Steven Gillon's The Pact

Introduction
The results of the 1994 United States midterm election shocked the political system in the United States. The power in the House of Representatives had not reverted from Democratic dominance since 1952.1 As the clear winners of the 1994 elections, the Republican Party, had lofty goals after winning back the control of the legislative branch after 40 years. As the new majority party, the Republicans used this victory as a platform to reinforce their “Contract with America” ideology.2 Haley Barbour, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said a day after the election that the Republican success was based on “voters embracing Republican ideas of smaller governments, lower taxes and more individual freedom and personal responsibility.”3
During the election, the Republicans preached trickledown economics and that large government inhibited economic growth and promised to follow through after their first “Hundred Days in office.”4 Yet, how did Republicans convince Americans after 40 years of Democratic dominance in politics to switch sides. The strategy to win the 1994 elections spawned from the new face of the Republican Campaign. Promoted to House Minority Whip in 1989, Newt Gingrich started his work to reshape the power structure of government.5 The essential sustenance of Republican Campaigns still remained the same since Ronald Regan. Congressman Gingrich did not formally change the Republican message but streamlined it. Gingrich unified National and Local Republican messaging to more effectively win over the voters in 1994. Gingrich’s 1994 campaign represented a new active model for campaign strategy. Many American’s had an unfavorable view of incumbents and saw the government as corrupt. Gingrich only had to tie the Democratic brand to incumbent corruption to disrupt the balance of power.6 Bill Clinton admitted after the election that Americans viewed the party in power as responsible for irresponsible governance. He said after the election “that first, the public was dismayed at Washington business as usual, from lobbying to campaign spending to partisanship, and was saying, ‘Democrats are in charge -- we 're holding you responsible, and we hope you hear this, Mr. President.’"7 The next strategic step relied on Gingrich convincing voters that the size of Government created the problems with corruption and the economic downturn. He created a ten step plan to fix government policy called the “Contract with America.” This “Contract” laid out conservative ideas and policies to the American public that Gingrich claimed would fix the system they did not trust.8 The final important step to his plan to reclaim the House relied on realigning the South from Democrats. This placed a high value on escalating a war on crime and placing blame on Democrats for promulgating such a lackadaisical policy on crime.9 The carefully created language helped place racial politics back into campaigns. Gingrich promoted stories of African American crime to persuade southern white social conservatives to switch parties.10 Republicans would not stand for the Democrats whimsical approach to crime. Rather, the Republican message promised to be harsh on criminals who often had a black face in public speeches and campaign ads.11 Gingrich’s and the Republican’s use of new campaign methods and national messaging, including anti-incumbency, anti-big government, and the use of coded language to put race in the spot light, helped secure Republican control in the United States Congress.
Anti-Incumbency
The Republicans needed a strategy to convince voters to come on board with the Republican “Contract with America.” To this end, Republicans focused on the government corruption that spawned from the past years of control by the Democrats. Americans saw government as unethical and subject to special interest groups. Gallup polls proved that this Congress had the lowest approval rating since they started asking with a measly 18 percent.12 Gingrich had to make Democrats responsible for the low approval rating of government. In The Republican Takeover of Congress, Dean McSweeney discussed the strategy Republicans used in 1994 election. He stated that “Institutional reform was part of the 1994 Republican election campaign, melding the party’s and the public’s discontent over the running of (the Democratic) Congress. Alleged waste and corruption were attacked by economies in staffing and the abolition of ‘special interest’ committees.”13 Republican campaigns used the public’s disapproval of government to smear Democratic controlled government as entirely responsible. To increase the effectiveness of this approach, Gingrich made sure that the Republicans conveyed an organized and unified party aimed at serving the people and dispensing with wasteful government.
After being given control of GOPAC, Gingrich could more easily effectuate his plan of showing a unified party fighting against the “liberal” mismanagement of American at the hands of the incumbent Democrats.14 GOPAC, created in 1979, distributed memos and talking points to candidates facing Democratic incumbents.
