Democratic Contract for America

[geek tragedy]

I've bounced this around in another forum, but it was drowned by threads about you-know-what.

Anyhoo, here is an updated list of items I think could go into such a plan.

1. A constitutional amendment to reform our election system, including the abolition of the electoral college, which has done more than either party to divide the United states into blue states and red states;

2. A constitutional amendment guaranteeing the personal right to privacy (though exceptions for controlled substances and medical procedures may need to be included);

3. A balanced budget amendment, with supermajority override provisions for cases of real emergency (Republicans just can't be trusted with our money);

4. Passing a law ensuring that states should receive roughly the same amount--no more, no less--of money from the federal government that they contribute in taxes--after all, we are not Communists

5. Port security/intelligence reforms/other anti-terrorism measures neglected by this White House;

6. The elimination of tax incentives for companies to outsource jobs;

7. Establish a Citizens' Commission (not a Corporate Polluters' and Oil Companies' Commission) to put us on the path to energy independence;

8. Creation of a League of Democracies--meant to improve the strained relations between the US and places like Europe while shaming places like Saudi-occupied Arabia, as well as providing an alternative forum to the United Nations;

9. Legislation to ensure that no child in America will go without health insurance;

10. A Reservists' and National Guardsmen/women's Bill of Rights, including such things as the backdoor draft.

[Midnight Rambler]

1. excellent list

There should be something in there about an offical separation of Church and State, spelled out in law. I know the First Amendment already establishes this, but the Falwell/Robertson crowd insists that it isn't there. We need something that explicitly says Church and State are separate, even if it is redundant. That way, there will be no more confusion, no more fundamentalists looking for loopholes to implementing biblical law.

I like that Godfather reference, btw :smoke:

[geek tragedy]

2. Just call me Don Barzini

The main point here is to frame issues, not necessarily spell out our entire agenda.

Church/state separation isn't necessarily a good framing issue.

[Midnight Rambler]

4. if you put it that way

We could go back to the original rationale for the separation - to protect both parties from mutual corruption. While I have little hope of getting the fundamentalists on our side, I believe it is possible to frame this issue in ways so that their argument will be seen for what it is (a drive for theocracy) by mainstream Christians who are potentially persuadable. And in the process remind the them that America is the land of the free, not the United States of the Old Testament.

Basically, what I mean is to frame the values issue in a way that works in our favor, without having to pander to bigotry.

[Cobalt Violet]

3. I like the content.

The name is something I don't quite like because the repukes are going to call it "Democratic Contract on America" as we rightfully called their's.


I would also like Democrats to make health care a right for everyone.

[geek tragedy]

5. This is just a working/conceptual title

I agree on the right to healthcare for everyone, but I don't know if it's politically feasible.

Children, on the other hand, is much harder to argue against. We can also tie that in to deficit control.

[Cobalt Violet]

6. I understand.

Only a rightwing wacko could argue against children having health care. And your probably right about adult health care being politically unfeasible.

[WonderGrunion]

11. Phrasing the Debate

We should never use the concept of health care as A RIGHT for all Americans. It is always too easy for the Repubs to raise the concept of socialism (which too many equate with communism) and then it just defeats itself.

Instead, we should say that universal health care is RIGHT for all Americans and base the arguments in a free enterprise context. Universal health care would create a healthier populace, which would make more productive workers. It would increase job transportability (because health insurance is no longer an obstacle) allowing skilled workers to match their niche and allow small businesses to compete for talent with large companies. And the savings to corporations (I believe health insurance is the largest expenditure for most companies that offer it) will allow for greater profitability and greater opportunity for expansion of the workforce (leading to lowered unemployment)

By eliminating the wedge issue phrasing, we reach our goal with business as a partner toward our goals.

[Telly Savalas]

12. The goddamn highway system is socialism!

In addition to promoting universal health care as making sense from a business standpoint, we need to combat the Right's attempts at handcuffing government by limiting its roles. Hence I think additional talking points should include:

Health care is a public good. Hence the task of providing for it rightly falls in the hands of government. Most people don't have any problems with the government running transporation systems, schools, and universities. Why should health care be any different? If someone has to sell their home to pay for a loved one's cancer treatment, then we have failed as a society. Wingnuts call universal health care socialism, we call it common sense. Truman supported it and I believe Eisenhower did too. Were those guys pinkos?

You can bitch about government bureaucracy all you want, but you're smoking crack if you think your HMO or your insurance company is looking out for you. They're chasing profits. We need a system that puts the patient first. Someone who busts their ass at one or more minimum wage jobs deserves to be able to see a doctor just as much as the CEO of a Fortune 500 company does. Are we going to have a system that favors the fatcat insurance companies or one that stands up for the little guy?

Economic populism, folks. It helped win the governorship of Montana, of all places, and it can gain us victories elsewhere. It's a simple message which can resonate in the red state just as much as it would in the blue: the Republicans are in bed with big money, we're lookiing out for you.

[leyton]

13. I think the GOP chose "contract" for a reason.

I read somewhere that the title "Contract" was used to highlight Clinton's perceived integrity problems. So we need some problem that people already perceive in the GOP to accentuate when we name this platform (and when we decide what's going in it).

Or we could choose something that is not typically identified with our party - such as "Vision for America" or something like that.

[abburdlen]

7. Not a big fan

of #4 on your list. While we aren't communist, we are a nation rather than a collection of states.

[geek tragedy]

9. That's the one redeeming aspect of being in a minority party--being able

to suggest without facing the consequences.

Besides, most Red State folks would be in favor of it--just use the right buzzwords.

All the Repugs did in 94 was promise to bring these things to a vote. If Red State Dems want to vote against this, there's nothing stopping them.

[leyton]

8. We need to make sure our issue stances are incredibly popular.

IIRC the points chosen for the 1994 contract were issues where the GOP had 80+% of the population in agreement with them. In essence, we need to focus-group our platform, and keep it to that.

Also, we need to have a coherent party. If every Democrat used the same talking points, people might actually know what we stand for.

[abburdlen]

10. Same talking points

Agree. On the whole I believe democrats are right on the issues, it's getting the message out that we're losing.

[msgadget]

14. I like it but it's too Newt n/t

[CarbonDate]

15. It worked for them....

...and I've long been in favor of Dems doing something like this.

Really, we should have done it two years ago. Still, I like the idea for two years from now.

[geek tragedy]

16. John Kerry picks up two of these points in his agenda!

#'s 1 and 9 to be precise.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_11_14.php#004042

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004/11/kerry-statementvideo-to-be-released.html

[Darranar]

17. (4) is problematic. It hurts poor states. n/t

[Spiffarino]

18. It's a good start - you use the KISS rule well

I like that you keep it simple and understandable. That's exactly what our "contract" should be: Broad enough in scope to outline Democratic ideals for effective governing while not alienating J.Q. Public.

I'm not saying J.Q. is stupid; rather that J.Q. has precious little time to spend reading long pronouncements on public policy. The Big Dawg understood this truth and wisely chose the K.I.S.S. rule whenever possible.

I don't agree with every point on your list - just as I doubt you'd agree with everything on mine - but on the whole it's an outstanding idea.

:toast:

Edit: readability