that, in his heart, he is.

Sanders always claims to have various socialist Scandinavian countries as his models.  He claims, mistakenly or purposely, that they are socialist when they are not — they do not have government ownership of their major industries.  He thus wants to portray himself as more like the Scandinavians in his views, but he and his wife did not honeymoon in Scandinavia.  He and his wife spent their honeymoon in the USSR in 1988.  Additionally, Sanders has traveled to Cuba three times and has made obscenely complimentary, sycophantic comments about various aspects of Fidel Castro's leadership.  He also visited Nicaragua in 1985. 

Despite Sanders's clear identification with the far left, which includes the new wokesters, candidate Biden in July signed a 110-page agreement with Sanders, which was almost 30 pages longer than the Democratic platform.  The platform is written under ten headings, and six of those ten headings are found in the Biden-Sanders agreement, which came out prior to release of the platform.  Thus, Biden's alliance with the left is lengthy and detailed to an unprecedented degree.

The choice before the American people is a serious one, indeed.