Dynamist.com

A Credo, Not a Contract

By James K. Glassman

The Washington Post, April 2, 1996

The legislative session is now essentially over, and Republicans are trying to paint a smiley-face on it. "The Contract with America is alive and well," said Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), the majority whip, with effusion typical of his colleagues.

But who's he kidding? Not himself, I hope. The truth is that there's no balanced budget, no tax relief of any sort, no welfare reform and no changes in Medicare, Medicaid or other entitlements.

Even little programs that you'd think a GOP Congress could kill off easily—such as the National Endowment for the Arts, Amtrak and the Commerce Department subsidies for corporations favored by the White House—have survived. As a result, the Congressional Budget Office last week projected that the federal deficit will be $287 billion in the year 2002 (rather than zero, as promised).

Yes, it was President Clinton who vetoed much of the GOP program, and it was Democratic senators, using their power as a large minority, who held up most of the rest. But in the end, Republicans have to stop all the jolly talk and face up to the fact that they haven't done what they said they were elected to do.

Not long ago Republicans believed Clinton would be forced, by the same popular wave that carred them into office in November 1994, to accede to their balanced budget and all the rest. Republicans made some tactical blunders, and Clinton, the press at his side, outsmarted them. But the main reason the Republicans failed was that they lost public support. And they lost it because they never really made their case.

What the Republicans needed then, and need now, was not a contract but a credo. Instead of a laundry list of legislation, they need a set of clear beliefs. A credo would not only tell the voters where Republicans stand, it would remind GOP politicians themselves.

When a new law is proposed (such as a minimum wage hike or new health insurance regulations), Republicans could refer back to the credo to see if it fit. A credo would also inspire Americans, in a way that a call for a line-item veto cannot. A 10-point credo, as opposed to a 10-point contract, might sound like this:

We believe in the imagination and intelligence of individual Americans, alone and in voluntary organizations, to pursue happiness as they see fit.

We believe the functions of government must be limited and discrete.

We believe the main tasks of the federal government are to protect citizens against foreign threats, to collect taxes and to maintain a stable currency. State and local governments are primarily responsible for protecting people and property against domestic violence and theft, for enforcing contracts and preventing fraud.

We believe that the federal government should do only those things that it can do better—by a substantial margin—than local governments and individuals can do themselves.

We believe that the government should not spend more than it takes in annually.

We believe that the money Americans earn belongs to them and their families. Government may take it only for clear and good purposes.

We believe in a free economy, one in which employers and employees, companies and consumers, make their own decisions.

And we believe in free trade, which lowers the cost of U.S. goods bought by foreigners and lowers the cost of foreign goods enjoyed by Americans.

We believe that government has a responsibility to assist the very poorest and weakest, but that self-help and private philanthropy are better means to these charitable ends.

We believe that all Americans are equal before the law, and we understand that equal opportunity does not produce equal results.

This is just a first try. A final credo would sound less stilted and use fewer words. Democrats could take their own crack at a credo, but I'm afraid it would end up like Clinton's 1992 campaign book, "Putting People First," which was a prescription for government action in grandiose terms: "rebuilding our country, converting from a defense to a peacetime economy, revitalizing our cities," etc., etc.

The big difference between the parties is that Republicans believe that "rebuilding our country" and the like are not tasks for the government but the natural consequences of the play of free minds and free markets.

Or, at any rate, this is what they should brelieve. I'm not at all sure they do. At heart, they probably have as little taste as Democrats for change they can't oversee.

It's in the nature of politicians to want to run things. Tocqueville had it right in the chapter in "Democracy in America" titled "What Sort of Despotism Democratic Nations Have to Fear." In 1840, he imagined this fate for a future democracy, however benign:

"Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takse upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate....It covers the surface of society with a network of complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds cannot penetrate."

Sound familiar? What politicians must do is provide a simple framework for individuals to work their own free will—and then let go. This notion was put beautifully by the philosopher Robert Nozick, who tried to describe how utopia would loo. "What exactly will it turn out to be like?" he wrote. "In what direction will people flower? How large with the communities be?"

His answer "I do not know, and you should not be interested in my guesses."

But can such a vision inspire (for example) voters? I think so. Americans don't simply want a balanced budget, they want something more simple and deeper—to be left alone as much as possible by that "tutelary power" and to be free to enrich themselves, their families and their nation, both materially and spiritually.