Blue Catablog

With the political atmosphere both in Washington and in the country as a whole being compared to that of 1994, there is serious discussion as to whether the Democrats should have their own Contract with America a la Newt Gingrich in those elections 12 years ago. The idea being that this could give reasons for people to vote FOR the Democrats and not just AGAINST Republicans.

There are other ways to nationalize the elections:

• The Democrats could just focus on the corruption of the Republicans and general incompetence of the Administration. This would mean that there would be no specific agenda for the GOP to attack and in current circumstances would probably be somewhat successful. The problem with this strategy is that it relies on creating and sustaining angry voters, who often will just as likely stay home rather than vote for someone.
• The Democrats could make this election about the Administration's incompetence in Iraq and the Republican Congress' failure to critically examine the strategy and execution of occupation in Iraq. This would definitely galvanize the base and put the Republicans on the defensive, but the Democrats are not united behind an alternative policy that could attract more voters than are probably going to vote against the Republicans as it is. And, frankly, there probably is not a policy the COULD unite the Democrats in Congress right now.
• Democrats could run against the "Do-nothing" Congress that has abandoned its job beyond tax cuts for the wealthy. Again this would get some traction, but probably not the tidal wave that is needed for Democrats to retake at least one chamber of Congress.

All of the above are important strategies, but they do not bring more people to the voting booths than otherwise would have without those strategies. What is needed is a reason to vote FOR Democrats and some type of national agenda would be an important piece of the goal of increasing turnout for the party.

But what should be contained in such a national agenda? Last month, James Carville and Stan Greenberg, in one of their regular Democracy Corps memos, provided some interesting suggestions based on their polling:

1. Block any payraise for Congress until the average worker's wages begin to rise.
2. Replace Bush's prescription drug plan with a simpler one that controls costs.
3. Raise the Minimum Wage to $7 an hour.
4. Repeal the tax loophole that encourages companies to move operations overseas.
5. Implement all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and inspect 100% of containers coming in through America's ports.
6. Repeal the cuts in all student loan programs and increase tax breaks for college costs.
7. Create tax incentives to expand the development of wind, solar, and biofuel technologies.

While I don't know if these items really constitute an agenda rather than a few small items, there are aspects I like about them. They address an array of issues from personal economics to security to education so it gives candidates something to say on each of the areas.

They are very specific -- vague language about "Bringing back ethics" and "Protecting America's Ports" sounds too much like the language of a weasely politician. People respond to specificity because it sounds like someone will actually do something rather than just talk about it. Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" was also specific and it gave Republican candidates around the country action items to talk about.

They are all very doable. The most complicated item would be the simpler prescription drug plan and I would prefer a few more specifics about that, but overall these are items that could be passed within a year putting President Bush in the position of either signing these popular items or vetoing them for ideological reasons.

I do think that offering an alternative agenda, and a specific one at that, is the right direction to go in 2006. The Carville/Greenberg proposal could probably be revised and gain additions but I do think it is an excellent place to start the debate. I know that the Democratic leadership and the DNC have been working on some kind of national platform, but from what I have read, it is expected to be more vague goals. Nice, tight, specific items would, I believe, be much more effective in nationalizing the elections and in giving Democratic challengers around the country specific talking points.

If you want to see the full Democracy Corps memo (It is a pdf file), click HERE

--Ian