The Republican Party Platform: A Bloated Beast

Christopher Suleske

This commentary started with a question I've puzzled with from time to time: "How do the views of a liberal Republican square with the platform of the Republican Party?" I'd like to do that analysis for you here, but after pulling up said platform - all 92 pages of it - I decided this was beyond the scope of what I care to endeavor. Really, if a political party's governing document contains three and a half times the number of words as does the United States Constitution (42,000 v. 12,000), the party itself cannot be expected to be able to succinctly communicate its message. At 92 pages, the message to me is "do not read this document".

The wordy liberalism of our age has produced a tome which could roughly be summarized "everything to everybody". Until recently, this had been the exclusive message of the Democratic Party. I am compelled however to give the Democrats my appreciation in crafting a platform that is but 19,000 words. That's a full two Constitutions less than the Republican behemoth and a lot closer to something I might actually read, should my library run out of other works of fiction.

I've heard many a Republican congressman claim to carry a copy of the Constitution in his coat pocket - some even taking it out on-camera to prove as much, but I have yet to hear one claim to similarly carry his party's platform. With a platform this wide, it can only be so tall. In the attempt at being a collective work which elevates the views of all, it renders in reality as something incapable of effectively elevating the views of any. The bloated beast that is the Republican Party platform, however reflective of the grand scope of today's Federal Government, is merely a surface example of a misunderstanding which lies at the core of the party.

You could argue that the Constitution was purposely written to be simple and that the world of 1789 was a far simpler environment than that of today. You could further argue the platform is the result of the attempt at describing and dealing with a complex world and that the Democrats' platform is far shorter because it is less reasoned, less grounded in today's complex reality. While I won't touch the last sentiment, I believe the prior ones are mistaken. The world today, while certainly more complex on the surface, is just as simple as it has ever been at the core. The motivations which guide us personally are no more evolved than they were 20, 50, 100 or 1000 years ago. What has evolved is the rapidity with which we are expected to process surface compliexities. The misunderstanding is confusing this surface complexity with the core simplicity.

These two fundamental levels require different interpretive tools with which to effectively process information. Surface complexities require more of a shades-of-gray (maybe) approach, while matters of core simplicity require a more discrete black-and-white (yes/no) approach. Attending to matters of surface complexity over time produces stress, while similarly dealing with issues of core simplicity over time produces peace.

The platform should be a document of peace - that is, minimum complexity - and, as such, no more than a few pages at its core. While I understand that an issue, simple at root, can often require a complex resolution, these resolution strategies should be kept apart from the core document. A political party of principle is best served by its members fully understanding - and capable of easily explaining - its governing documents. The principal reason the Contract with America was so successful initially was its simplicity. Overburdened Americans respond very favorably to simplicity.

H.L. Mencken once said that "For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, neat and wrong." While this does not preclude the possibility of a solution that is simple, neat and right, it does bring up the point that for every one such solution, there are undoubtedly myriad wrong ones. Care must be taken to craft a platform which, like the Constitution, is grounded firmly in history and tested against the backdrop of that history. Rather than conflict with the deepest sense of right and wrong in a man, it will resonate with that core, which some take as the image of the Creator. Such a document, if fairly presented, will appeal to the vast majority of Americans - those whose core has not been so pelted with lies as to be beyond recognition.

Recall the notion of the "Reagan Democrat". This was the voter who, while historically a Democrat, voted for the Republican Reagan in 1980, 1984 or both. Reagan had a strong simplicity to his presentation that resonated with complexity-weary voters. In a real way, Reagan was the embodiment of a simplified platform, even if the underlying platforms of his presidency were well in excess of 30,000 words.

Does a simplified platform necessarily mean a lowest common denominator or "dumbing down" of the current document to suit the allegiance of all currently calling themselves Republican? I would argue the current document is the incorrect starting point. A better point would be at a retreat somewhere pleasant - a few days away from the surface complexities of modern life - with the first best governing documents of the United States, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, as the sole reading material on the agenda. In addition to comfortable clothing, representatives of the current party should arrive prepared with a legal pad and pen. A party platform that cannot comfortably be written by one man with one pen and one pad of paper is not going to be read by one man with one iota of common sense.

Though there are several formats which might work, I suggest an outline, with introductory and closing comments, each not to exceed a few paragraphs. The focus of that document should be furthering the messages of 1776, 1789, and the dates of the amendments to the Constituition, save for perhaps the sixteenth. It should be penned with an emphasis on ease of communication, not written with lofty or superfluous verbiage, as is, say, this commentary.

As for the original question which spawned this piece, I will gladly reeaxmine the conundrum once the Republican Party has shortened its platform considerably. However, were this to happen, I doubt the question would need be answered by any one man, for we all could know the answer.