Would You Recognize a New Direction if it Hit You in the Head?
By Ben Domenech Posted in Democrats — Comments (18) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
First things first: This is what a comprehensive, coherent, and convincing legislative agenda looks like.
We all know the change the Contract with America caused—and we all know how much Republicans have needed something along these lines to reappear in the twelve (12!) years since its inception. I think our good friend Steve Moore writes his column on this point as an annual rite. And he's right.
Yet at least we can take solace in the fact that, no matter the occasional irritations of ideological incoherence or garrulous grandstanding on the Republican side of the aisle, the Democrats have it much, much worse. To see this difference, you need only compare and contrast the above Contract to the brand spanking New Direction for America.
Rather than force you to translate the vague Pelosi-speak into actual policy positions, the helpful folks at the Boston Globe have reduced the New Direction to a list of handy bullet points.
As you can see, it starts with a bang.
Negotiate lower prescription-drug prices with pharmaceutical companies for Medicare's drug program.
Fund stem cell research, increase access to healthcare
Increase science research, ensure the teaching of evolution, increase funding for community colleges.
Cut student-loan interest rates by half.
Ensure access to family planning methods and abortion, fund infant and child-care.
Increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour, increase employment benefits.
Enact funding recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
Institute lobbying reform, implement balanced budgets, pay down the national debt.
Enact tax changes to benefit entrepreneurs.
Focus national security strategy to nation's borders, increase port security.
Fund more public transportation, promote environmental restoration.
Repeal subsidies for oil and gas companies to encourage renewable fuels.
When you put these documents side by side, one difference becomes immediately clear: some of the Contract with America’s most popular (and ultimately most legislatively successful) features were the fundamental and detailed reforms it demanded of the Congress. Overhauling the committee system, eliminating hierarchies, and each of the other fundamental rule changes were intended to force Congress to do its job, and not fritter away time. This wasn’t a list of divisive hot button issues, but a comprehensive and much-needed recipe for reform.
There’s no such detailed recipe in the New Direction – the only notable change, in fact, is “institute lobbying reform,” a term so vague and open-ended that it could refer to a limit on the number of cash deposits to a freezer in a normal business day without the requisite $2.00 deposit fee.
Another thing that becomes enormously clear is that where Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey demanded that the Contract focus on 60% issues – those areas that a clear majority of Americans support the change – would-be Speaker Pelosi has no such perspective. Instead, the Democrats have paired issues that are obviously non-controversial (lower prescription-drug prices and increased port security – why, no Republican wants that!) with dicey issues like funding embryonic destruction for stem cell research, ensuring abortion access (whatever that means – presumably taxpayer funding), and compelling schools to teach evolution.
That last one is particularly indicative of the mindset behind the New Direction. For public schools in America, it’s not a “new” direction at all – neo-Darwinian evolution is taught with nearly 100% coverage, as it has been for more than two generations. Now a few school districts, because such things are controlled locally, have decided to teach an alternative view in addition to evolution.
So, what is the response of the brightest minds of the New Direction? We must defend the rights of the intelligent, scientifically-aware elites to not be offended when they pick up their weekend copy of the New York Times and read about what a bunch of dumb hicks might want to teach their kids in Kansas. We’ve got to squash local control over curriculums and force these rednecks to teach their kids the way they ought to be taught. But wait – how exactly will the U.S. Congress “ensure the teaching of evolution” in an area where the federal government has little or no say? And forget 60% - does a simple majority actually think that Nancy Pelosi should set the rules for local curriculums? Who cares – just put it in the plan! All those smart people have to know we’re Darwin’s biggest fans, and we went to all the good colleges.
The rest of the list is a re-hash of positions that went out of style in the Clinton years, written in language designed to distract and obscure. They can’t bring themselves to say tax cuts, so they settle for “tax changes.” And what about government funded child care? More community colleges? Upping minimum wage? One wonders if their next big New Direction will be a revised intern policy and mandatory school uniforms.
As with so many other grabbags culled from the foremost intellectuals of Democratic thought, it’s just a dusting off of tired policies and decade-old fights, leaving the majority of critical issues – taxes, the size of government, the war – for another day. This ill-thought mess of poll testing is a muddle of botox liberalism that, just like the original Contract, stands as a perfect complement to its authors in all their glory. It is neither New nor a Direction – it’s just your 2006 Democratic Party.
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | (Sigh) Identity Theft hurts us all. — Comments (34) »
Would You Recognize a New Direction if it Hit You in the Head? 18 Comments (0 topical, 18 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The Contract for America probably gets more credit for its details than it actually deserves. I think people were ready for a more of a right-leaning agenda. I doubt many had a grasp on the details.
But why do I not trust them to actually cut capital gains rates and the rates on dividends? And wny do I think they will fail to do anything about the blizzard of regulations that make running a start up business such a hassle.
