UCLA professors examine ‘Contract With America’
Show of solidarity put Republicans on top, but could still help
Clinton
By Phillip Carter
Daily Bruin Senior Staff
The Rebpublican "Contract With America" may have helped sweep
the GOP into Congress, but many UCLA observers question the
promises made in the contract.
The contract worked as an election tactic and probably was
responsible in part for the Republicans’ takeover of Congress, said
political science Professor Kathleen Bawn.
"The Contract With America definitely was a successful election
gimmick in 1994," she said. "It’s not clear yet whether it will be
more than that."
House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), the contract’s chief
architect and salesman, has consequently played an important part
in building a new majority in Congress, Bawn said. She added that
his popularity gives him power as much as his position.
"This is important because the House rank-and-file, as well as
senators, will react much more to trends in public opinion than to
any carrots or sticks that the (congressional) leadership has to
offer."
Despite the contract’s political appeal, second-year psychology
student Ben Schmitter said he was skeptical of Gingrich and his
Congress so far.
"It’s just politics as usual  except that now you’ve got
the Republicans in power instead of the Democrats," he said. "The
contract is no different than George Bush’s (broken) ‘No new taxes’
pledge from 1988."
Schmitter added that the Republicans benefited greatly from the
same anti-incumbent atmosphere that helped propel President Bill
Clinton into office.
"Two years ago, people said ‘Throw the bums out,’ and now they
were saying the same thing, except that the Democrats took the
blame."
Unlike the disarray manifest in 1992, the contract gives voters
the impression the GOP is united, even though that may not entirely
be true, said visiting Professor J. P. Monroe.
"You’re getting the same age-old divisions within the Republican
party, but the contract tended to paint the party as monolithic,"
he said.
"In the abstract, all Republicans support it, but as people look
at specifics and are forced to take stands on certain issues,
(members of Congress) will take objection to certain parts of the
contract."
Bawn argued that Republicans focused mainly on economic issues,
such as a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, instead of
opposing abortion and gay rights in order to appeal to the average
voter.
"The economic issues have a broad appeal, and Gingrich wants to
capture the median voter in America," Bawn said. "Focusing on the
core issues of his wing of the party (like abortion) would alienate
the voters."
Indeed, both professors said the contract may fall flat on its
face if the party returned to "family values" issues hallmarked in
1992. If that happens, Gingrich may lose his majority to a
coalition of liberal Republicans and Democrats, Bawn said.
"For that to happen, Gingrich would probably have to
overestimate his influence, by taking on an issue like
abortion."
However, one GOP supporter on campus said that Gingrich is
responding to voters’ wishes  and not political motivations
 by focusing on issues like welfare.
"People voted to reject big government, reject high taxes, and
reject half a century of Democratic ideas in practice," fourth-year
biology student Jennifer Seldan said about this year’s election.
"Voters saw the Contract With America, and chose it over the
alternatives  and now Newt’s following through on what he
promised."
The contract itself contains eight promises, which Republicans
said they’d enact in their first 100 days in office, including a
Constitutional balanced-budget amendment, national term limits, and
the abolition of Congressional immunity from certain laws, such as
disability access within Congressional buildings.
Signed with fanfare in September last year by both incumbents
and challengers, the contract became both the centerpiece of a
nationwide Republican campaign and a boost to Gingrich’s personal
power.
"A lot of Republican freshmen were recruited by Newt, so he’s
got a solid majority," Bawn said. "He’s also got the perception
that he’s got a lot of public support."
Monroe agreed, and added that the contract became the bond
between the new majority and Gingrich himself. "It was his way of
tying his leadership in with the new Congress."
Both experts said the future for the new GOP-controlled Congress
and President Bill Clinton is up in the air. The contract could
benefit both Clinton and the Republicans in 1996, depending on who
gets to take the most credit for its successes.
"I see (the Democrats and the Republicans) both using
cooperation and obstructionism as a way of staking out a position
in the middle," Monroe said. "To Clinton’s credit, there are things
in the contract which he supports."
Traditionally presidents tend to be blamed for most of the bad
things that go on in the capital Bawn said, adding that a
Republican majority in Congress could actually help Clinton’s
reelection chances in 1996.
"It helps Clinton by allowing him to shift the blame away from
his party, and it prevents a Republican challenger from blaming
him," she said.