“Political campaigns are designedly made into emotional orgies”
James Harvey Robinson
As part of their campaign strategy, the Republican Congressional leadership unveiled its “Contract with America”. A unique and innovative campaign gimmick, their “Contract” spelled out a legislative agenda to which its three hundred signers committed their support if elected and if the GOP took control of the Congress.
Key elements of their “Contract” included specific commitments to pass middle class and capital gains tax cuts, get even tougher on crime, stem the defense budget hemorrhaging, reform the welfare system and pass constitutional amendments limiting congressional terms and balancing the federal budget. Meantime, stealing a page from Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, Republicans campaigned hard against the White House while concurrently harping on the amorphous themes of the disintegration of American society and the disappearance of family values. Yet, except on the issue of abortion, few Republicans strayed into the minefield of staking their campaigns on controversial social issues.
Unlike a recent and now former Congressman from South Dakota, not one of these brave Republican “Contract” candidates promised to resign or not run for reelection if they (a) failed to act and vote in accordance with the “contract’s” specific intent or (b) were collectively unable to enact the promised changes during their first term … thereby breaking their sacred with the voters. Although he had absolutely no chance of making the changes he campaigned on happen, the South Dakotan refused to seek a second term, believing to do otherwise would have compromised his personal integrity.
It’s noteworthy, while programs specifics clearly vary, the “Contract’s” major themes of a smaller, less expensive and less intrusive government have been tenants of Libertarian theology since the party’s inception. Unfortunately, most Republicans, as with their Democratic counterparts, regularly vote in favor of legislation which increases the size and influence of government, costs more than the government takes in and continues to erode the personal liberties of Americans.
Now, six weeks before being sworn in, many of those who campaigned on the gospel of populist reform are beginning to have second thoughts. The political conversion of those now in retreat from the “Contract with America” has many Republican insiders worried … as the party runs the very real risk of loosing credibility with the voters if the promised changes fail to materialize. If so dreams of controlling both the Legislative and Executive branches by 1997 could quickly become little more than distant memories.
Foreboding the first such casualty, a growing number of Republicans, including the likely new House majority leader Dick Armey, are now trying to package and peddle the message, with the Republicans now running the show in Congress, public support for term limits will wane. Such unmitigated balderdash! He and his ilk continue to reinforce George Wallace’s observation that there really ain’t a dime’s worth of difference between the parties.
The second subversive element eroding support for quick congressional action on the “Contract’s” often simplistic proposals is the introspective post-election period during which many of its proponents have begun contemplating actually governing and realistically evaluating the implications of mechanically enacting a laundry list of narrow legislative edicts.
To their credit, some of those who will be sworn in next January have come to understand achieving their lofty economic goals may require complex solutions which may not fit into their tidy “Contract”. One such example may be the necessity to include in any balanced budget amendment language to eliminate Congress’ capacity to inflict costly, unfunded mandates on state, county or local governments as well as grant line-item veto power to the president … even though the latter is the GOP’s latest demon, Bill Clinton.
A third threat to the GOP comes from its socially conservative wing. Their goal of inflicting their narrow, often religiously-grounded, view of the world and mankind’s place in it on the rest of society, although not part of the “Contract”, remains unshaken. Recent remarks attributed to Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich and others suggesting major legislative initiatives of constitutional amendments are needed to abolish abortion and institutionalize prayer in schools have alarmed many moderate Republican who recognize most Americans are content to let others lead their own lives of quiet desperation absent governmental interference.
Just last week, Christie Todd Whitman admonished congressional Republicans during the National Governors Conference, that they need to stay focused on what brought them their sweet election victories and remember, “It’s the economy, stupid!” To subject the nation to a national debate over whether to pass constitutional amendments to regulate individual behavior and morality will be divisive at best and run the risk of sidetracking the more important economic and political issues which drove the election results.
