What should we be doing as an opposition party with the aim of recapturing the House in 2006 and the Presidency in 2008? Much of what we've been doing lately is cartography of the 2004 election. But that isn't going to help us much when 2006 and 2008 roll around, just like a 19th century map won't help us navigate the 21st century U.S. Instead, we need to start making the landscape, to the extent possible, by laying down the roads and tracks along which political discourse will travel in the following years. Below the fold is my suggestion on how to do that, by offering a new version of the "Contract with America" --- I call it "A Proposal for a Greater America" --- to the public over the coming years.
In the aftermath of the election, there's been a great deal said about what we should be doing in the next two to four years to reclaim the Congress and then the White House. Much of this effort has been spent in the hashing and rehashing of values issues, arguing over the successful appropriation of terrah by the administration, and the like. Spending too much time focusing on the political topography at the moment of the election is a mistake, however, for at least two reasons. First, political topography is always in flux because the world is in flux: The concerns of today will not be the concerns of tomorrow as facts in the world force a reordering of values and priorities. Anyone who doubts this needs only look at what happened to the republican party at the onset of the great depression. There is nothing we can do about the facts the world presents us with, except be a party of pragmatists, proposing workable solutions to the real problems that affect the political landscape. (And here we are at an advantage. The republicans have to hew to an ideologically rigid line in public. If facts turn against them, they will be forced to choose between fixing problems and publicly holding that line.)
Second, political topography is in flux because new political ideas are always entering and reshaping the marketplace. Here, we can have an influence, because rather than rehash old divisions and concerns, we have the opportunity to make new ones. We can change the political debate by bringing to the fore in readily digestible ways new issues, new concerns, new . . . um . . . values. My suggestion, spelled out here, is that we advocate a ten-point Proposal for a Greater America, a set of ten easily reference talking points, modeled after the Contract for America the republicans offered in 1994. It needs not only to state general values, but to present tangible solutions, and they need to be argued and presented at every opportunity. By advocating something of this sort, we can shift the political topography, make new monuments important, and steal the republicans' majority by making them look like corrupt, backward facing dinosaurs. (That shouldn't have been difficult -- they are corrupt, backward facing dinosaurs! -- ed.)
So, with that in mind, here is a draft ten point Proposal for a Great America. It's written the format that such a proposal might take. I'll go into further detail and develop the arguments on each point in later diaries on each topic. Here I'll only give the sound bite. Also, a number of the ideas that went into this are based on the work of a lot of people here and on other weblogs. There's no way to thank them enough for the conversation.
1. Tax fairness.
We believe that taxes should be fair, both among citizens and among the states. Working families pay too much of their income in taxes to the federal government, while too much corporate and unearned income goes untaxed. As such, if put into the majority, we will pass an individual tax fairness act, which will simplify the tax code and will lower tax burdens on working families. It will also require those corporations and individuals who have been skipping out on taxes to pay their fair share from now on.
Also, working states carry too much of the tax burden of those welfare states which should be paying their own way. Citizens of those working states should have that money to invest in their own economy and citizens in the welfare states should not be relying on citizens of the working states to bail them out. Too often, these welfare states cut taxes to benefit their wealthiest patrons, expecting the federal government to meet their obligations. We think it is wrong that citizens of one state should rely on citizens of another state to pay for their government. As such, if put into the majority, we will pass a tax fairness act which will limit the contributions that each state receives from the federal government to 110% of what it pays in taxes in the prior fiscal year.
2. Fair representation.
We believe that every citizen should have an unimpeded right to vote, to have that vote counted, and to be represented in a reasonably-drawn Congressional district. Too many people, because of race or ethnicity, or because they happen to live in crowded urban areas, or open rural areas, are kept from the polling stations in a given year. To that end, if put into the majority, we will propose legislation that sets forth clear standards of qualification for federal elections, commensurate with constitutional requirements, that requires states to set up at least one accessible polling place per one thousand citizens in a region, and that prohibits efforts by political operatives to interfere with access to those polling places. In honor of Martin Luther King, we will make election day a celebration of his life and his efforts to insure that everyone has the right to vote, by moving the federal holiday in his name to the first Tuesday of every November of each year.
Second, while our vote counting mechanisms are some of the most advanced in the world, we can still do better. As such, if put into the majority, we will pass a vote counting act which will set forth the basic, uniform standards by which all elections will proceed. We will require all federal elections to occur on a uniform balloting system, which will be present in all polling places. This system will provide a physical record of voting results, which will be open for any and all to inspect after an election. Moreover, we will place the authority of counting votes into the hands of an independent and bipartisan federal agency, which will have the authority to determine federal election results in each precinct, separate and independent of state election agencies.
Third, Congressional districts in the states have come to look like crazy-quilts, as members of each party have jockeyed for favorable redistricting in the state houses. Often, this has led to the ghettoing of minority voters into a single district in which they are vastly over-represented, at the expense of their having an impact on other districts. It has also led to the creation of districts which give over-representation to political extremists, at the expense of less divisive country. This is a disservice to the founders of the constitution and to the moderate temperament of the republic. As such, if put into the majority, we will enact a federal fair redistricting law. This law will place certain requirements on the composition of Congressional districts, including requirements that districts be contiguous, be neutral with regard to competitiveness of the Congressional seat, and reflect the political makeup of the state.
