How important has it been for candidates to fulfill the party's platform in our history? Is it a relic of the past in that it is no longer as important as it once was?

Essentially the bloodiest war in our history was fought over the Democratic platform in 1860 because the north and south would not compromise over a slave code position in the party platform (a case could be made that the platform was just an excuse and the split might have just occurred over the nomination of Douglas anyway). However just four years later the same party adopted a peace platform that McClellan did not endorse and likely would not have followed had he been elected.

So are party platforms still important or a relic of the past?

I don't think so. Most people know where the parties stand on issues, and there are lots of venues for getting that information out besides platforms. Back in the day, platforms evolved as a way of distinguishing parties from personalities, but times have changed, and like I said, people know where you stand.

I've been in platform debates myself with others in my party conventions, and frankly, it's a silly exercise of showing not what you believe, but how deeply you believe in some nuance. So it's not just about saying we support low taxes, but saying we support position X.32-B on low taxes and if you believe in X.33-C, then you are an apostate who hates Jesus. I really hate conventions.

I think the Civil War is an interesting thing to think about because the platform of the Republican Party was pretty forceful in their rhetoric on slavery, whereas Lincoln left to his own devices wanted a more moderate view. (There are several "Lincolns" but this is the version that F. Douglass called a "First rate, second-rate man."). Nonetheless Lincoln was a pragmatist and wanted to work with the South. He was naive but not stupid.

I think in the modern era, Lincoln might have been able to go onto twitter or something and talk about how he wasn't going to touch slavery where it existed, blah blah and maybe that would have changed a few things. But I rather suspect it had gone too far by that point, and after John Brown's raid, everybody in the South thought that even a moderate position on slavery would unleash a thousand Browns and Nat Turners and that their families would all be butchered in their beds.

It's just hard to find common ground after those extreme views seep in.

Yeah, I tend to think the platform was an excuse for the Deep South exit rather than the main thing. The Deep South really didn't need the slave code in light of Dred Scott and real issue to them was Douglas.

It seems that today most national candidates, at least on the Republican side, ignore their party's platform except when it suits their ambitions.

I think that has been the case throughout history, for example the Republican platform in 1860 was harsher on slavery than Lincoln's position and he probably would not have followed it had the war not erupted. It just seems in 1860 for the Democrats they acted like it was crucial but I think the reality was it was all Kabuki Theater and the real issue was Douglas as a candidate. I was just curious if there was ever another time in US history when a party's platform rose to such importance.

BQ78 said:

---

I think that has been the case throughout history, for example the Republican platform in 1860 was harsher on slavery than Lincoln's position and he probably would not have followed it had the war not erupted. It just seems in 1860 for the Democrats they acted like it was crucial but I think the reality was it was all Kabuki Theater and the real issue was Douglas as a candidate. I was just curious if there was ever another time in US history when a party's platform rose to such importance.

---

The pro-life part of the Republican platform is essential to it, but it is also Kabuki Theater. If the Republicans were to drop it from their platform, they'd lose at least 30% of their base and voters.

And fiscal responsibility/balancing the budget has long been part of the Republican platform, I think. It is a belief fundamental to most Republican voters. Yet Republican elected officials make no effort to actually put that part of the Platform into effect - in fact, quite the opposite. (Some wit once said that the difference between Dems and Repubs is that Dems believe in "Tax and Spend" and Repubs believe in "Borrow and Spend".)

Balancing the budget and lowering taxes is a lot like raising the perfect child. Easier said than done.

aalan94 said:

---

Balancing the budget and lowering taxes is a lot like raising the perfect child. Easier said than done.

---

It may be impossible now. However, when I was working in DC in the early 90s, Republican senator Domenici and Democratic senator Sam Nunn co-sponsored a bill that would have eliminated the deficit in only five years. They did that simply by freezing spending. They could not get any cosponsors to the bill and it was dead on arrival.

You cant fully exploit voter ignorance, corrupt the country, and destroy the american dream and responsible informed voters' rights without a machine. The parties system facilitated that exploitation.