The Democrats' Contract with America

[John_Corrado]

@BobLibDem

Your words sting this admirer of Jimmy Carter. You’re absolutely right, “human rights” could well be a lightning rod for anti-Carter backlash. In a perfect world, we would all revere Jimmy Carter, but oh well…

Hey, I think Jimmy Carter is eminently admirable as a person.

As a President, I think he was fucked by circumstances, some of which were his own making.

As a political symbol, I think he is the Democrat’s greatest monster.

And I will not even try to comment upon him as a poet.

You certainly can’t reverse foreign policy in the Congress. But taking the Congress would certainly hinder Bush’s ability to pursue his wicked agenda on all fronts.

How? By stopping money from going to Iraq? By passing binding resolutions that everyone will ignore? By shouting a lot about it?

I’m not clear on how you think Congress can seriously effect Bush’s foreign policy to the point where you’d want to make it a promise to the American Voter.

[BobLibDem]

@Mr. Moto

Big. Fucking. Yawn.

Do you know what this looks like, BobLibDem? A party platform, with all of its generalities. And who the hell ever reads them.

Look at the Republican contract, by contrast. It is specific to the point of even having the legislation attached to it, and the signatures of the politicians committed to pushing it through.

Let’s look at the Republican Contract

On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:

• FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
• SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
• THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
• FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
• FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
• SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
• SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
• EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

How many of these have actually come to fruition? Do you think we have an honest accounting of the budget now? They were specific on issues, but they have the advantage of taking the “easy side” on every issue.

2. THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT: An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in- sentencing, “good faith” exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this summer’s “crime” bill to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools.

Yeah, they’re in favor of the death penalty. Did the Act pass? Did it do anything? Darned if I know.

[BobLibDem]

@John Corrado

And I will not even try to comment upon him as a poet.

How? By stopping money from going to Iraq? By passing binding resolutions that everyone will ignore? By shouting a lot about it?

I’m not clear on how you think Congress can seriously effect Bush’s foreign policy to the point where you’d want to make it a promise to the American Voter.

I didn’t realize he was a poet.

You take control of the Congress, and you have all the committee chairs. Take the committee chairs, and you control the agenda of the Congress. Let’s say Bush wants continuing funding for the war. He’s going to have to push this by an unsympathetic committee and then an unfriendly Congress. Maybe he gets it, maybe he doesn’t. But he’s going to have his hands a little less free than before. As is now, he can get almost anything he wants. I’m not saying that this would radically change foreign policy, but this is step one. Getting a Democratic president is step 2.

[John_Corrado]

@BobLibDem

I didn’t realize he was a poet.

Always a Reckoning, and Other Poems, by Jimmy Carter.

You take control of the Congress, and you have all the committee chairs. Take the committee chairs, and you control the agenda of the Congress. Let’s say Bush wants continuing funding for the war. He’s going to have to push this by an unsympathetic committee and then an unfriendly Congress. Maybe he gets it, maybe he doesn’t. But he’s going to have his hands a little less free than before. As is now, he can get almost anything he wants. I’m not saying that this would radically change foreign policy, but this is step one. Getting a Democratic president is step 2.

Question- will Democrats decreasing funding for the war cause Bush to withdraw troops, or will it give the Republicans a chance to point out that Democrats are getting our servicemen killed by short-shrifting them on supplies and armor? Yes, I know many Dems are arguing that the Pubs are short-shrifting them right now, but with newspaper headlines shouting, “Dems cut Iraq troop spending by 50%”, it’ll get a lot more airplay. Not to mention that it plays directly into the unfortunate stereotypes that already exist regarding Democratic willingness to support the military.

What I’m trying to say is that while it is possible for Democrats to curtail Bush’s foreign policy, the only way to do that is to commit political suicide. Better to simply hand-wave on the matter or move step 2 (Democratic President) to step 1.

[ITR_champion]

I agree with Mr. Moto. (A man bites dog moment, I know.) Here’s the situation.

The American center now agrees that Bush and the Republicans are out of control spenders, highly corrupt and abusive, and in many cases devoted to ramming through an extremely conservative social agenda. However, that center has not switched to strongly supporting the Democrats because they don’t trust the Democrats to do a better job. A statement that speaks only in generalities and mostly in the same generalities that we’ve been using for years won’t pull in the center. Specifics. Here we go:

1. Strict ethical guidleines. Implement rules punishing party members indicted on criminal charges. Possibly also punishments for those censured by the ethics committee. Require that all important federal officials be honest and straightforward about their qualifications; remove those who aren’t.