3. Qualified judges.
We believe that federal judges should be professionally qualified for office. Too many judges have been appointed without regard to their professional qualification, but to advance a political agenda. As a consequence, we have hyperactivist republican judges who are ignoring the constitution and federal laws in order to deprive working families of clean air and clean water; of decent living standards; of protections from discrimination; and of civil rights and civil liberties. As such, if put into the majority, we will put always law above politics. We will carefully screen and block any judges who lack professional qualifications or who put politics above the law. We will also enact statutory reforms to overturn the rulings of these hyperactivist judges, to insure that federal law will no longer be gutted by unelected political hit-men.
4. Term limits.
We believe that no individual should stay incumbent in federal office for decades. In 1994, the republicans came into office by offering a solution to what was seen as rampant corruption in Congress. According to the republicans, Congress had been corrupted because the people's representatives had stayed in office too long, permitting them to become corrupted by Washington's special interest industry. Their solution was a promise to leave office after two terms, and on that promise they were elected. Then, after two terms in office, they broke their promise. They stayed. In so doing, they proved they very point they argued in 1994: During their ten-year tenure, Congressional republicans have grown increasingly corrupt, going so far as to promise dollars for support in the well of the House during voting on a bill.
If put into the majority, we will subject ourselves to term limits. But, unlike the republicans, who only offered a broken contract, we will put our money where our mouth is. We will offer a constitutional amendment to limit the number of Congressional terms to three and Senatorial terms to two.
5. Ethical government.
We believe that representatives, officers and employees in federal government service are required to adhere to the highest standards of ethical conduct. Contacts between special interests and government have grown pervasive at all levels of government service. Individuals in that service have increasingly forgotten that they are obligated to provide those services to the public, not to the interests that come pounding at the door. If put into the majority, we will reverse that trend, by enacting federal laws and rules that require officeholders and employees not to engage personally in fundraising activities, that tighten rules on corporate contacts and to stiffen federal laws against violators those rules, and that require federal officeholders and employees to adhere to reasonable standards of civility and discipline.
6. Balanced budget.
We believe that the federal government must be able to pay for what it buys. The current administration is unable to control its spending, like a drugged-up crook with someone else's wallet. This bankrupts the current spirit of the country by sending the message that it is all right to buy things you cannot afford. And it bankrupts the future generation by saddling them with an unmanageable debt. As such, if put into the majority, we will work to balance the budget every year, first, by reinstating the pay-as-you-go rules under which Congress operated during the 1990s, and second, by proposing an amendment to the constitution to require that the federal government balance the budget, except when Congress determines by separate resolution that the country faces a severe recession or depression affecting the economy or a national emergency that makes balancing the budget contrary to the well-being of the nation.
7. Full employment.
We believe that everyone who wants a job should have a job. The principal engine for job creation in the United States is the free market. Consequently, we should, to the greatest extent possible, stay out of the free market and let it do its work in providing jobs. However, there are market failures, and the government should be well placed to correct those failures where they result inadequate employment both by promoting job creation in the private sector and by expanding the public sector to create jobs for those who want to perform public service work, such as teaching, building public works, or defending the borders. As such, if put into the majority, we will enact legislation with the goal of ensuring that everyone has a good job, with solid pay for solid work, for whoever wants a job.
8. Healthy society.
We believe that everyone should be able to see a doctor for regular checkups and to address everyday illnesses. It is morally wrong to ask people to go without basic care, to ask them to wait until a situation is serious before having it looked into. No one should be required to avoid a needed checkup because they lack health coverage or skip seeing a physician when sick because they cannot afford the co-pay. Moreover, by encouraging people to see their doctors on a regular basis, we avoid many of the serious illnesses that result from putting off regular treatment. Finally, by insuring that everyone can have regular access to doctors, we decrease the cost of doing business in the United States, by reducing the costs of health care premiums for businesses. As such, if put into the majority, we will enact legislation that will pay for individuals to see the physician of their choice for regular checkups and for treatment of common illnesses.
9. Partnerships of faith.
We believe that the federal government cannot and should not address every need of the people. Many of these needs are best handled by religious charities, charities that know the interests and values of their beneficiaries far better than an impersonal government agency ever could. As such, if put into the majority, we will pass legislation that would permit the funding of religious charitable activity to benefit the poor, the homeless, the ostracized and the isolated, commensurate with constitutional limitations, including limits on the ability of these organizations to condition charity on acceptance of the religion's tenets.
10. Devolution of government.
We believe that the states are the laboratories of democracy. It is in the states that movements for increased individual protections and rights emerge. The growth and development of a right at the state level should be permitted to proceed at its own pace, to capture the aspirations of the American people, if it can do so. It should not be prematurely aborted by federal mandate. As such, if put into the majority, we will eschew federal involvement in the development of rights at the state and local level, except to insure that they do not fall below the level of federal constitutional protections.
So, this is the general idea, along with my suggestions as to what goes into it. Now, what do you think can be consolidated, dropped, or added to make it better? Remember, any suggestions are welcome, but the principal idea is to keep it simple and to offer tangible proposals.