After every gubernatorial election, the California Republican Party (CRP) reviews its platform—a statement of goals and principles supported by the party—to determine if any changes, additions, or deletions are warranted. Such is the joy of a dynamic document.
This job was assigned to 56 individuals elected to the Platform Drafting Committee. We met on Saturday, July 29th, and the result will be vetted by the full Platform Committee, which has over 200 members, at the CRP’s September Convention in Anaheim.
Here’s my “reader’s digest” version. It opens with the following preamble, a number of specific topics which are elaborated upon, and a conclusion.
“The California Republican Party envisions a vibrant, prosperous, and safe California defined by a robust world-class economy, strong and healthy families, and reformed and responsive state and local governments that serve all people while protecting individual liberties as enshrined in the US Constitution. As the party of Abraham Lincoln, we believe in dignity and equality for all.”
- Choice and excellence in education for all Californians
- The safety and well-being of all California residents, including freedom of choice for health care
- Economic policies that promote economic growth and innovation, leading to increased affordability
- A reformed system of taxation that maintains and improves infrastructure and public safety while reducing the burden on working families, homeowners and older Californians
- Favorable environmental policies that supports California’s farmers and ranchers
- Election integrity and ethical government
Now this would be a shortened version. But the other 13 pages provide detailed guidance on the topics of affordability, agriculture, condemnation of racism and acts of violence, crime and justice, economy and jobs, education, election integrity, the environment, equal opportunity, ethics by government officials, family, federalism, health care, housing, immigration, the litigation crisis, national defense, historic and ongoing support for the 1 percent property tax cap Proposition 13, private property rights, religious freedom, the right to bear arms, the right to life, senior Californians, taxes and government spending, veterans affairs, and water.
The members of the Platform Drafting Committee reviewed more than two hundred pages of proposed amendments and tried to synthesize them into a new proposed version. Changes to just about every segment of the current platform, from minor editing suggestions to multi-page expansions of the existing topics, were received. Additional topics for possible inclusion were also submitted, including addressing artificial intelligence, critical race theory, drugs, educational parental rights, energy, homelessness, open borders, sex trafficking, transgenderism, and transportation.
Should a platform be brief? Or should it be expanded to cover every possible question one may have on every issue? On Saturday, three of the members in attendance proffered a one-page proposal. It was amended by the some 40 other members present. When the drafting concluded some five hours later, it would be four to five pages in length.
What remains is a brief preamble and short single paragraphs on public safety and criminal justice, economic development, homelessness, housing, education, healthcare, fiscal responsibility, infrastructure, immigration, environment, water, veterans, right to bear arms, national defense, family, religious freedom, and right to life.
They joke that the second strongest drive is to change someone else’s copy. Those of us cursed with the editing bug will wonder if the diet is too severe. Others may lean toward trimming things down even more. Those who assumed a tinkering of the current document may be disappointed that their recommendations were ignored. And others would want a larger document covering every subject under the sun.
They also joke that a committee was established to design the horse, but the finished product was a camel. One can only imagine what will happen in September when a Platform Committee of more than 200 members comes to approve the proposed product. After my experience, I can only hope the committee chair can hold the meeting together. But something is nagging at me that the chair may just call us to gather again for another fun and grueling day of group writing.
