Blue Catablog

The Hill newspaper, one of the two main Capitol Hill newspapers, had an interesting article about whether the Democrats should offer their own alternate agenda, like the Republicans' Contract with America in 1994. Republicans and strategists who were involved in creating and implementing the agenda make some interesting observations:

• There seems to be consensus that while the Republicans would have won seats in the 2004 election anyway, the Contract helped with the magnitude of the win -- 52 seats. Ed Gillespie, who later became RNC Chair but at that time worked on the Contract as a staffer for Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX) said “We wouldn’t have picked up 52 seats [in the House] if it weren’t for the fact that we ran on a positive agenda.” The positive agenda helps give a reason to not just stay home.
• Former Rep. Bob Walker (R-PA) noted that those mid-term elections saw 9 million new voters -- a very large number for mid-terms.
• Frank Luntz, who did the polling behind the Contract, explained that when the items in the Contract were identified as a Republican Contract, it did not receive majority support. That is why it was titled without a party label. This seems to be a good lesson in not trying to seem too partisan and appear more as though you will work with anyone to get things accomplished.

Interviews with Democrats in the article seem to illustrate that despite studying the impact of the Contract, they do not see it as something the Democrats should emulate this year. Steve Elmendorf, who was one of the top advisors to former Democratic leader Dick Gephardt, sees a Democratic version of the Contract as distracting from the main idea: “People want to be positive. That’s fine... But I don’t think it’s the most important thing in this election. The most important thing is that Bush is unpopular, people don’t like the war and they want new leadership in Washington.”

While the problems of Bush and the GOP are what give the Democrats this opportunity, the question is: How do the Democrats actually take full advantage of the situation? A specific agenda will give voters an idea of how a Democratic Congress would be different. It will give voters specific items to hold onto, understanding exactly the ways in which their lives will improve if there is a change in leadership.

My concern is that what the Democrats are doing right now is slowly reeling out talking points rather than action items. The agenda areas they are unveiling sound like the same old political claptrap that the average voter will tune out. They have unveiled their first two "agenda areas" which are Real Security and Honest Government. These are uninspired generalities that won't gain the Democrats any seats in Congress. Even though these categories contain specifics, the items themselves should be specifics. Nobody is going to read the details of the Democrats' "Real Security" program. But they would understand "Inspect all cargo in U.S. ports." It is those proposals that are simple, understandable and doable. It is those specific items that the Democrats should be touting.

--Ian