Comparing the platforms of the Texas Democratic and Republican Parties

The best way to understand the differences between the two major parties is to compare their platforms.

Here are links to the platforms developed and approved by the delegates of those two parties that meet in state conventions recently. These are only a reflection of the attitudes of the participants of these meetings, and does not necessarily reflect the attitudes of candidates for office, or rank and file identifiers of each party.

But it's a good gauge of what each party is likely to do if in power: 

- Click here for the 2024 Texas Republican Party Platform.

- Click here for the 2024 Texas Democratic Party Platform.

What is Populism?

Definitions: 


- Britannica:  

. . . political program or movement that champions, or claims to champion, the common person, usually by favorable contrast with a real or perceived elite or establishment. Populism usually combines elements of the left and the right, opposing large business and financial interests but also frequently being hostile to established liberal, socialist, and labor parties.

The term populism can designate either democratic or authoritarian movements. Populism is typically critical of political representation and anything that mediates the relation between the people and their leader or government. In its most democratic form, populism seeks to defend the interests and maximize the power of ordinary citizens, through reform rather than revolution. In the United States the term was applied to the program of the Populist Movement, which gave rise to the Populist, or People’s, Party in 1892. Many of the party’s demands were later adopted as laws or constitutional amendments (e.g., a progressive tax system). The populist demand for direct democracy through popular initiatives and referenda also become a reality in a number of U.S. states.


- ECPS: Populism.

. . . refers to a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of “the people” and often juxtapose this group against “the elite”. The term developed in the 19th century and has been applied to various politicians, parties, and movements since that time, although has rarely been chosen as a self-description. Within political science and other social sciences, several different definitions of populism have been employed, with some scholars proposing that the term be rejected altogether.

A common framework for interpreting populism is known as the ideational approach: this defines populism as an ideology which presents “the people” as a morally good force and contrasts them against “the elite”, who are portrayed as corrupt and self-serving. Populists differ in how “the people” are defined, but it can be based along class, ethnic, or national lines. In other words, as Jan-Werner Müller stated in an article that the populist decides who the real people are; and whoever does not want to be unified on the populist’s terms is completely and utterly excluded — even if they happen to have a British or an American passport.


- Explainer: Populism - Left and Right, Progressive and Regressive.

It is difficult to definitively characterize populism, but one helpful definition describes it as “reflecting a deep suspicion of the prevailing establishment, which is believed to conspire against the people instead of working in their interests.” Populists believe that the people, however defined, are the “true repositories of the soul of the nation.” Donald Trump’s frequent references to his supporters as “real” Americans are a classic populist rhetorical move.

The concept of populism has a distinctly pejorative connotation. It is a label that politicians apply to their opponents, but rarely claim for themselves (as Mudde and Kaltwasser aver). The fundamental claim of populism is that there is a singular “people” who are in opposition to “the elite.” The populist claims to be the representative of “the people.” In this way, a populist movement would describe itself as authentically democratic⁠—in contrast with the “politics as usual” that only supports the interest of “the elite.”

Populists can be from the right or left of the political divide; left-wing populists (also known as social populists) combine left-wing politics with populist themes and rhetoric while right-wing populists (also known as national populists) do the same on the right side of the political spectrum.


- Wikipedia: 

. . . a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group with "the elite". It is frequently associated with anti-establishment and anti-political sentiment. The term developed in the late 19th century and has been applied to various politicians, parties and movements since that time, often as a pejorative. Within political science and other social sciences, several different definitions of populism have been employed, with some scholars proposing that the term be rejected altogether.

A common framework for interpreting populism is known as the ideational approach: this defines populism as an ideology that presents "the people" as a morally good force and contrasts them against "the elite", who are portrayed as corrupt and self-serving. Populists differ in how "the people" are defined, but it can be based along class, ethnic, or national lines. Populists typically present "the elite" as comprising the political, economic, cultural, and media establishment, depicted as a homogeneous entity and accused of placing their own interests, and often the interests of other groups—such as large corporations, foreign countries, or immigrants—above the interests of "the people". Populist parties and social movements are often led by charismatic or dominant figures who present themselves as "the voice of the people". According to the ideational approach, populism is often combined with other ideologies, such as nationalism, liberalism, or socialism. Thus, populists can be found at different locations along the left–right political spectrum, and there exist both left-wing populism and right-wing populism. 


- History Channel: Populism in the United States: A Timeline.

The 2016 Republican Party Platform

- Click here for it.

Critics call it exceptionally extreme.

- LA Times.
- The New Republic.
- The New York Times.

From the Texas Tribune: Platforms Reveal Common Ground Between Texas GOP, Democrats

For out look at political parties. A comparison of the party platforms of the Texas Republican and Democratic Party platforms.

- Click here for the article.

Though they disagree on nearly every major policy issue, from education funding to abortion to immigration, Texas Republicans and Democrats apparently have common ground on a few things, according to the platforms approved at recent state conventions.
Both state parties approve new platforms every two years, covering dozens of issues. Republicans put their platform together in May in Dallas. Democrats followed suit last week in San Antonio.

The platforms provide an opportunity for activists in both parties to outline the positions they expect their candidates and elected officials to hold, though there's always some that choose to ignore some of their party's positions.

While much of the two parties' platforms is irreconcilable, there are a handful of policy areas where Republicans and Democrats appear to come together.

