Political party platforms in the United States are drafted before the party convention and presented to convention for approval. Approval is not always pro forma, as debates have occurred on war and social issues. Platforms in the United States are not always read; in fact, presidential candidates and members of Congress may ignore them. The separation of powers system also makes party control difficult, if not impossible.
Platforms are instruments of ideology and party stands, and they reflect the views of those in control of the convention that year. Summarize and crystallizing the character of party coalitions, platforms are programmatic rather than ideological. Platforms may also be a way for party factions to agree on a common agenda. Writing in 1964, V. O. Key Jr. contended that platforms are “electioneering documents,” not “blueprints for action.” They indicate the party’s general direction but ordinarily leave wide latitude for discretion after the election. The platform contains retrospective judgments and future pledges, with varying degrees of detail and specificity. During the campaign, the presidential candidate amplifies and amends the platform; this is especially true today when conventions occupy a lesser role in the election process.
Platforms provide useful guides to party positions on issues—such as taxes, health insurance, nuclear proliferation, education, abortion, and social security—and there is considerable consistency in their focus over the years. For example, Democrats look to government for solutions, while Republicans look to the private sector. The 2000 and 2004 platforms made exceptions for George W. Bush in areas where he strayed from traditionally conservative principles. By contrast, the 2008 platform accommodated John McCain’s maverick positions on issues like immigration and climate change without accepting his views as the official positions of the Republican Party. On some issues, the party was less accommodating. The 2008 platform called for a constitutional amendment banning marriage between gays and lesbians, and a ban on all embryonic stem cell research, even though McCain did not favor either. Perhaps the most striking difference between the 2004 and 2008 platform documents is the removal of any references to the candidate running for office. In the 2004 document, Bush was mentioned more than 250 times, with the committee finding something about him to “praise,” “commend,” “hail,” or “applaud” more than 70 times. By comparison, neither McCain nor Bush is mentioned at all in the 2008 documents, except in the preamble.
About 79 percent of platform promises become policy in one form or another, often involving partial opposed to complete fulfillment, yet the national plan is taken seriously and influences the policy agenda. Platforms in the United States can help vent group views and act as a safety valve. However, they may affect the party’s broad-based appeal if interests not reflective of the party’s broader constituency dominate.
The British parliamentary system, represented by Westminster and other systems, may provide an opportunity for elections to be about competitive programs. Electoral success is based upon approval of these platforms, and party discipline is needed to enforce the policies advocated. Strong party government, as in United Kingdom, provides a more accountable system of policy pledges because majority party members tend to vote as a bloc in fulfilling pledges in opposition to the other party. In this system, a majority of each party opposes the other. Even in the United Kingdom, where party platforms are known as manifestos, party conferences articulate policy, but it may not always be binding. However, the task is made easier because the prime minister is the leader of party and parliament. The party can deprive recalcitrant members of renomination, which tends to ensure greater compliance.
Party manifestos began with Robert Peel in 1834, and in 1906, the Labour manifesto was the first of its kind based on leader declarations. According to Richard Rose, election manifestos have become more specific in content over time; however, they may be rhetorical or doable. They no longer rely on single principles, but, once a party is in office, it may feel committed to principles it sees as impractical or undesirable.
Manifestos are an exercise in party management. Voters rarely consult them, but politicians may view them as an authoritative statement of party policy intentions and party collective responsibility. They result from a search for consensus within the party, and, in large measure, are a proclamation of what leaders want. They represent a statement not of what the party will achieve but what it intends to achieve. Most commitments are implemented into policy—90 percent for Conservatives and 73 percent for Labour. The manifestos may be adversarial, but not necessarily point-for-point oppositional. Most legislation is prepared apart from the manifestos, and often, parliamentary legislation represents consensus rather than adversarial party conflict.
Bibliography:
- Burns, James MacGregor,William Crotty, Lois Lovelace Duke, and Lawrence D. Longley. The Democrats Must Lead:The Case for a Progressive Democratic Party. Boulder: Westview Press, 1992.
- Key,V. O., Jr. Politics Parties and Pressure Groups. New York: Crowell, 1964.
- Pomper, Gerald, ed. Party Renewal in America. New York: Praeger, 1981
- Price, David. Bringing Back the Parties. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1984.
- Rose, Richard. Do Parties Make a Difference? Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House, 1980.
This example Political Party Platform Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.
ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER
Always on-time
Plagiarism-Free
100% Confidentiality
Special offer!
