WASHINGTON WATCH: CONTRACT WITH AMERICA IS A TOOL FOR GOP PARTY DISCIPLINE

Prior to the election, conventional media wisdom about the Republican Contract With America was that it was little more than a campaign gimmick:a series of popular promises unlikely to be kept. One reason:Democrats would never lose control of the House of Representatives. Another reason:Americans really didn't want government services cut to the degree Republicans foreshadowed.

A week after the midterm elections, conventional media wisdom doesn't look too smart.

Not only did Democrats lose in historic proportions (while nary an incumbent Republican was ousted), but Contract With America and its attack upon government excess has become a blueprint for change in the philosophy of modern government. Much of the credit for both occurrences goes to Bill Clinton. By making the contract the centerpiece of his attacks upon the Republicans during the final days of the campaign, Clinton erased all doubt that Americans knew what was at stake. If the Democrats held onto power, the Reaganite ideas of limited government and personal responsibility would be consigned to the dustbin of history. And if the Republicans won, they would assume not only the mandate of change, but the mantle of leadership.

Well, it is morning in America again, and Washington is abuzz with the contract.

The president isn't the only one who should get credit. Republican gnat-no-longer Newt Gingrich, the next speaker of the House, fits into the equation too. It was his idea that a contract of specific policies be written:an attempt to nationalize the elections and give the GOP a battle plan if elected to the majority. Now Gingrich bears the responsibility of seeing the contract implemented. If he fails, he will do to Republicans in 1996 what Bill and Hillary did to Democrats this time around. It is a burden he accepts with eyes open wide.

"If Contract With American just degenerates after an historic election back into the usual baloney of politics in Washington and pettiness of Washington, then the American people I believe will move toward a third party in a massive way," Gingrich said Thursday. "I think they are fed up with this city, they are fed up with its games, they are fed up with its petty partisanship. And so we have an enormous amount of work to do."

But the next two years is about more than Contract With America. Along with rejecting the Clinton vision of big, activist government, voters last week also rejected a congressional institution perceived as inept. For Gingrich and the Republicans to avoid a similar fate, they will have to prove that they can make Congress work again. It is in light of this challenge that Contract With America takes on new significance. In addition to being a blueprint for GOP priorities, it is a management tool for the speaker of the House. By successfully persuading his colleagues to sign on the dotted line originally, Gingrich empowered himself to keep them on track in the future. Such disciplined organization stands in stark contrast to the first two years of the Clinton administration.

Still, Gingrich and the Republicans can fumble their historic opportunity. If they don't, however, we may be witnessing the dawn of a new requisite for future elections:the voter contract. Imagine if Bill Clinton had been able to persuade a Democratic Congress to sign a contract before the 1992 elections? Instead of a Republican sweep, we might now be witnessing a Democratic realignment. Then again, if the contract were true to the values and ideals for which the Clinton administration has become known, maybe Bill and Hillary would still be in Arkansas. Either way, they would be in better shape, and so would we.

Jon K. Rust is a Washington-based writer for the Southeast Missourian.