This week’s coffee shop discussion centered on political party platforms.

Lucius Flatley opened the dialogue by arguing that party platforms were originally intended to be a contract with the voters, but now seem to have little or no connection with reality.

“Office holders certainly pay them scant attention,” he said. “They consist of paragraphs of promises which seem to serve mainly as a safety valve for true believers. They have become a Joseph’s coat – covering positions from vegans to cattlemen, from supply-siders to Keynesians, from tree huggers to loggers, from same-sex marriage advocates to abstinence adherents.”

Hoping to improve political discussion, the group obtained a copy of last year’s Democratic Party platform and performed an analysis.

The group agreed: First, there is a profligate use of adjectival modifiers as in, “smart and right and fair and good for America.” This technique allows excessive wiggle room. For example, it might not be fair to prosecute CEOs who legally screw the corporations they control, but it would surely be good for America. Or, it might be good to hunt moose from airplanes, but it hardly seems right or fair.

Then there is a nomenclature problem. “We would provide immediate relief to people … who have lost their way.” Some folks feel that a long dead Jewish carpenter is “the way and the light.” Are these folks going to have a choice between their “way” or can they choose a GPS?

The platform promised to “increase American competitiveness by retaining the best workers.” This smacks of Darwin and survival of the fittest. How about the strongest or smartest or longest serving? Tallest maybe? What percentage of best workers? Would government testing teams be needed?

Even occasional bursts of incomprehension erupted, e.g., “Provide a generic pathway for biologic drugs.” Whaaaat?

Some felt that the document contained a lack of specificity: “We will never put ideology above people’s health.” That not only confuses definition, but also it sounds like a sneaky way to be either pro choice (personal privacy) or right to life (protection of the unborn) – depending on your definition. Is the pursuit of happiness an ideology?

Also: “Transitional bilingual education” – What means “transitional’? In or out?

The term “investments in public properties” could be a cover for socialism. Take care, you America Firsters, for Marxists and Fabians may be in your next Congress. Thank God the country has Republicans to search out any such camouflaged intentions.

The document also presents conflicting alternatives that may cloud meanings, such as “research for common and rare diseases.” How about “uncommon diseases” or,simply, “diseases”?

Some promises apparently have not been thought through. “Lower gas prices” are the foundation for the horrendous oil consumption we have created in the U.S. Does the party of the people really hope to benefit Hummer owners?

There are instances where a definition is often avoided: “Costs of medical care made affordable through tax rebates or other means.” Readers are invited to define “other means” to suit themselves. Set the old folks adrift on the ice?

Also: “Prevent CEOs from taking away from workers while lining their own pockets.” Should CEOs be permitted to line the pockets of shareholders?

And then there’s this: “Family leave act to include domestic violence or rape, care for elderly parent, or attend PTA meetings.” What makes the PTA so special? How about AA meetings? Or NRA drills?

And this: “Seniors making less than $50,000 a year should not have to worry about tax burdens.” Is there no sympathy for working people making less than $50,000?

Finally, the group noted that the platform did not seem to mention LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered) nor NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association).

Even Democrats have their limits.

Rodney Quinn, who lives in Gorham, is a former Maine secretary of state. He can be reached at [email protected].