Professors Research Democratic Platform

This year's Democratic platform may sound like Teddy Roosevelt's 1912 Progressive Party platform if it is to reflect the mood of the 1970's, according the Doris H. Kearns, assistant professor of Government.

Kearns is one of five Harvard associates whom Richard E. Neustadt, professor of Government and acting chairman of the Democratic Platform Committee, has asked to do research on various issues for the 1972 Democratic Party platform.

The other Harvard associates are Elisabeth K. Allison, lecturer in Business Administration: Lance M. Liebman, assistant professor of Law: Marc J. Roberts '64, assistant professor of Economics: and James Vorenberg '49, professor of Law.

Neustadt said last week that individuals associated with Harvard, including the five research associates and several graduate students, comprise about a quarter of the Platform Committee's research staff.

Kearns, who worked in the White House during the waning days of the Johnson Administration and was involved in the 1968 Kennedy campaign, said her section on "Government and the People" would include discussion of electoral reform, government decentralization, security and classification, and regulatory agencies.

"It will deal with the whole notion of political process--how to redistribute power by breaking down old institutions and building up new ones," she said.

"You can't reorganize from the top. We've done that for 40 years and nothing's happened because the power base hasn't changed," Kearns contended. "You have to redistribute power to the citizens and force change on the government from the outside. That means giving them resources of power besides the vote--money, knowledge, communications."

At the suggestion of Samuel H. Beer, Eaton Professor of Government, Kearns read the 1912 Progressive Party and 1896 Populist Party platforms, which she said were much closer to the mood of the 1970's than more recent platforms.

"From Teddy Roosevelt's 1912 platform you sense that the political process had gotten away from the people while the Populists captured the contemporary economic dissent," she said. In contrast, Kearns said, the platforms of the 1960's exuded a basic confidence in the existing political system.

Vorenberg, "moderately active" as a Democratic speech writer in the past, said that the plank on "Law, Crime and Justice" which he is researching would probably oppose Federal block grants to local criminal justice agencies.

Instead, he said, the Party might propose that incentives be tied to the Federal funding so that localities might reform their administration of justice.

"For instance, there is a major commitment to imprisonment now. A large percentage of correctional dollars goes to custodial personnel," he explained. "What's needed is community programs--halfway houses, foster homes, residential centers. In many cities and states there is no pressure to reform."

Vorenberg said his research would also treat wiretapping and gun control, an issue "complicated by the assault on Governor (George C., Wallace (D-Ala.), since he's one of the people opposed to it."

Roberts and Allison foresaw no major difference of opinion among the candidates in their areas. Roberts is covering two topics--"Resources. Technology, and the Environment" and "Corporate Responsibility and Consumer Interest"--while Allison is working on "Budget Priorities."

Having written background papers for Congressional candidates two years ago, Roberts is familiar with this work. He also teaches courses on both the environment and antitrust policy. "I want to learn how people conceive of the issues outside of academia and I'm very interested in the policy-making process," he said. "So this is a very educational opportunity."

The platform never before included a specific budgetary priorities plank because defense spending was never questioned as much as it is today. Allison explained. She said that cuts in military expenditures had generated the new issue of priorities in spending.

"It's hard to get a feel for the candidates' real positions--hard to pin them down on how much they want to cut," Allison said.

"And people don't like to be terribly specific on where to send the money," she added. "They may have to choose national health insurance over day care--and nobody wants to be against day care."

Liebman predicted that the question of integrating the suburbs would stir the most controversy in his plank on "Cities, Towns and Suburbs," although he said there is general agreement that the Nixon Administration has shortchanged the cities.

"It's not clear how specific a device the platform is; in the past the Party has united behind a series of rousing cliches," said Liebman, who until two years ago served as a trouble-shooter for New York Mayor John Lindsay.

Allison also found past platforms undistinguished. "Every so often as I'm frantically calling someone for this job. I realize that I can't recall a single portion of the 1968 platform except for the Vietnam plank," she remarked.

The O'Hara Commission, formed after the 1968 Democratic Convention, mandated the hearings and new procedures of Platform Committee selection. The McGovern Commission introduced reforms in the delegate selection process.

"We've been caught between two reforms." Neustadt said. "The O'Hara Commission assumed delegates would be selected early while the McGovern Commission provided that they were chosen late."

As a result, the hearings had to begin before all the Convention delegates were chosen in order to finish by June 23, the first full meeting of the Platform Committee.

Each of the research associates will attend several of the Platform Committee's 15 hearings, including the one that deals with his area of interest. At the hearings, to be held during the next month in various cities across the country, local members of the 150-man Platform Committee will listen to testimony from experts in different fields.

Each hearing consists of a morning session that considers a specific national issue like "Education" or "Taxes" and an afternoon session devoted to regional problems.

The New England regional hearing began yesterday at Faneuil Hall in Boston and dealt with "Rights. Opportunities and Political Power." The final session in Boston is scheduled for this morning on "Education."

The research associates will also consult experts in the field, Congressional personnel, interest groups, and past party platforms in defining the issues in their areas. After a series of rough drafts, each researcher will submit proposed platform language to the drafting subcommittee for alternative positions on his topic.

"We're supposed to point out the general directions that the party can choose from or fudge over," said Liebman.

Neustadt has instructed the researchers to take into account the positions of the primary contenders when drawing up their alternative proposals. "We may be drafting language for the Wallace people to get their positions into good form for a floor fight." Liebman said. "It'll be interesting--and maybe immoral."

Since there are 18 research associates, each contribution to the drafting subcommittee will be highly restricted in length. "My most optimistic assumption is that we'll have between 500 and 1500 words per subject. You can't really make out a policy or spell out an argument," Roberts said.

During the last week of June, a drafting subcommittee will consider the work of the research associates and the final document will be mailed out to the delegates by June 30