2. Fiscal sanity. Pledge to eliminate a certain (large) amount of unnecessary spending. List specific programs and items that will be taken out. (The bridge to nowhere would be a good place to start.) Repeal a portion of the Bush tax cuts, emphasizing that the typical family will stlil be paying less taxes than they were in the 90’s. Eliminate corporate tax loopholes, being specific about which ones will be chopped out.

3. Reduce foreign energy dependence. Stricter vehicle fuel efficiency requirements. Money for research into fuel efficiency and alternate fuel research. Serious conservation programs.

4. Protect American jobs. Oppose further expansion of free trade agreements. Strictly punish companies caught employing illegal immigrants.

5. Fight poverty. Pay for job training programs for the poor, making certain that money is targeted at programs that actually work. Raise the minimum wage. Targeted tax breaks for companies that promote growth in poor areas.

[BobLibDem]

I love Carter, and I love poetry, but I’m not sure I would love Carter poetry enough to part with my money. Thanks for the link.

I think the original Iraq resolution would have been a harder sell with a Democratic Congress. The Dems realized that they were outvoted and many bailed to the easy way out (voting for it) rather than force the issue. As an example of how the Congress can influence policy, look at the McCain amendment regarding the use of torture. Bush has the choice of vetoing military spending (never a popular move in his base) or stopping the use of torture. With a Democratic Congress, those unpleasant choices would multiply.

[Evil_Captor]

A “No torture” proviso on the Democratic contract would work very nicely. Don’t think most mainstream voters are for torture at all. It would be a chance to make Repub candidates look bad by contrast without any political risk at all.

[pohjonen]

@ITR champion

5. Fight poverty. Pay for job training programs for the poor, making certain that money is targeted at programs that actually work. Raise the minimum wage. Targeted tax breaks for companies that promote growth in poor areas.

Do you think that job training is really the issue? It seems obvious that no matter how well trained one is, it does not guarantee that anyone will get the job he/she is trained for. If 100 percent of the working population had a college degree and unlimited skill, a large percentage of them would still be employed at the McJobs. There aren’t enough skilled jobs to go around, which is an obvious point that seems to be universally ignored. If I had my druthers, there wouldn’t be any desperately poor working people.

Nearly everything we buy has increased in cost tenfold in the last 50 years. But the pay for doing the unskilled jobs that a significant portion of the population will always be holding hasn’t even come close to increasing tenfold.

Here’s a novel proposition: Anyone who works 40 hours a week deserves to earn a living wage, no matter what the nature of his labor. And if you contend it’s not worth it to you to pay a living wage for a given job, then fine. Do it yourself.

I don’t buy for one minute that all those businesses would close up if they had to pay a living wage.

If one can’t climb out of grinding poverty in America while working full time at ANY job (or any two part time jobs for that matter), then something is horribly wrong in America.

I’d like to see the Dems address THAT!

[furt]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Okay, then: what would you propose? Frankly, I don’t understand what you mean by “allows it to be implied.” It’s almost certain that the Republicans will imply UN control of any Democratic party that makes any overtures at all toward increased cooperation with other countries; are you saying that the party must refute such charges, or that they must show themselves to be even more in favor of unilateralism than the current administration?

I’m saying that, fair or not, both parties bear a burden of proof that they are not their stereotypes. Republicans must convince people they aren’t warmongers. Democrats must convince people that they aren’t wusses.

Democrats don’t need to say that they will seek to negotiate and “work with international bodies” and the rest. That’s a given. It is not a given, in the minds of many, that Generic Democratic Politician isn’t a bureaucratic therapist-in-chief. Whether this is fair or not is irrelevant. It is the reality of how they are percieved.

In campaign rhetoric, fuck international law. Remind people that the UN is unelected, and say plainly that the US will work within the UN when it is in our interest to do so, but that we do not and will not recognize the UN as some sort of supranational government. State flatly that if the UN attempts to enlarge its mandate and make the US a subordinate, we will leave.

Of course it’s an absurd hypothetical; but that sort of one-world-government is what some on the left want, and it is one of the things the center fears about the Dems. Assuage those fears.

