Dear Charlottesville Democrats:

I welcome the meeting of the Democrats for Change organization, with the understanding that it is a group that is and will continue to be a part of the Democratic Party in Charlottesville.

I have no problem with factions, or rump caucuses, or subgroups, or whatever else you want to call them, provided that the understanding is that we are all Democrats, and that on Election Day we will support each other. It would not offend me if there were a group of African-American Democrats who wanted to organize to talk about how to make sure that the political process is more responsive to their interests. Nor would I be offended if there were a group of Democrats who wanted to get together to talk about how to press for the immediate construction of the Meadowcreek Parkway.

I have to take issue with David RePass' comment that Dems for Change tried "repeatedly to persuade Party leaders to bring the whole City Committee together to build a platform." I remember one conversation with David -- I think it was back in March -- in which I expressed my skepticism about the wisdom of having a platform battle. David didn't push it, and I have not discussed the issue with him or anyone else since. If five members of the Committee want Rus and me to call a meeting for a particular purpose, the bylaws say that we have to do so.

I have a basic problem with platforms. They get in the way of winning elections.

Sometimes in politics we are better advised to blur distinctions rather than to make them sharp. When the Democratic Party has won the Presidency in the last 30 years, for example, it has been because we have been able to blur the edges between, for example, the gun-totin' blue collar workers and the pro-gun-control liberals, all of whom vote Democratic because of economic issues. Or between the Catholic Hispanics who are pro-life and the pro-choice feminists, all of whom vote Democratic because of our commitment to equal rights.

When the Republican Party has lost the Presidency, it has been because they have had a platform fight over a divisive issue like abortion.

There are some core issues that truly define us as Democrats. It is those core issues that should be the basis of any platform. What are those core issues

I invite you to look to the State Party Platform, at http://www.vademocrats.org/public/plan/platform.cfm

What you will see is more of an expression of philosophy than of particular policy stances. It expresses the thoughts that bring us together rather than the policy choices that divide us. That's what a platform should do. If you can't sign on to just about everything in the platform, you should go find another party. Reasonable Democrats really won't differ over very much in there.

When I look at the Democrats for Change platform from 1999-2000, I see a number of issues with which I have problems. It contains much of the general language appropriate to platforms, but it also contains some very specific stances. Some of the specific stances violate state law (putting a City person on the County Planning Commission, and vice versa). Some violate the City Charter (direct election of the mayor). Some, like the proposal (already the state law and the city practice) that the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Plan should be linked, leave the impression that the drafters of the platform were not familiar with the way in which things are done in the City.

Some of the planks of the platform, such as the proposed moratorium on any new highway construction, including the Meadowcreek Parkway, are the kinds of issues that are more divisive than helpful to have in a platform. Reasonable Democrats can and do differ on those issues, and I can't say, as I can with the state party platform, that if you can't agree with us on most of these, you should go find yourself another party. You can be in favor of the Meadowcreek Parkway and still be a good Democrat.

I welcome substantive discussions among Democrats. I welcome policy debates among Democrats. I welcome hotly contested races for City Council nominations. I particularly welcome efforts to find common ground among people who should be friends.

I do not welcome angry discussions among Democrats who agree on more than they are willing to admit. I do not welcome anything that says to any citizen of good will, "You don't pass the litmus test. You are not welcome in the Party."

In 2000, the Party was an angry, distrustful and contentious bunch. I hope that working together during 2001 will have helped soothe feelings, but I don't think it has very much.

There is one more problem.

Most of us have other things to do than go to meetings. It is not easy to get a quorum at any City Committee meeting, and we have purposely called meetings only quarterly in an effort to NOT burn out our Party workers. Drafting a platform, and debating it, would be a time-consuming process. I frankly do not want to call more meetings than we have to.

Between January, 2000, and December, 2001, we will have had three general elections, one special election, one primary, and six mass meetings or nominating conventions. Plus the reorganization meeting in January, 2000, selecting new party officers in December, 2000, the Fifth District Convention in May, 2000, and the Fifth District Convention in May, 2001. We will have nominated three City Council candidates, one president/vice-president ticket, one U.S. Senator candidate, three state-wide office seekers, 4 constitutional officers, a House of Delegates member and a State Senator. We have been busy, folks.

The essential business of the party is nominating candidates and getting them elected. When we spend time on other pursuits, we use up the limited amount of time that many of us have to spend on politics.

If Democrats for Change want to sponsor debates on policy, go for it. If they want to work for candidates who share their views on policy issues, go for it. But please don't ask the Party organization to spend more time on something that distracts from the essential work of the Party.

Lloyd Snook (electronic mail, November 20, 2001).