Although I disagree in part with how 'kos has chosen to characterize our core values, I think his exercise is quite useful. Ever since the fiasco of November '04 and the various analyses offered by the punditocracy and blogosphere in its wake, I've been struck with one singular and recurring thought: "Its our agenda, stupid!" Or rather, our complete lack of one.
Over the years I have grown increasing frustrated watching the Democratic Party devolve into a directionless organization composed of single-issue "me first" groups on one side and a political class only interested in getting re-elected on the other. And this extends also to the progressive movement as well, although I'm not sure it can actually be called a movement at this point.
So what do we need? I think the 1994 Republican Contract With America provides part of the answer.
More on the flip.
We lack an agenda. And by agenda I don't mean a short list of three or four "core values" under each of which we can stick whatever hodgepodge of issues we wish. That analyses strikes me as nothing more than a glorified system of
binomial nomenclature. Are a set of core values useful? Of course, but not as some sort of branding message or reframing.
(Ed. And what about this whole George Lakoff "frame" thing? Last place the Democrats should be looking for advice is a linquistics egghead from Cal. Talk of frames reminds us of how the "meme" idea was the phrase du jour in these parts six months ago.)
Those "core values", whatever they may be, are meaningless without a coherent, precise agenda underlying them. An "agenda" composed of every issue under the sun is not an agenda; its a shopping list. This is where the 1994 Contract With America ("CWA") that the Republicans offered 6 weeks before their takeover comes in.
Shortly after it came out, liberals characterized (or rather, demonized) it as a Contract On America. However, I wonder how many bothered to read it. I took a re-read of it this afternoon. And it was rather astounding - not for how bad I thought the policy intentions were - but for how good it was as a political tool.
It was presented 6 weeks before the election and all but two GOP members of the House of Representatives signed it. It laid out a very specific agenda with concrete actions the Republicans promised to take if they were in the majority following the election. It contained only "60% issues", meaning that the CWA avoided making promises on more controversial and divisive issues, such as abortion or school prayer.
The CWA was composed of two parts: a process reform part and a policy reform part. In the first part, Republicans promised to pass eight reforms in the way government was operated: auditing Congress for wasteful spending, cutting Congressional committee staff, and requiring a 3/5 majority (rather than the traditional simple majority) to pass tax increases, amongst others. The gist was the GOP would reform defects in how government was run by reducing the power of entrenched Congressional leadership that was criticized for not representing the interests of the country. (Ed. Sound familiar?)
In the second part, the GOP promised in the first 100 days of the 104th Congress to bring a set of bills to the floor. The text of the proposed bills were included in the CWA and were not governmental process reforms as the first part, but represented significant changes to public policy. The main features included tax cuts for businesses and individuals, tort "reform", national security measures, anti-crime legislation, term limits for legislators, and welfare reform. Full text of bills here.
All told, there were 10 proposed bills, to go along with 8 proposed governmental process reforms. On the one hand, it was not a short list of three or four "core" values that were so broad as to be essentially meaningless. On the other, it wasn't a laundry list, grab bag of every issue under the sun. Finally, it avoided issues that were socially controversial, like abortion or school prayer.
The CWA provided both an overarching statement of the GOP's agenda in the election, a political useful "promise" with the electorate ("backbone" in the language of Dean supporters) and a specific set of action items and bills for the GOP to hit the ground running with if elected.
So I am left wondering, what would OUR Contract look like. What set of reforms to governmental process would go on the list? What set of programmatic policies would go on the list? What would be left off? Why?