Here's another difference between the Contract and the New Direction.
The Contract was an expression of a political philosophy. Newt had spent years developing GOPAC and the accompanying ideology, and had a very firm idea of what wrongs he wanted to right. It wasn't a restaurant menu; it was an expression of a new approach toward government that happened to iterate some specific steps that were part of a planned overall reform.
Democrats don't work that way. They don't have the same kind of overarching philosophy. What they have instead are interest groups. And here, true to the Clinton formula, every interest group gets its taste. Labor gets its minimum wage increase, the pro choice people get funded abortions, the Silicon Valley crowd gets some suitably vague language that nods toward entrepreneurs, and so no.
Geez, Nancy, you can't even come up with something that would win in California! We just voted on government preschools. It went down in flames here. So you think that's gonna fly in Texas, dear? Minimum wage increase? In California, it's already $7.25 an hour. Unemployment for black youth is 60% here. I wonder why? Rapid transit? Sorry, Nancy, but for some reason people just don't want to raise their kids in a crackerbox apartment next to a train station and take "transit" to "nearby jobs". That's New Urbanism mumbo jumbo that has been tried here and has failed. Secure the ports? The port of Oakland already screens every cargo container for radiation - the first port in the nation to do so. Did you help with this? Did you stand with the Longshoremens' Union when they threatened to shut down the port due to the Iraq war or did you side with Bush who told the union he'd bring in the Navy to run the port, thereby causing them to back down? Where were you, Nancy? Student loan interest? What's the problem, 5% too high? Tax cuts for entrepreneurs? I think Bush is just a teeny bit ahead of you here, dear. As to the rest? Your party has done everything but bus in Mexicans. You support giving unions the right to bash employers with fraudulent card check "elections" and support giving unions special rights that no other groups have. Sorry, Nancy, but this is the same twaddle you've been peddling since 1973. Fortunatley, most of us have grown up since then.
The Dems are clearly trying to capitalize on the right track/wrong direction poll numbers. Hence, they offer a "New Direction." It matters little what direction the New Direction is in, as long as it is "New."
The fact that they recycle old policy prescriptions like: increasing the minimum wage; publicly funded day care and abortion (dosen't one of these cancel out the need for the other?); and socialized medicine; and slap a fresh "New" label on them speaks volumes about how they view the electorate.
Their strategy is to be elected on emotion, not on ideas. To them the public are like so many head of cattle. If they can just lead the right amount to the polls with the proper diet of platitudes and focus group tested phrases, they can win their power back. All this searching by the DNC for a campaign theme is just a search for the magic feed that will bring in the herd.
it included many detailed propositions, thus exposing the CWA signers to risk their ideas being challenged. Voters had SOMETHING besides weak platitudes to bet for or against with their votes.
I see alot of platitudes, vague promises that would be easy to wiggle out of, and really, an utter failure to directly address anything with any solution that doesn't further shackle Americans with yet ever bigger government.....
OK, technically it ends tomorrow. Look for the Friday rush hour MSM dump today. Sorry for the threadjack, but I saw "cash deposits to a freezer" and there is no open thread yet today.
'New Direction' Bullet Point™ Translator
7) Enact funding recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
* Give Chuckie back the money DHS stole from New York City.
8) Institute lobbying reform, implement balanced budgets, pay down the national debt.
* Don't know, but it will be costly. Repeal the Bush Tax Cuts. Raise taxes.
9) Enact tax changes to benefit entrepreneurs.
* I agree. Tax cuts for the rich.
10) Focus national security strategy to nation's borders, increase port security.
* Cut-and-run. Capitulate to the union's demands.
11) Fund more public transportation, promote environmental restoration.
* Tax SUV's. Land grab for National Parks, and rich celebrities.
12) Repeal subsidies for oil and gas companies to encourage renewable fuels.
* Tax oil and gas companies. Give the money to Archer Daniels Midland.
No surprise national security is near the bottom of the list.
Why is both college costs and retirement listed twice?
This is sad and funny at the same time.
Enact tax changes to benefit entrepreneurs.
Looks like the Democrats want tax cuts for the rich.
Negotiate lower prescription-drug prices with pharmaceutical companies for Medicare's drug program.
Sounds suspiciously similar to the system used in Canada for price controls where they have some cheaper name-brand drugs but because they've killed any semblance of free market they (a) generally pay more for generics (which are the majority of drugs) and (b) rely on the United States to develop new ones. The problem is that while
Fund stem cell research, increase access to healthcare
Stem cell research is one of those issues that polls well but not a lot of people care passionately about to sway voters. IMO Bush has wisely charted a middle ground by focusing on adult stem cell research and using existing lines.