After receiving control, Gingrich immediately began a campaign of creating appropriate language for Republican candidates to use against their Democrat oppponents. In Steven Gillon’s, The Pact, that he observed that “Using GOPAC as a recruitment and training organization, Gingrich spent more than $8 Million identifying the strongest potential Republican challengers and providing them with the themes, the ‘wedges and magnets’ to use against their Democratic opponents.”15 Using GOPAC as a research and promotion center, Gingrich created a stream lined message that polled well in voting focus groups, and gave them the fire power that would ultimately help them unseat the Democratic incumbents.16 Gillion pressed the point that Gingrich stressed public unity above all else including using Congress as a platform. In early fall, Republicans began a strategy of full obstruction of all President Clinton’s legislation.17 The LA Times described the strategy used by the Republicans just before the election. The author of the article, Paul Richter, used Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole’s excessive use of Filibustering as an example. Richter stated that Bob Dole employed “the
Republicans ' successful stop-Clinton strategy strides to the campaign dais these days, his topic is likely to be crime-fighting, tax-cutting, foreign affairs--usually anything but gridlock”18 Tactics like these aim to expose the disorder within Democrat governance while highlighting Republican unity to a national audience. The streamlined Republican message created by GOPAC echoed throughout the campaign ads of the 1994 elections.
Governor Christie Whitman of New Jersey spotted an ad supporting Chuck Haytaian 's for New Jersey Senate.19 She highlighted the fact Haytaian 's opponent, Frank Lautenberg, had been an “Incumbent” in Washington for “12 years” along with “Opposing Death Penalty” and “Raising Taxes.” 20Language identical to that ad can be found in a Virginia Senate campaign Ad by Republican candidate Oliver North. In the ad, Republican candidate Oliver North asks “Do you want a senator who will stand up against ‘Bill Clinton’ and the Washington Crowd’ then I’m your candidate.”21 The language that intertwines the pre-1994 election Congress and Democrats shows up in virtually every Republican ad. These anti-incumbent ads put a lot of Democrats on defense about their career in Congress. The incumbent Democrats must respond with ads of their own that highlight the positive achievements that occurred under their watch. Tom Foley, Former Speaker of the House, ran positive ads just before Election Day highlighting his support for unions, and agriculture subsidies.22 He tries to change the perception of incumbency as bad by showing the good things he has done in office.
Big Government
The creation of the “Contract with America” provided the layout for voters to understand “how” conservative policies could fix the broken system in Washington politics. In order for Gingrich to convince the US public that the provisions outlined in the “Contract” would work, he needed to assert that all the current problems stem from government having too much power.23 The Contract states, if enacted, “That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public 's money.”24 Republicans made the argument that “big government” led to corrupt officials selling off their power to lobbyist and special interest. Gingrich strived to portray the “Contract” as appealing as possible in order to sell its’ conservative values as the solution that the country needed. Donald Critchlow wrote in The Conservative Ascendancy that “The Contract with America had evolved out of extensive polling and focus groups interviews which revealed that voters wanted ‘accountability’ in government.”25 The Contract had very voter friendly concepts like “personal responsibility” in welfare and election reform to keep out lobby friendly incumbents.26 Crichlow added that Republicans kept away from “hot-button issues” like abortion, or school prayers. Gingrich made sure that voters did not associate the Republican brand with the provocative Religious Right.27 After calculating and presenting “The Contract”, Gingrich and the Republicans needed to convince the public that the country needed this in order to fix government.
Gingrich capitalized on every public scandal in House with the new public broadcast of Congress on C-SPAN. Donald Critchlow stated that, with the help of C-Span, “he and his fellow conservatives began delivering speeches before an empty House attacking Democratic policy.”28 Republicans use of the Congressional House Floor as a new medium to American viewers proved quite useful during times of scandal. Any story about corruption reinforced the Republican grievances of a broken government in Washington. Crichlow notes one example in particular, “The perception of immorality in Congress was reinforced when reports surfaced that some members of Congress had systematically floated large overdrafts at the House Bank.”29 Republicans involvement in the banking scandal did not deter Gingrich and other Republican Leadership from broadcasting it as an example of “big government.” Jim Nussle, Republican Representative of Iowa, famously wore a paper bag over his head on C-SPAN condemning the scandal.30 Republicans needed to saturate the airways with rage against “big government” for voters to perceive their argument as valid. And they did just that.