- Medical Marijuana
- Toll Roads
- Trans-Pacific Partnership
- Campaign Finance
- Space Exploration

Click here for the respective platforms:

- Texas Democratic Party Platform.
- Texas Republican Party Platform.

And here's a link to the platform of the Republican Party of Texas

- Click here for it.

When Democrats produce theirs, I'll have an assignment where students can compare the two.

From the Texas Tribune: GOP Platform Complicates Hispanic Outreach for Abbott

This story compliments the previous post.

While the Democratic Party has - and continues to try to expand - its coalition, forces within the Republican Party resist similar efforts for that party. The greater effort is to purify the party and expel people that do not conform to the party line.

At least that what some of the activists within the party attempt to do, to the chagrin of party leaders that see this as self defeating - if not in the near future - sometime ahead when the Latino population gets to the point where due to size they become a legitimate political force.

This author points out the difficulty the party's recent platform make it to make the party appealing to Latino voters. While activists approved language that might drive Latino voters away, the party's candidate for governor is trying reach out.

- Click here for the post.

In the wake of the GOP's approval of a platform that includes a hardline stance on immigration, Attorney General Greg Abbott finds himself at the top of the ticket for a party whose members are deeply divided over the subject and under fire from opponents who say the Republicans' position is offensive to Hispanic Texans.

And it all comes during an election cycle in which Hispanic Texans are seen as an especially critical voting bloc that Abbott has worked to woo.

"It effectively puts him in an awkward position," said Mark P. Jones, a political scientist at Rice University, because the attorney general does not want to risk alienating Hispanic voters or contradicting the official party stance.

Last week, the Republican party adopted a political platform that no longer endorses a provisional visa program for immigrants and calls for ending in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants and for prohibiting “sanctuary cities” that do not enforce immigration laws.

Abbott has largely been silent on the issue. Representatives for the Abbott campaign did not respond to requests for comment for this story, and they have not responded to previous inquiries about his position on the immigration plank of the platform.

What is a party platform?

Some of the following material will assume an understanding of what this is, so here's background in case you don't. Simply put - it's the "official" position that party takes on political issues in a specific political cycle. The 2014 Texas Republican Party Platform - for example - is the "official" position the party has taken on issues topical prior to the 2014 election. The Texas Democrats will do the same when the meet.

Each party did so in each of the previous elections going back to the dawn of conventions - it's one of the reasons why they are held, and one of the reasons activists bother to get involved. It allows them to have influence on the policy making process. Each convention's party platform tends to be based on the previous one, but there are changes that can occur from time to time, and these reflect the changes in the party's power structure from election cycle to election cycle.

Not that I put the word official in quotes. This is because despite the fact that the platform reflects what the party stands for, it is largely the product of the passionate activists who dominate the state's temporary party organization.

It is not necessarily what the permanent party organization, or individual candidates stand for.

There is no legal mechanism for forcing candidates to run on the platform - though it may be politically problematic if they don't.

As we go forward, keep in mind that the platform is the product of internal political conflict within each party. Despite the fact that we have a tendency to think of parties as being monolithic entities, they have internal differences. These fights often play out over the tome and substance of the party platform.

Some - hopefully - helpful readings on the subject of party platforms.

- Wikipedia: Party Platform
- American Presidency Project: Party Platforms.

Week Three Written Assignment - GOVT 2301 / 2305

So the Republicans and Democrats had their conventions, and each produced a platform -  which is a collection of policies and positions that the party delegates agree on. The platform is held out to be the official position the party takes on a number of issues. The terms for each specific position is "plank." Get it? The platform is made up of planks.

Clever I know.

The nasty truth is that there is no mechanism in place to force the party's nominees to run on these positions. Some might in fact make them less competitive than they would otherwise be to the independents that often make the real decisions about who will win the general election. Party nominees also tend to have their own sources of funding, so the party has nothing to force their candidate's hands on this.

Nevertheless, party platforms provide interesting insight into the state of each party at a particular moment in time, and allow for contrasts with each other. In that spirit. I want you to review the platforms of the two major parties and point out any similarities and differences between the two. Based on what you know about public opinion on each plank - which platform might be more or less competitive come November.

Click here for the platforms:

- The 2012 Democratic Platform.
- The 2012 Republican Platform.

If you are feeling ambitious, here's the Libertarian Party Platform, and here's the Green Party Platform.

Party 2012 Platforms

The Texas Republican and Democratic Parties had their state conventions last weekend. The party activists compiled their respective platforms. For your enjoyment, Here is the Republican Party Platform, and here is the Democratic Platform. A comparison of the two would make a good written assignment.

For some commentary:

- The Republican platform calls for a temporary worker program in order to curtail illegal immigration - or contain it perhaps. A Cato Institute scholar calls it progress - Texas GOP wonders if it is pandering.
- The Democratic platform includes a plank calling for acceptance of gay marriage. Burnt Orange Report calls it the most progressive platform in years. It also calls for decriminalizing marijuana and repealing the death penalty.

Giuliani and the Republican Party Platform

In 2301 we have been discussing the problems that the two major U.S. parties face in keeping consistent positions on issues. Republicans are having to face the uncomfortable reality that candidate that currently seems most competitive has different positions than the party on two of the most important issues to the party faithful: abortion and gay rights.

Maybe things change down the line, but do party identifiers stick to their principles and risk losing, or do they compromise principles in the hopes of winning?

This is a classic dilemma.

What to do? What to do?