[John_Mace]

OK, here are 3 ideas, the first being the elephant in the living room that we all have to talk about:

1. Iraq: We will enact legilsation to require the president to begin troop drawdowns in Jan of '07. He will also be required, by Mar '07, to negotiate and publish a plan and a schedule with the Iraqi government to cut our troop levels in half by mid '08. [Dates are subject to change by any poster here who thinks they’re too aggressive or not aggressive enough.] Savings from war expenditures to be channeled into domestic security programs like cargo container inspections, increased border patrols, etc.

2. Budget: We will balance the budget within 4 years. Accomplish this by repealing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy, restoring the estate tax and by freezing federal expenditures at '05 levels for 4 years. In order to allow some increases in areas of critical need, all departments will submit budget request assuming an across the board 2% funding cut.

3. Alternative fuels: Create an alternative fuels program with the goal of reducing oil depedency by 10% in 10 years and 25% in 20 years. Funding for the program to be provided by a windfall profits tax on oil companies. [Dates and %s made up, they may need to be tweaked depending on the reality of the situation.]

And I just want everyone to know how it pains me to propose the repeal of any income tax cuts and the introduction of a “windfall profits tax”. Both go against all my economic principles, but I think they align with Democratic ideas, and I think they can both easily be sold to the public.

Stay away from a tax increase on gas. That makes it look like the government is not on the side of the people. Tax the oil companies, not the consumer. [Of course, this will end up in higher gas costs, but it’s more palatable that way.] Stay away from SSM, and just say it’s up to the states.

[Evil_Captor]

@pohjonen

Do you think that job training is really the issue? It seems obvious that no matter how well trained one is, it does not guarantee that anyone will get the job he/she is trained for. If 100 percent of the working population had a college degree and unlimited skill, a large percentage of them would still be employed at the McJobs. There aren’t enough skilled jobs to go around, which is an obvious point that seems to be universally ignored. If I had my druthers, there wouldn’t be any desperately poor working people.

Nearly everything we buy has increased in cost tenfold in the last 50 years. But the pay for doing the unskilled jobs that a significant portion of the population will always be holding hasn’t even come close to increasing tenfold.

Here’s a novel proposition: Anyone who works 40 hours a week deserves to earn a living wage, no matter what the nature of his labor. And if you contend it’s not worth it to you to pay a living wage for a given job, then fine. Do it yourself.

I don’t buy for one minute that all those businesses would close up if they had to pay a living wage.

If one can’t climb out of grinding poverty in America while working full time at ANY job (or any two part time jobs for that matter), then something is horribly wrong in America.

I’d like to see the Dems address THAT!

Exactly! Right on the money! I’m sick of listening to all these people talk about “training” as the panacea for joblessness. Training for what? And what are you supposed to eat and where are you supposed to sleep while you train? And if you DO get trained, what kind of jobs will there be?

It’s gotten so that when I hear someone talk about “training” when someone brings up outsourcing or joblessness, I just figure they don’t give a shit and are throwing up whatever gobbledegook they think will pass muster. Although in many cases, I’m sure it’s sheer ignorance.

[John_Mace]

@pohjonen

Here’s a novel proposition: Anyone who works 40 hours a week deserves to earn a living wage, no matter what the nature of his labor. And if you contend it’s not worth it to you to pay a living wage for a given job, then fine. Do it yourself.

I don’t buy for one minute that all those businesses would close up if they had to pay a living wage.

If one can’t climb out of grinding poverty in America while working full time at ANY job (or any two part time jobs for that matter), then something is horribly wrong in America.

I’d like to see the Dems address THAT!

You really want to say “fine. Do it yourself?” Man, you need a marketing department.

And this proposal would be certain death to the Democratic Party. Might was well just change the name to American Socialist Party and be done with it.

[XT]

Left Hand of Dorkness, when the Republicans made their contract with America they did so in order to try and expand beyond their base…i.e. to take centrist and even mildly left wing votes away from the Democrats. They wanted to increase their market share so to speak.

My question to you is: who exactly do you expect to win over with your own proposal that isn’t already on your side? Looking at Evil and Bobs replies and your own OP I’m at a loss as to who you are going to get that you don’t already have. If you REALLY want to win elections with your new contract (and at its base thats why the Republicans did their own), then you have to think in terms of expanding your message to reach those who are either on the fence, indifferent or perhaps mildly hostile to you but disillusioned with the recen Republican rule…folks like John Mace say. You (and others on your side in this thread) seem to be thinking more in terms of simply refining the same old message the Dems have had for decades…or in moving further left as if there is a great untapped pool of left wing voters in the US that your message will reach. Do you think there is a great untapped pool of left wing voters in the US that your new message can and will reach?

