Why must it merely be symbolic?
Couldn’t it be more than a public education exercise?
Could it be used as an organizing tool to help transform the Party into an activist organization that serves local needs and fights for its platform year-round?
Could all Democratic office holders be expected to actively support the platform?
Could decisions concerning Party leadership positions be based on whether the official fully supports the platform?
Could Party funds for local campaigns only go to candidates who back the platform?
If Democratic officeholders repeatedly fail to uphold the platform, could the Party support an alternative in the next primary election?
Could those and other steps be taken to make the platform binding?
If not, why not?
With that approach, Democrats could widely distribute a clear, concise, and powerful platform. The Party could hold its officeholders accountable. And the Party could become a real, coherent, activist organization, rather than merely help Democrats get elected.
With cost-effective precinct organizing, the Party could nurture face-to-face community with Democrats who share a commitment to the platform, a desire to help improve it in the future, and a willingness to learn from one another in order to become more effective.
If this year’s convention declines to make the platform a binding organizing tool, a caucus within the Party could push for that goal in the future.
By electing supportive candidates to local Party committees, and then doing the same with state committees and the Democratic National Committee, we can eventually transform the Democratic Party into a powerful activist organization.
NOTE: After receiving feedback to this draft and making revisions, I may soon send it to the Drafting Committee.