Color Me Disturbed

CBN’s David Brody has turned up the latest news on Fred Thompson with some key press reports from the mid-1990s. Fred Thompson was against the GOP having a platform. Not having a pro-life plank it, but against having a platform, period. According to Brody:

In April of 1996, this is what The Memphis Commercial Appeal wrote: Thompson wants to change the way the 1996 Republican National Convention is conducted. For starters, he wants to abolish the party platform – just toss the archaic thing away. ‘It’s the most useless device I’ve ever heard of,’ Thompson said during a recent visit to Memphis.” 

Thompson also said this in a separate article from April of 1996: 
Thompson: “Does Anyone Remember What Was In The Last , Except Abortion? … If We Get Caught Up In Having A Platform Debate And Stuff Like That, We Deserve To Lose.” In August of that same year, Thompson called abortion a “distracting issue.” Read below from an Associated Press article: U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson says he seldom hears about abortion in campaign travels throughout Tennessee and hopes the issue is downplayed at the Republican National Convention. The Tennessee Republican, a pro-choice defender in a party with an anti-abortion tilt, is preparing for next week’s convention in San Diego. He said the party must avoid distracting issues and focus on electing Bob Dole as president. ‘We need to concentrate on what brings us together and not what divides us,’ Thompson said in an interview with The Tennessean published Tuesday.

Later in that same 1996 AP article came this part: 
In 1996, Thompson Said Republican Ideals Don’t Need To Be Written Down Into Platform. “Thompson said he opposes making early-term abortions a crime, as some Republicans would like to do with a constitutional amendment. ‘But I don’t think you should bolt on one issue. I’m still not convinced platforms are a good idea. We know what we believe in and I don’t think we need to write it all down in a document,’ Thompson said.

This is probably the most damning piece of information to come out. I’m kind of surprised it took this long.  The abortion stuff isn’t really all that surprising, but the opposition to the very idea of a platform is perhaps one of the more shallow statements I’ve heard in American politics. “Come on, let’s not have ideas, let’s talk about winning.”

Yes, I’m working for another candidate, but that’s not why I’ve posted this. I’m a Conservative and I can’t let this pass. I’ve let a lot of this Thompson stuff go by, both ways, but this is downright disturbing.  This is getting almost Romneyesque (almost, but not quite that bad yet.) Tomorrow (or whenever this hits the mainstream press), I fully expect Senator Thompson to go out and not only affirm support for a party platform, but to claim he doesn’t recall stating he opposed it.  As a person of good will (even one who’s not supporting him), I try to give him the benefit of the doubt, but this is getting to be too much.  I hope there’s some acknowledgment that he made the statement  (given the number of sources Brody uses) and not just another, “I don’t recall.” That’s getting lame and old. We deserve better.

Linked by Life of the Party

Update: Captain Ed comes to Thompson’s defense:

What Thompson argued was the prioritization of abortion as an issue in the 1996 elections, saying that voters had other priorities and that the GOP needed to focus on Dole’s other qualities more. He wanted to do what Clinton had done in the previous election — remain on topic on those issues that united Americans.

As for Thompson’s position on abortion, Brody quoted the AP on Thompson:

“Thompson said he opposes making early-term abortions a crime, as some Republicans would like to do with a constitutional amendment. “

So, he wasn’t pro-choice, he just favored keeping 91% of abortions legal. I could forgive that, but the rank dishonesty about the position is troubling.  Morrisey goes on:

That was one of the reasons why Thompson wanted to ditch the platform. Especially after Pat Buchanan’s appearance in 1992, Thompson wanted a unified convention, which he knew the Republicans needed to gain any momentum against Bill Clinton.

The absurdity of shoving the whole 1992 election loss off on Pat Buchanan comes up again. How about we start with the guy who blew a 91% Approval rating, raised taxes, and incited a conservative revolt, as he suffered from a lack of the vision thing. I’m no Buchanan fan, but don’t hang the 1992 election on him:

So, considering the vulnerabilities it imposes on individual candidates, the arguments and disunity it causes when drafting it, and the complete and utter lack of interest from voters, I think the question should be asked again: why have a platform at all? Brody says that the party should have a document which delineates “the principles that unite us,” but that’s not what a platform is or does. It’s not a simple declaration of principles, which might tend to unite, but a lengthy and detailed list of policy positions that tend to divide us.

There are several reasons to have a platform. Let me spell them out.

First, a party platform is traditional. Traditions should not be abolished without very good reason. 

Second, party platforms serve a tactical reason. You have no idea the number of people who identify as Republicans because of the platform. I know dozens of folks (myself included) who would bolt the GOP should there not be a platform that they approved of. There are many people who are Republicans for no other reason than the Republican Party has a pro-life platform. Because of the platform being traditional, if the GOP ceased to have a pro-life platform, there would be a party that would emerge with a pro-life platform.

Platform planks on issues like taxes, spending, and traditional marriage attract constituencies and lead people to become a member of the party that shares their beliefs. Yes, it has cost us some liberal members, but so be it, and good riddance, parties should stand for something and a party that’s has a platform that’s wide enough to contain Jim Jeffords and Jesse Helms is not really a party, but an arbitrary association.

The principled reason to have a platform is that the platform is a document that expresses the opinion of the way things ought to be and long-term goals of the party. Without a platform, a party does two things:

1. Has no vision beyond the next election.
2. Becomes little more than a cult of personality.

No one agrees with the whole platform. What it represents is the best collective wisdom of the majority of party members. It represents a yardstick by which to measure candidates for office, and by which people can measure parties to find the one that best suits their values.

Without a platform, a party is little more than a team of power players wanting political victory, and a fuzzy statements of general principles to avoid offending anyone. A party that will not stand for something, will for fall anything. And that’s why if you want to get rid of the platform, you can count me and many other conservatives out.