Race Baiting
Newt Gingrich and the Republicans knew they needed to target populations that could be influenced by the party’s GOPAC strategies. The south had an important role in Gingrich’s plan to retake the House as can be seen by the positive results of the Republicans winning 27 out of a total 52 available seats from the southern district.31 The Republicans knew that if they could have such a substantial impact in the South, the power could very well shift to their side. Richard Berke, journalist for the New York Times, quoted Georgia Representative, Democrat Nathan Deal as saying, "There is a real danger that if we lose the South, then that 's enough to swing the balance of power.”32 Democrat candidates and incumbents knew that they were in trouble. Dan Carter explained that Republicans strategy to win the South had roots from the fear that Republicans felt in the 1968 election in From George Wallace to Newt Gingrich Race in the Conservative Counterrevolution.33 Richard Nixon’s Presidential campaign feared that Republicans would lose too many votes with progressives siding along Democrat Hubert Humphrey and the socially conservative southern whites siding with segregation supporting Independent George Wallace.34
Nixon’s political consultant, Harry Dent, admired the strategies of the Wallace presidential campaign to the point that he adopted the style and many of the verbiages for Nixon’s own campaign. Carter writes “Wallace skillfully pulled from the American political fabric the strands of xenophobia, racism, and a "plain folk" cultural outlook that equated the cosmopolitan currents of the 1960s with moral corruption and weakness. His genius was his ability to voice his listeners ' sense of betrayal—of victimhood—and to refocus their anger.35” Wallace campaigned to southern white voters “victimized” by the Civil Rights Movement. He actively spoke about the crimes committed by African Americans and how true “Americans” are losing their jobs to “lazy Negros.” Wallace did not win the 1968 election but he garnered thirteen percent of the popular vote and won five southern states after not even belonging to any National Party.36 Nixon’s campaign realized that race politics had a heavy influence in the south and would use Wallace’s strategy against him in the 1972 election. Carter stated “Harry Dent, by now firmly in control of Nixon 's southern command, urged the President to develop a racial policy conservative enough to entice the South from Wallace, but not so radical as to repel the ‘nominally Democrat white middle­class vote in the swing states.’”37 This set a new directive for the National Republican campaign to include coded racial language to persuade the recently “victimized” white population in the south. Presidential candidate George Bush utilized these strategies to entice southern voters in the famous Willie Horton ad to vote for him in the 1988 presidential election.38 Bush repeatedly chastised his opponent, Michael Dukakis, for passing a law in Massachusetts that gave an opportunity for some inmates to earn weekends at home during their incarceration.39 One such African American inmate, Willie Horton, took advantage of this law and while out of jail for one such weekend murdered an innocent white couple. His campaign would cast Dukakis as soft on crime but often featured black criminals with white victims. Bush won all southern states with an 18% average and this strategy persisted into Gingrich’s 1994 campaign to be “hard on crime.”40
Gingrich used this southern strategy in the midterm elections after consulting with experts who pointed out vulnerable Democrats in southern districts. GOPAC actively searched through focus groups and consultants to find manipulative ways to include race in their campaign messages.41 Carter explained that “Gingrich distributed to his followers a word list to be used to define Democrats: sick, traitors, corrupt, bizarre, cheat, steal, devour, self­serving, and criminal rights.”42 Gingrich made sure that every Republican campaign stated that if elected, they would be “Hard on Crime,” and stop Democrats from giving rights to “sick” people. The death penalty also proved to be an important issue during the 1994 midterm elections. Republicans campaigned on being tough on criminals, continually making the public aware of how Democrats let people charged with heinous crimes get off.43 Chuck Haytaian, a Republican running for the New Jersey House, created ads that accused his opponent of being weak on criminals due to his lack of support on the death penalty.44 Haytaian’s opponent and district