A Contract with America, broken

Monday will mark the tenth anniversary of the Republican "Contract with America," which promised a laundry list of reforms within 100 days of Republicans taking control of the Congress. I'm sure people noted this 10 years ago, but looking at the 10 pieces of proposed legislation, the only one that never made it out of the House was The Citizen Legislature Act – the one that proposed term limits for both houses of congress. The ones that cut taxes, attacked social programs, sanctioned UN bullying, and protected corporations somehow made it through. The one aspect that would have required self-sacrifice, the one element that was probably most endearing to liberal and conservative voters alike, somehow didn't make it through.

I think it's expecting too much of both Republicans and Democrats to moderate themselves. They can't curb federal spending for fear of voter backlash, but they can't raise taxes for the same reason. They refuse to limit their terms out of unwillingness to cede power, but they actively redistrict to strengthen incumbents so that unhappy voters have a more difficult time overthrowing a failing leader. A responsible leader would have seized the moment after 9/11 not to settle old scores (and squander support in the process), but to level with Americans. Perhaps such a leader might have said to us that it was the time for personal sacrifice, and time to recognize the new state of the world. He or she would begin making a dent in our military budget by cutting Cold War-era programs, closing bases in allied nations, refocusing the military on peacekeeping missions under the auspices of international command. Instead of targeting rogue states with inadequate plans for the day after, he or she would have focused on the difficult work of decimating the causes of terrorism – poverty, miseducation, lack of governmental representation, etc. – and aimed to spread human rights globally.

The hypocrisy of recent leadership is evident. When a Democrat or Republican talks about American sovereignty, what he or she means is that American troops – already facing the brunt of attacks abroad for our misguided foreign policy – should always retain the right to flaunt international opinion for what we deem is right. (Of course, it should be evident now that Americans are more easily misled by our leadership than the U.N.) We should never submit American soldiers to what could be politically-motivated prosecution for war crimes. Why? Because there is something unique in America, the people, the wise, just, infallible, pandered-to people.

At the same time as we sacrifice all mechanisms for recognizing political dissent even from allies in the name of American sovereignty, that word doesn't come up much when Republicans or Democrats discuss trade treaties like NAFTA or joining the WTO. The understanding we must take away from these politicians is that America has not only the right to govern itself but anyone else it deems necessary; at the same time, perverted corporatized capitalism trumps Americanism. People aren't blowing up McDonald's in Indonesia and elsewhere because they hate greasy burgers or American-style democracy; it's the same underlying reason people in Chicago protest when a Wal-Mart moves into their community.

The leaders who support these policies are the ones who have left us vulnerable to attack and helped incite violence worldwide against the West. It's time for a new contract with America, and I doubt it will come from politicians in the two biggest parties.