My advice would be to junk everything you and EC and BLibD have said and instead think about who you are trying to reach…and what message will be best at reaching them. You already have the left and the minority vote in your pocket. I can tell you that my hispanic kin will vote for you over the Republicans no matter what you do…and I assume the black vote is similarly locked up. The left wing and environmental vote is similarly in your pocket. Oh, you may loose a few percentage point if you piss them off (think Nader), but the middle in this country is HUGE…and its soft. If you can reach them you will win. The Republicans HAVE reached them and thats why THEY win.

Anyway, thats my advice. If you will answer some of the questions I’m raising and are interested I’ll get back to you with some of my thoughts on what the Dems COULD do to be successful.

-XT

[John_Mace]

XT: That was excellent advice (notwithstanding the refence to me ).

I like BobLibDem, and I enjoy debating him. But this isn’t about atracting Liberal Democrats to the Democratic party (you arlready have them, or even about catering to them (they make up maybe 20% of the population, if that). Throw some bones to the hard left if you have to, but make the meat of this proposal about attracting centrists, libertarian leaning Republicans, or those who are disallusioned with Bush.

[Liberal]

1) A catchy name.

Party Like It’s 1776!

The theme that I have in mind is for the Democratic Party to return to its core classical values. Don’t worry, I’m not going to go all libertarian on you — I’m not going to recommend eliminating taxes or anything like that. The pun within a pun hopefully will make the slogan memorable.

2) A PR-friendly format.

We Hold These Truths

I wouldn’t copy the Republicans’ contract with America. It’s following their lead. It has been done, and would smack of a lack of ideas and creativity. Democrats need to be leaders.

I’d like to see Democrats do a major motion picture, We Hold These Truths. Write a book and play in conjunction with the screenplay. Produce a line of merchandise holding to the theme. Organize rallies and town meetings, featuring the characters from the film, in houses of worship, public venues, college campuses, and wherever it can be done. Coordinate voter registration drives with these activities.

Briefly, the story of the film is that key Founders are brought to modern day America via a secret project deep in the bowels of the Defense Department. They see quite much that horrifies them, and quite much that delights them. Each of these will become bullets for talking points and slogans. When they are ready to be returned to their time, one of them (Washington, probably) gives an impassioned televised address. He begins by reading the “We hold these truths” clause from the Declaration of Independence. No eye in America is dry as he implores them to marshal the vigilance and courage that carved a nation out of wilderness. He calls on them to hold their leaders accountable for the damage they have done to liberty and posterity. He reminds them that whenever government becomes oppressive, it is the right and duty of the governed to replace it with a government that ensures their safety and happiness. He tells Americans that they are the guardians of the self-evident truths for which their ancestors fought, and for which many brave souls have died. He ends by saying, “…and now it is you who hold these truths.”

Naturally, in the film the Republicans are villains and the Democrats heroes. (But don’t overdo it.) Do the film smartly and with high quality elements.

One reason I recommend a movie is that it can be played in theaters, on DVD, and on the Internet, and while political snobs might make fun of the whole idea even if the movie is good, common folk will like it. And they vote.

3) Positions and proposals.

These are billed as “A List Of Grievances”, and are offered as America pleading with her government:

Freedom Begins At Home

Spread freedom to the Middle East and around the world by being an example. If people hate you, it is because you’re hateful.

Introduce legislation to establish an independent human rights watch agency to which any American may appeal when he feels his rights have been violated. This agency will fight for the rights of individuals.

Fight Only The Good Fight

Use our armed forces to defend ourselves and our friends. Don’t spill American blood to settle personal scores.

Introduce legislation to forbid the funding of the military fighting on foreign soil without a declaration of war. The only exception will be to rescue Americans from imminent harm.

We’re All Americans

Our diversity is our greatest strength. Being American is the only thing we all have in common.

Introduce an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting Congress from interfering in any voluntary contract or union among mutually consenting adults.

Stop Embarrassing God

Be what you believe. Give all others the freedom to do the same.

Introduce legislation to prohibit the disbursement of funds by Congress for any religious purpose.

Give Business A Chance

Be more flexible with start up companies, so they have a fair chance to compete. Entrepeneur is not a four letter word.

Introduce legislation giving businesses special exemptions from certain OSHA, DOT, and FDA regulations during their first three years of business.

Save Welfare For The Needy

You people need to get a room. Let corporations fail or succeed by the decisions of their boards.