incumbent, Democrat Frank Lautenberg, fired back by accusing Haytaian of being a racist.45 The Republican messaging to voters had to be construed as genuinely non-racial in order to not scare away moderates. Republicans carefully chose their words. And so did the Democrats. Rather than simply calling Haytaian a racist directly, Lautenberg provided stories of Haytaian 's friendship with a racist talk radio host who referred to blacks as "Savages” and even called Dr. Martin Luther King "a scum bag.”46 Unveiled racial politics do not win elections, even back in 1968 election, but with enough cloaking and subtle characterizations, Gingrich’s revolution succeeded in winning 64 percent of southern white votes.s47
Conclusion
The Republican success in the 1994 midterm elections became known as the Republican Revolution. For the large part, Newt Gingrich led this Republican charge which ultimately resulted in the Republicans gaining 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate. By creating a unified message between Republican candidates including anti-incumbency, anti-big government, and the use of coded language to make race an election hot topic, Gingrich convinced American voters to switch parties in 57 districts. He carefully constructed this national messaging by large investments into research and political consulting. The Republicans successfully labeled Democrats as the face of an unpopular incumbent government. This amplified displeasure gave Gingrich the opening to provide the “Contract with America” as a solution to solve the “cause” to corruption, “Big Government.” Gingrich’s use of the southern strategy provided the final push Republicans needed to tip the balance in power in their favor. The use of a highly developed coded language to combine race and crime helped give Republicans a 5% additional boost in white voters in the south than in other regions. 48
The Republicans won big in 1994 and when the Congress convened in January 1995, the House Republicans successfully voted Newt Gingrich as the new Speaker of the House, and Senate Republicans made Bob Dole the new majority leader. The question now after they won power is “Did they follow through with campaign ‘Contract’ to voters?” While Republicans had control of both Houses of Congress, President Clinton still yielded veto power, which forced the Republicans to compromise. Gingrich did not uphold his promise of a corrupt free government. In 1997, Gingrich violated ethic laws in congress and received a 300,000 fine. He eventually resigned in 1998 after ineffectively leading the party to follow through with any version of their “Contract.” Republicans did not change the dynamic of incumbents when the 2006 elections resulted in the voting public siding against them and voting them out of the majority after being perceived as insiders. Finally, the Republican controlled Congress failed to pass tough on crime legislation which left the bureaucratic revolving door of justice still in place, even today. Political candidates make many promises. They offer many solutions but in reality they adopt the policies necessary to get them voted into office. Once there, it’s a whole new game. The messaging in their campaigns, no matter how streamlined and appealing, does not hold candidates accountable for their actions after elections.

Work Cited
Secondary Sources
Carter, Dan T.
From George Wallace to Newt Gingrich Race in the Conservative Counterrevolution, 1963-1994. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1996.
Critchlow, Donald. The Conservative Ascendancy: HHow the Republican Right Rose to Power in Modern America. 2nd ed. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2011.
Gillon, Steven M. The Pact: Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and the Rivalry that Defined a Generation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
McSweeney, Dean. The Republican Takeover of Congress. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan Press ;, 1998.
Primary
Berke, Richard . "Democrats Fear That South Will Desert Them for G.O.P in House Races." The New York Times, May 21, 1994.
Clymer, Adam. "The 1994 Elections: Congress the Overview." New York Times. (Nov, 9 1994): n. page. Print. "Midterm Election Campaign Ads." C-Span Nov 07 1994. web, http://www.c-span.org/video/?61371-1/midterm-elections-campaign-ads.
Gingrich, Newt, and Richard Armey. Republican National Party. Contract with America. Washington D.C.: Sept, 24 1994.
Print.
Richter, Paul. "Dole Eager to Downplay GOP 's Performance in Congress." Los Angeles Time. (1994): n. page. Print.