Frank Luntz Compares GOP's 2010 "Pledge" to 1994 "Contract"
In 1994, as part of their successful gambit to gain control of the House, Newt Gingrich and other GOP leaders issued the "Contract with America," a promise to pass eight reform and transparency measures on the first day Republicans took control and then in the first 100 days introduce ten bills to cut government programs, decrease crime, and boost national security. Just 860 words in length, pollster Frank Luntz was the man responsible for the document's "messaging," figuring out the words and the frames that sold the promise to voters. In a pre-Web era, the document was introduced to targeted voters by way of a tear away insert at TV Guide.
In an op-ed at the Washington Post today, Luntz evaluates the GOP's 2010 Pledge to America against the 1994 Contract. Among critiques, Luntz says that he would have called the 584 word document a "commitment" rather than a "pledge."
First, their names: "A Pledge to America" vs. the "Contract With America." I have to give the edge to the 1994 version, though I have an even better word. Nobody trusts political promises or politicians' pledges, but a "commitment" suggests seriousness and a willingness to put your reputation on the line. I conducted polls on this wording this year, and an overwhelming 81 percent of Americans preferred a "commitment," while just 10 percent chose a "promise" and only 9 percent a "pledge."
The American people in 2010, above all else, want politicians to demonstrate that Washington works for America, not the other way around. The full-page, double-sided, tear-out ad for the Contract With America that ran in TV Guide in October 1994 did just that, featuring two simple but powerful sentences: "A campaign promise is one thing. A signed contract is quite another." The authors of the 2010 document could have done better than "pledge."
Another critique by Luntz is that the pledge offers no specific course of action, something Luntz calls a "glaring omission." He also thinks that the Pledge is more strongly partisan and anti-government than the Contract, though lauds the Pledge for capturing the feeling of independents when asserting that the country is currently controlled by "an arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites."
In his weekly address, titled "A Crossroads on the Economy," President Obama had a very different take on the Pledge: ""It is grounded in the same worn out philosophy: cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires; cut the rules for Wall Street and the special interests; and cut the middle class loose to fend for itself. That is not a prescription for a better future. It is an echo of a disastrous decade we cannot afford to relive."
You can watch Obama and the White House's response below:
Lumina Foundation is partnering with Big Think to unearth the next large-scale, rapid innovation in post-high school education. Enter the competition here!
Good science is sometimes trumped by the craving for a "big splash."
- Scientists strive to earn credit from their peers, for grants from federal agencies, and so a lot of the decisions that they make are strategic in nature. They're encouraged to publish exciting new findings that demonstrate some new phenomenon that we have never seen before.
- This professional pressure can affect their decision-making — to get acclaim they may actually make science worse. That is, a scientist might commit fraud if he thinks he can get away with it or a scientist might rush a result out of the door even though it hasn't been completely verified in order to beat the competition.
- On top of the acclaim of their peers, scientists — with the increasing popularity of science journalism — are starting to be rewarded for doing things that the public is interested in. The good side of this is that the research is more likely to have a public impact, rather than be esoteric. The bad side? To make a "big splash" a scientist may push a study or article that doesn't exemplify good science.
Moans, groans, and gripes release stress hormones in the brain.
Could you give up complaining for a whole month? That's the crux of this interesting piece by Jessica Hullinger over at Fast Company. Hullinger explores the reasons why humans are so predisposed to griping and why, despite these predispositions, we should all try to complain less. As for no complaining for a month, that was the goal for people enrolled in the Complaint Restraint project.
Participants sought to go the entirety of February without so much as a moan, groan, or bellyache.
Two space agencies plan missions to deflect an asteroid.
- NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) are working together on missions to a binary asteroid system.
- The DART and Hera missions will attempt to deflect and study the asteroid Didymoon.
- A planetary defense system is important in preventing large-scale catastrophes.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.