Voters would do far better to spend an evening reading through each party's platform than watching a presidential debate.
At 80 pages and more than 42,000 words, this year's Democratic version is substantially wordier than the 55-page 2016 platform, but length is not the only aspect that's suffered a serious bout of bloating. The Trump vitriol has metastasized. In 2016, Trump was named 33 times; in 2020 it grew to 120 appearances.
In an apparent effort to be pro-something rather than only anti-Trump, the language supporting ultra-left convictions and identity politics has been fattened up. The word "rights," which appeared 79 times in 2016, has mushroomed to 105 mentions, while the word "responsibilities" dropped from three times to once.
The 2020 platform is highly selective on tagging current events: Confederate statues get targeted, but riots and looting get ignored. "Violent crime," indisputably the most damaging blight and oppressor in minority communities, is completely absent from the 2020 platform.
It's also interesting to note the phrasing around certain verbs. Democrats chose to name six things they would "fight for" in the 2020 platform: "emergency funding" for vote-by-mail availability, "missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls," "democracy and human rights" in Africa, plus consumer protection, universal health care and "every American job."
In looking across the multitrillion-dollar federal budget, with programs full of largesse, and our society, with myriad social challenges, the 2020 platform lists only two things the party is determined to "root out": systemic racism and domestic terrorism.
Not predatory urban crime that makes millions live in fear in their own neighborhoods, not failing schools that cheat our children and their prospects, not a crushing national debt that threatens our financial future, not the drug abuse/opioid epidemic that wrecks countless lives.
The divisive focus on skin color intensified noticeably in this year's platform, with the words "Black" or "color" appearing 95 times, compared to only 24 times four years ago.
In 2016, the word "white" regarding racial identity appeared only four times; in 2020 there are 18 instances of the word used that way. Likewise, use of the word "racism" doubled from seven times in 2016 to 13 times in 2020. "Hate crime" didn't appear at all in 2016, but is used five times in this year's document.
Usage of the word "gender" nearly quadrupled (49 times versus 13 times) and "transgender" tripled (15 versus five) since 2016. Variants of the root word "discrimination" are used 48 times this year, compared to 26 previously. Other word increases by multiples include "racial" (38 versus 14), "bias" (11 versus one) and "disparities" (23 versus six).
Using more of the words that separate us, divide us and pit us against one another only perpetuates more separation, division and conflict. But for a party that has come to rely on dominating specific voting blocs for success, stirring the segmentation pot may be considered a winning strategy.
It would be preferable to include more prose aimed at forming a more perfect union. For a good example and an even starker contrast in campaign strategy, let's look back at the platform of 1992, when Democrats rode a strong wave of independent voter support in a campaign celebrated for its broad-spectrum appeal. (The left wing of the party groused all the way to the White House.)
Back then, the words "black," "racism," "hate crime" all appeared only once in any racial sense, and none of the words "color," "white," or "bias" did. "Gender" only appeared twice; "transgender" not at all. Even "gay" and "lesbian" only showed up once each in 1992 (compared to 2020's inclusion of LGBT terminology 53 times).
The 2020 Democratic platform addresses specific domestic "benefits" for citizens 28 times; the 1992 platform did so only twice.
"Police" are mentioned eight times in a disparaging light in the 2020 platform, alongside malignant inferences and words like "brutality" and "misconduct." That's a 180-degree pivot from the 1992 platform, which categorically used the word "police" in positive connotations, expressly as the solution to crime.
"The simplest and most direct way to restore order in our cities is to put more police on the streets," the platform read immediately after the Democrats' pledge to "restore government as the upholder of basic law and order for crime-ravaged communities."
That key phrase--"law and order"--is conspicuously MIA from this year's Democratic platform.
Believe it or not, 1992 Democrats supported crime-victim rights and perpetrator restitution, and committed to keeping schools safe by removing disruptive students to alternative schools. The party of Bill Clinton explicitly supported "more community policing ... to make police officers visible fixtures in urban neighborhoods."
Even far-liberal strongholds like Portland and Seattle might be longing about now for a little public safety policy wisdom from the 1992 platform.
Since the 2020 platform looks more like 2016's losing effort than 1992's winning one, the hope must be that distended, more divisive verbiage will gain superior traction this time around.
One would have thought that a single loss to Donald Trump would be sufficient to spur the Democratic Party to reshape itself along middle-center appeal lines. Looks like it'll take two.
--–––––v–––––--
Dana D. Kelley is a freelance writer from Jonesboro.