Which party platform is a fit for you?

Recently, an acquaintance commented on the striking differences between the Republican and DFL (Democratic-Farmer-Labor) platforms for Minnesota. Although I’m familiar with the Democratic platform, I realized I’d never checked out the specifics of what the Minnesota Republicans include in their platform nor how they compare, so it was time.

The platforms are intended to reflect the values of the party and are the basis for their legislative action plans. Suggestions for the platform begin as resolutions from caucuses and county, legislative, and senate conventions; those that are approved work their way to the state level and on to the national level. Each item in the DFL platform has received at least a 60 percent affirmative vote at the DFL State Convention. How the Republicans approve platform planks is not evident in their online resources, and the state headquarters has not returned my call.

I read a story about a first-time voter who sought advice from his uncle. Instead of proselytizing, his uncle gave him copies of the party platforms and asked him to decide which fit him better. I would venture to say that most voters have not read any of the platforms, which would be an excellent first step to understanding the parties’ underpinnings. However, the short versions, little more than a list of key words, can be so general as to be misleading. They can create the impression that the Republicans and Democrats basically agree. A deeper read for more details is necessary. Following are some examples.

Both parties have health care in their platforms, under “Health & Human Services” in the DFL document, and labeled as “Strengthen Our Health Care” in the Republican platform. The enlightenment is in the details. The DFL believes that “all people should have the opportunity to be self-sufficient, secure, and healthy.” They support:

• “Nationally-funded, community-based comprehensive and affordable health care for all with adoption of a single payer health care system.

• Services to children to ensure their healthy start in life.  

• Private and public funding for health care programs that include pregnancy care, family planning and abortions, regardless of age or income.

• Institutional and outpatient mental health programs and services that provide equal access, continuity of care, and protection of patient rights. 

• Expedited funding for AIDS and HIV research, and care for the afflicted. 

• Programs to assist displaced persons, including refugees, displaced homemakers, and the homeless.”

The Republican platform focus is quite different. First and foremost, they support:

• “Genuine market competition, reduced government interference, and upholding medical freedom to strengthen our health care system.

• Limiting government regulation and mandates in health care.

• “Respecting the sanctity of life.” (No specifics are mentioned regarding abortion restrictions.)

Also specified was to “protect patient bodily autonomy and emphasize the doctor and informed patient relationship.” 

This latter statement sounds contradictory to having someone else make decisions about my body and health care decisions.

The difference in priorities between the parties is quite clear. The DFL wants everyone to have publicly funded health care, no exceptions, and emphasizes that by designating a number of groups who are often overlooked and underserved. The Republican platform is saying that health care will be strengthened if it is privatized in spite of that fact the Medicare has been a successful program with low overhead. The “genuine” market competition, decreased government interference, and increased “medical freedom,” remain undefined. A puzzling additional Republican item in this section is to increase funding for long-term, senior, and veteran care. That isn’t defined nor is it clear how that would happen or be funded in a “genuinely competitive market.”  

Both platforms have sections regarding elections purporting support government accountability and election integrity. The differences are stark.

The DFL platform speaks to ensuring “the political right of all citizens through fair elections and responsible government” by supporting:

• Campaign finance reform, including: Fair public financing of presidential and congressional elections.  

• A ban on gifts from lobbyists to elected officials. 

• Disclosure of financial political campaign support. 

• The use of ranked choice voting, also known as instant runoff voting, for local, state, and all federal primary and general elections.

• Enforcement of standards of ethical conduct and accountability for elected officials.

The Republican priorities are:

• Support the Electoral College and oppose national popular vote.  

• Oppose rank choice voting.

• Support one day of voting, limited use of absentee ballots; plus, no ballot received after election day shall be counted. 

• Ban ballot harvesting.* 

•  Require voters to present a government-issued photo identification showing U.S. citizenship and Minnesota residency. A free option paid for by the state should be available. 

• Require voters to either register at least 30 days prior to an election or cast a provisional ballot.

• Eliminate state participation in the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC).**

• Oppose Non-Government Organization (NGO) involvement in funding election processes and reporting.*** 

* Ballet harvesting means giving assistance to someone who cannot deliver their own ballet

**ERIC is a national database tracking and correlating voter registrations with licensing and identification data from motor vehicle departments.

***This refers to NGOs like Common Cause that work to improve the integrity and transparency of elections. They undertake voter education programs and can also lobby policy-makers and electoral officials for better policies and electoral legislation. 

You might ask why the Republican party would oppose these NGO efforts and other provisions for accessible elections? It seems apparent that while the DFL promotes opportunities to make voting easy and available, the Republican party platform comes down on the side of restricting not only the timeframe and opportunities to vote but oversight of the processes by neutral observers. I can only think that it’s because they believe the restrictions would have more impact on Democratic voters. I have heard the theory that Republicans could never win a presidential election if the popular vote were to replace the electoral college. Whether or not that is true, they are strong proponents of maintaining the electoral college, which has often meant the result is determined by a few swing states. Plus, a president may be elected who did not receive a majority of the popular vote, as happened with George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016. While both platforms claim to support election integrity, such polar opposite views hardly seem to support the same goals.

These are examples from only two sections of the party platforms, which are modified periodically. The 2022 National Republican Platform supported cutting or eliminating taxes on capital gains, businesses, and inheritance, which would primarily benefit wealthier people. Also included was phasing out Social Security by allowing younger Americans to invest part of their FICA taxes in personal accounts while continuing to fulfill our obligations to older Americans. By contrast, the 2024 RNC platform says, “fight for and protect Social Security and Medicare with no cuts, including no changes to the retirement age.” Quite a change in rhetoric, perhaps because of national pushback to their earlier stance.

I hope this has piqued your curiosity, which you can satisfy by googling the 2024 Minnesota Republican (or Democratic) Platform. Be prepared to be surprised and enlightened … or maybe appalled.