Dean's World

In 1994 the Republicans took control of the congress in part due to a specific legislative agenda known as the "Contract With America." It was a remarkable achievement, and most of its promises were kept. The promises were honest: they promised that Republicans would introduce the bills and try to get them passed, they didn't guarantee they would be passed--after all, only some Republicans signed on to the Contract, and there was a Democratic President to get through. But they promised to at least try, and on that score they kept their promise. In terms of how much actually got into law, roughly half of it did; much of it wound up modified in negotiations with the President, a couple were stalled in the Senate, and one or two were struck down by the Supreme Court (including, alas, the Line Item Veto for the President).

I've long thought that Democrats, if they hope to do better in next year's midterm elections, should do something similar. It's not good enough to be the "we're for anything Bush isn't" party. They have to actually stand for a specific and understandable agenda, especially if they hope to nationalize the election.

I see here that some Democrats are working on just such a plan, and much of it looks promising. The only achilles heel that would cause me to avoid voting Democrat that year, is the part where they promise not to have any long-term bases in Iraq. For that alone, I'd vote against them. The most dangerous area in the world is the Middle East, and it's important that we have bases in that area. Also the people of Iraq are going to continue needing our help to stabilize their nation for some time to come--we can't afford to turn them over to the mercies of their totalitarian neighbors.

And I would like to note, in case any loyal Democrats are reading, that as unpopular as you think the war in Iraq is now, if you really don't think Democrats will be flayed alive if they try to advocate a complete pullout of Iraq, you're fooling yourself. They should expect, and will fully deserve, a radioactive-glow ass-whuppin' just like 2002 and 2004 if they try it. It's easy to sit around and convince people that Iraq is a "quagmire" and a "failure" and evil and all that when voters aren't paying much attention to politics. Tell them full in the face just before election day that if we abandon Iraq we'll see increased terrorism in the world, and that we will only wind up having to go back to Iraq in the future if we leave now, and most of them will wind up agreeing.

That's not a threat. It's a prediction.

The rest of the proposals seem sane enough, not things I agree with per se but they don't seem like bad ideas. They're certainly proposals that a sane political party could make. It would make me less afraid to trust Democrats with national security.