Introduce legislation to prohibit Congress from disbursing funds to any for profit corporation for any purpose other than procurement.

Get Off Our Backs

The vast majority of Americans are decent people. Don’t become criminals in order to fight crime.

Establish an independent investigative committee to review Executive Orders and Acts of Congress since September 11, 2001 to determine their impact on the liberty of Americans. Upon completion, the committee will report to Congress and to the people, and will make observations and recommendations.

We’re Watching You

Give us more of a voice in how you run our country. You keep forgetting that it’s our money, not yours.

Introduce an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting Congress from passing a budget without 30 days of review by the public and an additional 30 days of public hearings attended by the leadership of the House and Senate, who will be questioned and advised by Americans who have made application, and have been chosen by random lottery.

[John_Mace]

@Liberal

Introduce legislation to establish an independent human rights watch agency to which any American may appeal when he feels his rights have been violated. This agency will fight for the rights of individuals.

Great idea. We could call it the judiciary branch of the government!

[Liberal]

@John Mace

Great idea. We could call it the judiciary branch of the government!

The purpose of the agency is to take things to court. It’s an advocacy agency, not an arbitration agency. As Chief Justice Roberts pointed out during his hearings, many Americans cannot afford to use the court system to defend themselves or address their grievances with government. That is what this agency would do.

(And yes, I know there is an ACLU, but the ACLU is not required to advocate for anyone.)

[Debaser]

@John Mace

…make the meat of this proposal about attracting centrists, libertarian leaning Republicans, or those who are disallusioned with Bush.

Hi! I’m Debaser. I’m a libertarian leaning conservative who is disallusioned with Bush. You might remember me from page one of this thread, when I was kicked out for not being liberal enough.

[plnnr]

I’m a dedicated Democrat, and there’s something our party needs much, much more than a “contract with America.”

We need a rabid, foaming at the mouth core of supporters that will give time, energy, and money until it hurts. I’ve said it more than once - the Republican Party could have 1,000 screaming, placard waiving, check-writing members at a rally 100 miles away in about an hour. It would take the Democratic Party at least a week and the promise that FDR himself was going to make an appearance.

Organization and money first - issues second. If you don’t win the election no one gives a shit what your agenda is.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@xtisme

Left Hand of Dorkness, when the Republicans made their contract with America they did so in order to try and expand beyond their base…i.e. to take centrist and even mildly left wing votes away from the Democrats. They wanted to increase their market share so to speak.

My question to you is: who exactly do you expect to win over with your own proposal that isn’t already on your side?

I expect to win over all the people saying, “I don’t much like the Republicans, but at least they stand for something.” There seems to be an idea that Democrats lack The Vision Thing. And I think this is due to two factors:

1. Democrats lack The Vision Thing: they’ve got ideas, but they’re unsure about their ideas, and they’re really willing to sell their ideas short if anyone says Boo to them; and
2. Democrats lack pizazz. When your ideas are easily accessible only three clicks away from the homepage of your candidate, ain’t nobody gonna look at them.

Democrats have lately substituted platitudes for their ideas, trusting that having their ideas buried on a webpage or in a position paper somewhere will suffice. The genius of Gingrich was linking platitudes to positions in a deep, compressible format. Republicans have continued to emphasize the fact that they stand for something, and I really think a lot of fence-sitters vote for them because strong leadership for poor reasons is (in their eyes) better than no leadership for good reasons.

Liberal, that’s a very intriguing idea. I’m not sure I’m down with all your specifics (if entrepeneur’s not a four-letter word, neither is OSHA. Um, you know what I mean), but doing it through a film, a tv show, or whatever could work very well. And it might emphasize our strengths: whereas Republicans are all about the contract, Democrats are all about the arts.

ITR Champion, I think those are all great ideas except for #4. See where it starts with “oppose”? These should all be positive principles. Instead, how about:

4. Strong Jobs for America. When our workers compete with workers overseas who are paid pennies on the dollar and who work in terrible conditions, everyone loses. Future free trade pacts will link free trade to fair trade, ensuring that American workers are competing on a level playing field with those abroad. We will not institute free trade pacts with nations unless those nations have strong provisions to protect their workers and the environment

John, I like yours as well, although I’m wondering about how #1 would work. How would the legislation be binding on the president, and what would keep him from ignoring it and then blaming deaths of soldiers on Congressional budget cuts for the military? I’m afraid that we’d run into a separation of powers issue.

Daniel