So in my quest to find a Democratic party platform to go along with my Republican one, I found Texas to be helpful again. I think I see now that writing manifestos is not a Republican thing, it's a Texas thing.
Oh and for the record, Democrats are better at HTML, but less wise about its use. The Republicans made one long pdf, which is ugly, but all in one place and searchable. Democrats have a pretty html page for each topic of their platform, and while that is much nicer to look at, it's harder to deal with when surveying and searching. Oh, and they don't have links from sub-pages back to the parent and that's stupid.
On to some of the fun:
The Texas Democratic Party supports:
Electing judges is stupid. We do it here in Illinois and it's a nakedly stupid thing to bother with.
The support:
Bad English is not a Republican thing, it's a Texas thing!
Texas Democrats think the state should:
Texas Democrats are no better than Texas Republicans at minding their own business when it comes to school.
And about 25% of the way through, Democrats are definitely less sneaky and more sane than Republicans, but they are also more childishly argumentative in their own platform. Half of this thing is just prose about how bad *specific* Republicans are. From their platform statement on education:
I will say this, after roughly half-way through, Democrats are definitely less insane about social issues, and they stick roughly to political issues as opposed to giant God-centered moral statements. But on the other hand, every position they take is a financial burden on the entire society. It's not immoral or crazy to call for providing for better pay or increased services, but if the Texas Democrats suddenly got their way, Texans would pay and pay and pay.
Texas Democrats support "weapon-free institutes of higher education;" I guess Texas is really a stranger place than I imagine if this is necessary. I suppose it probably is.
Regarding elections, Texas Democrats support:
Well aside from essentially every policy being expensive, while at the same time calling for restricting sales tax, Texas Democrats are not as crazy or as anti-Constitutional as Texas Republicans. Lots of their policies seems foolish or plain stupid to me, but that's different from being unconstitutional or immoral.
Oh and for the record, Democrats are better at HTML, but less wise about its use. The Republicans made one long pdf, which is ugly, but all in one place and searchable. Democrats have a pretty html page for each topic of their platform, and while that is much nicer to look at, it's harder to deal with when surveying and searching. Oh, and they don't have links from sub-pages back to the parent and that's stupid.
On to some of the fun:
The Texas Democratic Party supports:
continuing to elect judges while working toward a more diverse judiciary and meaningful judicial campaign finance reform;
Electing judges is stupid. We do it here in Illinois and it's a nakedly stupid thing to bother with.
The support:
working with Mexican officials to make NAFTA works for, and not against, Texas agriculture;
Bad English is not a Republican thing, it's a Texas thing!
Texas Democrats think the state should:
provide environmental education programs for children and adults;
Texas Democrats are no better than Texas Republicans at minding their own business when it comes to school.
And about 25% of the way through, Democrats are definitely less sneaky and more sane than Republicans, but they are also more childishly argumentative in their own platform. Half of this thing is just prose about how bad *specific* Republicans are. From their platform statement on education:
Rick Perry may be willing to write off more than a fourth of the school age children in Texas, but Texans can’t afford to pay the price for Perry’s complacencyReally? I guess platforms are political tools, but it just reads oddly when you're writing out your grand strategy on saving Texas and America to call out one dude for being bad to school children.
I will say this, after roughly half-way through, Democrats are definitely less insane about social issues, and they stick roughly to political issues as opposed to giant God-centered moral statements. But on the other hand, every position they take is a financial burden on the entire society. It's not immoral or crazy to call for providing for better pay or increased services, but if the Texas Democrats suddenly got their way, Texans would pay and pay and pay.
Texas Democrats support "weapon-free institutes of higher education;" I guess Texas is really a stranger place than I imagine if this is necessary. I suppose it probably is.
Regarding elections, Texas Democrats support:
requiring presidential electors to cast votes consistent with the popular vote;Which is a fancy way to say Texas Democrats support changing our system of government.
Well aside from essentially every policy being expensive, while at the same time calling for restricting sales tax, Texas Democrats are not as crazy or as anti-Constitutional as Texas Republicans. Lots of their policies seems foolish or plain stupid to me, but that's different from being unconstitutional or immoral.
3 comments:
Okay, so this was a complete fail, right? I mean, the state absolutely should tell the state schools what to teach, and "weapon-free institutes of higher education" is a gutsy leftist position to take in the West. I am being totally serious. In Arizona, no shit, you can now have guns in cars and in the parking lot of your employer.
I don't like elected judges, but that is not scary. The conclusion from this is that the Texas Republican Party is a scary fringe group and the Texas Democratic Party is a group that doesn't know how to use HTML and takes childish shots at Rick Perry, but is not a scary fringe group.
I would think California or Vermont might be the case to look for the evidence that they all suck.
A couple of comments:
Election of judges. I agree with Matt that it's probably the worst way to select a judiciary. However, favoring election of judges might be a rational tactical position given the landscape in TX -- i.e. if the GOP dominates the partisan electorate, the power to appoint judges directly can skew the court pretty far right. Non-partisan elections, or "non-partisan" election of judges would produce a less extreme judiciary.
The "elector" clause is actually referring to a serious, if perhaps long-shot, effort to get rid of the electoral college and go to a "national popular vote" for president. If states which in total represent 270 EVs pass a law that their electors have to go with the NPV winner then the electoral college is essentially moot, without the messiness of a constitutional amendment. Six states, accounting for 73 EVs, already have such a law on the books. So it's a reasonable and serious policy plank, though as I mentioned the odds are against enough states signing on to make it operational.
On the "financial burden" of the Dems' policies -- I suppose you're right, but bear in mind that a) the Dems (or more properly, the Liberals) have always been in favor of expanding government services, and b) Texas has extremely stingy social services compared to all the other states, so an expansion of social services there is less dramatic than a platform of expanding social services in Massachusetts.
Okay, so this was a complete fail, right?
Categorically, Texas Republicans are crazy from my way of thinking, and Texas Democrats are not. No question about it.
I would think California or Vermont might be the case to look for the evidence that they all suck.
I could not find good statements on platforms for Massachusetts or California Democrats, I'll have to look for Vermont.
Post a Comment