A PlatCom member wrote:
) the LP will lose much more support from religious persons who will be
strongly turned off by pro-gay-lifestyle *sounding* verbiage than we will
gain by including such verbiage that is promoted by pro-gay advocates. [...]
Our selections can convey we're lifestyle advocates in spite of excluding
clear statements that are literally promoting a lifestyle. (
Supporting individual rights is not supporting a "lifestyle". I suspect
you're thinking of the current Platform language about "culture wars, social
friction and prejudice", which is a good example of how the Atlanta format
tempts us to bloat the Platform with language that is more trouble than it's
worth. How about this:
GH+) We favor the freedom of all adults to engage in any consensual amorous
or reproductive behavior or relationship that does not violate the rights of
others. Sexuality or gender should have no discriminatory impact on the
treatment of individuals by government, such as in marriage, adoption,
immigration, or military service. (GH+
I don't see how you could say that the above statement of individual rights
might "sound" like endorsing a "gay lifestyle". Remember, our Platform will
surely continue to say "Our support of an individual's right to make choices
in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those
choices." The "religious persons" you're talking about will very likely
think that we favor as a "lifestyle" anything we would decriminalize.
) please note that data collected in California does not at all equate to
data collected in Texas, Utah, etc. Between California, New York, Mass.,
etc [...] (
Every reputable polling organization knows how to choose a geographically
balanced sample. I could as easily say that national data do not reflect
the more liberal areas of the country, such as California.
) The majority in the LP may be able to over ride concerns from less liberal
regions, and win a vote to include what I consider to be "pandering"
verbiage: topics or verbiage that is detrimental to our goal as a political
party [a large/rapid/stable reduction in the size & scope of government]
when that's motivated to appease vocal advocates of tangent issue (
Unless you have an objective definition of "tangent", this definition is
dangerously subjective and creates the impression that an issue is "tangent"
simply because your target constituents don't agree with the LP on it. For
~10% of Americans, the intrusiveness of government wouldn't be very much
affected by what your constituents might consider a "large reduction".
) When our committee and party self-selects issues to post in our platform,
we're making a statement about our priorities. That will especially be true
if we keep only a small quantity of planks. (
It's more a function of the comprehensiveness of our issue coverage than of
the numerical number of planks. The Greatest
<http://marketliberal.org/PlatComWiki/Greatest_Hits_Draft_Platform> Hits
draft's 17 planks cover far more ground than the Portland Platform's 15
surviving planks. Indeed, the GH arguably covers nearly all of the issue
areas addressed by the Atlanta Platform's 61 planks.
) 80% of the folks who hung up on did so in reference to their perception
that our organization was an advocate for gay-lifestyle. The persons I
called were names collected over the years by local LP, and so those names
should have had a very high level of libertarian content. Not too many
persons hung up on me . maybe 10 total. One or two cited our position on
drugs before they hung up. (
Eight people out of "hundreds, probably a thousand" people called is not a
number that would worry me.
) Your point about the libertarian demographic being 16-20% is now duly
noted. Nonetheless, that fact, of course, does not negate the reality that
we must ultimately win elections. (
Not necessarily. The Socialist Party never won more than 6% of the popular
Presidential vote and elected no congressmen to vote on the New Deal, but
Milton Friedman famously called it the most influential party in
early-twentieth-century America because almost all of its 1928 platform's
economic planks became law in the subsequent decades.
) Nor does your point negate the fact that, unless we needlessly focus their
attention on differences, non-libertarians may vote for us despite their
conservative or liberal leanings. (
"Needlessly" is in the eye of the beholder. With 53% of Americans favoring
civil unions and 78% favoring gays in the military, what's needless is to
drop this winning issue for a few non-libertarian voters while we have yet
to ever claim more than a tiny fraction of the 16% to 20% of
libertarian-leaning voters.
) Why is it so hard to focus our *National* platform only upon topics that
have very broad appeal (
53% and 78% sound pretty broad to me. With only 16% to 20% of Americans
being libertarian-leaning, it would be folly for our Platform to be silent
on this topic.
) About Rob's sources: www.gay.com does not strike me as being an unbiased
source. Perhaps the CNN/Gallup poll data is worthy of review. Do you have a
link for me to educate myself about that data? (
PlanetOut (gay.com) was my source, not Rob's, and it cited a Pew Research
Center poll. Generally, when a gay group cites the month, year, and
research organization behind a poll, it's very likely they're not just
making the numbers up. The Gallup poll is described here
<http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/in_print/poll_shows_support_for_gays_i
n_military_ucsb_centers_research_findings_may_have_influenced_public_opinion
. A Pew Research Center overview of polling data is here
<http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=273> . Note
especially the progress in its graph of opinions on gay marriage.
) I suspect that you're thinking I'm really a conservative . For the record,
please note that I couldn't care less if boys sleep with boys, girls sleeps
with girls . . All these choices fall within the realm of victimless
actions, and are not crimes. (
Right on.