Increased access to health care can mean many things but what voters seem most concerned about is being hit by a catastrophic illness and being wiped out financially. Health care is one the issues that I'm most concerned about (particularly in reducing the number of uninsured people and medical errors while promoting better use of technology and preventative measures) but it's not the sort of thing that can easily be legislated. IMO Republicans need to move on this issue lest they wind up in the "me too but cheaper" position as they did with Medicare Part D.
Increase science research, ensure the teaching of evolution, increase funding for community colleges.
The one that jumps out at me is "ensure the teaching of evolution." I don't disagree that creationism is simply a way to inject religion into the science class room under the guise of an "alternative theory" but polls generally show that the public particularly in the areas where Democrats need to really well (e.g. the Midwest) generally believe in it. I just can't see this being a rallying issue and if anything the people likely to get motivated by this are the sort of people who would tend to be against it.
Cut student-loan interest rates by half.
I've never had a student loan (paid for college with scholarships, depleting my personal savings, and working while in school) so I can't say I'm sympathetic to providing subsidies so that people I had to compete with in the work force can spend more time studying (and partying) while I had to work to pay for school and taxes to subsidize the competition. However my impression has been that (a) student loans are generally pretty cheap already and (b) the interest doesn't kick in until you're out of school when you're presumably earning more money. In which case, why shouldn't they pay the full cost of their subsidy since it's for their own economic benefit and they'll be paying it back when they're making more money?
Ensure access to family planning methods and abortion, fund infant and child-care.
I think the abortion issue - particularly if it translates into any form of taxpayer funding (which the public is generally opposed to) would do more to get pro-life evangelicals to the polls which I'm wagering is not their target demographic. Taxpayer-funded child care is probably pretty popular among some people who are already on the dole but I doubt that it will make them any more motivated to vote Democratic than they already are.
Increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour, increase employment benefits.
Silliness, besides being economically retarded the minimum wage is really only popular amongst organized labor groups (because some of their contract scales are tied to the minimum wage) who are already going to vote Democrat in large numbers. I think that the last one was supposed to read "unemployment benefits" but considering that (a) we've got a pretty low unemployment level, (b) most people would rather have a job than an unemployment check, and (c) unemployed people generally don't vote in large numbers, this doesn't seem to be a winner electorally.
Enact funding recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
Which are what exactly? When did we get to the point where we had commissions rather than elected members of Congress drafting major policy decisions?
Institute lobbying reform, implement balanced budgets, pay down the national debt.
Kind of hard to do when you're demanding that the government spend even more than the Party which is already breaking the budget, doncha think?
Enact tax changes to benefit entrepreneurs.
The problem with targeted tax cuts is that the government's aim tends to be as reliable as a drunken archer coming down after a nine-day bender. Instead of trying to manipulate the tax code to "incentivize" desirable behavior (and Republicans are just as bad as Democrats when it comes to this), we ought to focus the code to create as few distortions as possible and let resources be allocated by the market in the most efficient way.
Focus national security strategy to nation's borders, increase port security.
Unless they're planning on going to the GOP's right on immigration (unlikely considering their opposition to the House's immigration reform plan), I don't see anyone taking this seriously.
Fund more public transportation, promote environmental restoration.
More stuff that probably polls well (who could be against "environmental restoration"?) but unlikely to motivate voters who weren't already going to vote for them.
Repeal subsidies for oil and gas companies to encourage renewable fuels.
So long as it doesn't involve setting up any wind turbines in the Kennedy's backyard, I'm sure that they're all for it. Seriously, swapping one type of corporate welfare for another is rarely good policy and while it might poll well to throw around "renewable fuels" and "energy independence" at the end of the day, few people vote for it.
And it's the old standbys....
Negotiate lower prescription-drug prices with pharmaceutical companies for Medicare's drug program. Price Caps
Fund stem cell research, increase access to healthcare. Raise Taxes
Increase science research, ensure the teaching of evolution, increase funding for community colleges. Raise Taxes
Cut student-loan interest rates by half. Raise Taxes
Ensure access to family planning methods and abortion, fund infant and child-care. Raise Taxes
Increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour, increase employment benefits. Shackle the Free Market
Enact funding recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Look tough on Terrorism while Raising Taxes
Institute lobbying reform, implement balanced budgets, pay down the national debt. Raise Taxes
Enact tax changes to benefit entrepreneurs. Raise Taxes
Focus national security strategy to nation's borders, increase port security. Look tough on Terrorism while Raising Taxes
Fund more public transportation, promote environmental restoration. Raise Taxes... for the good of the Environment!
Repeal subsidies for oil and gas companies to encourage renewable fuels. Shackle the Free Market
Yep... its a New Direction alright.... right down the same Old Road.
Entrepreneurs with politically correct, government approved business plans who happen to be of the correct race and doing business in the correct (Democrat controlled) area and have no money and no chance of actually succeeding.