Part of a planned series examining ideas, practices, and mores that appear to be on their way to extinction.
Campaign promises made aren’t always promises kept. In the beginning days of our nation, strict Constitutionalist Thomas Jefferson called for reduced executive powers and an austere reduction in spending to reduce the leftover national debt from the Revolutionary War. Yet, when it became time to purchase vast lands in the west from Napoleon Bonaparte (who was in the midst of financial difficulties arising in part from campaign promises, himself) in 1803, Jefferson suddenly became an imperialist. Newly devoted to Empire, Jefferson spearheaded the Louisiana Purchase.
Photo by Pete Wuebker
Woodrow Wilson promised that the United States wouldn’t become involved in the conflict of World War I, but five years later, in his second term, we did. LBJ told us no American soldiers would set foot in Vietnam in 1965. The previous year he vowed we would win the War on Poverty. George H.W. Bush famously told us, “Read my lips. No new taxes.” Yet, tax us he did.
It seems as though campaign promises are tacitly understood to be flexible in their execution and interpretation. While campaigns are active, it’s journalistic sport to tally the cost of what is promised. Recently, news outlets reported that the nation couldn’t afford either of the 2008 Presidential candidates proposals, even before we were officially declared in a recession. Where were the billions in spending proposals going to come from? Certainly not entirely from cuts in government bureaucracy, although it may frequently seem the government is bloated enough to provide that amount.
Candidates routinely excoriate the proposals of the other, and bat the financials across the net while we sit as spectators, wagging our heads back and forth, eyes glazing over. Finally, we pull the lever in the hopes that some benefit would emerge in the list of issues and solutions, which generally require more spending rather than less.
Once the verdict is tallied, the real fun begins. The period between election and inauguration is filled with breathless speculation and review. Already we are told that Obama has backtracked on certain promises, citing change in conditions (the windfall profits tax on oil companies – kaput), pragmatism (former lobbyists are now seen to have the necessary experience to get things done in Washington, instead of vilified), and, arguably, change itself (lots of familiar faces are returning to D.C. after an 8 year absence).
Do people really vote for a candidate based upon what (s)he promises? This Presidential election demonstrated that they do, despite that promises are distorted, fabricated, and assigned by others to the candidates. While it’s difficult to assert anything other than candidates will say what they need to in order to get elected, it’s equally difficult to predict what they actually will do when they take office.
While campaigns are high theatre with grandiosity and largesse, suddenly the new President is thrust into circumstances that require difficult decisions. Bill Bennett recently said Obama could be one of two things: in it for the country or in it for himself, and Bill hoped for the latter. Why? Bill thinks that if Obama is in it for himself, i.e. looking forward to a second term – and all indications are he is aiming for precisely that, then he will make centrist choices instead of returning to his leftist roots. Could be. Who knows?
The cynical practice of knowingly promising what can’t be delivered is disturbing, we can all agree. What about under-promising? It’s fairly certain great businesses were built upon under-promising and over-delivering. Does keeping the message deliberately vague assist in this strategy? Consider the Obama plan to “create or save 2.5 million jobs by 2011.” Sounds good at first. But, doesn’t that mean he wouldn’t really have to provide any new jobs as long as they weren’t being lost?
What about abandoning a promise? Ronald Reagan famously branded Russia an “Evil Empire,” yet moved to reduce nuclear weapons. In Canada, Prime Minister Harper ignored his own commitment to fixed election dates, and called for an election outside of those parameters. Douglas Waller, in Time Magazine, is of the opinion that political promises built upon “the shifting sands of the economy” should be broken, and is “nervous when a politician makes an ironclad promise.”
Sometimes abandoned promises are described as revisions in position. Mitt Romney famously revised his position on abortion, as I recall. The risk is being labeled a “flip-flopper,” where the change of heart is interpreted as merely politically expedient. Is there room in politics for a thoughtful conversion?
We think the fulfilled campaign promise is endangered, on a quick road to total extinction. Certainly it’s rare when promises are kept and results are delivered. Is this so rare that when it does occur the novelty propels a politician to greatness?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=cc5ea931-3fa6-4e05-b109-cfd422ee1c9a)
{ 1 trackback }
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
Wow, what an awesome start to a great idea for a series. History, politics, and blogging; a potential triad of truth. Great start guys.
Writer Dad´s last blog post..Writer Dad in Rough Draft
I learn SO much here, I wonder what the hell I was doing years ago in school. Were they teaching this stuff? Was I too distracted by boys, being cool and clothes if they were?
By the way – I love this series but you’ve got to stop! I just keep wanting you to run for office!!!!
Kathy – Virtual Impax´s last blog post..Web Terms You Need to Know: Landing Pages
“America..I’m sick of getting hit on with cheesy pickup lines like: “A chicken in every pot”, and “No child left behind”. Forget one night stands…we got got some cheesy white guys spitting game looking for some four year love.”
- George Watsky.
I think that says it all for me.
Matthew Dryden´s last blog post..My First Poetry Recording: The End Result
Hi Betsy – Yes, “change” won the vote, but like you said, it’s beginning to look like we may see a lot of the same (including the same faces). I pray Obama can make a difference. Now all we can do is hope.
Barbara Swafford – Blogging Without A Blog´s last blog post..The Unseen Benefit of Commenting
Hi Sean – Thank you! We’ve had fun selecting the topics for the series. Glad you enjoyed this one and stay tuned.
Hi Kathy – I don’t think they were teaching with as much of a cynical eye when I was in school, but I was so nerdy I actually loved my American history class and the teacher, who was greatly feared as a stern old martinet. And no, there is no way I’d ever run and incriminate so many others!
Hi Matthew – Amen. Cheesy politicians come in additional guises than that of the white guy, though, too. See: Office of the President-Elect.
Hi Barbara – It’s hard not to be cynical when you see what has transpired in the last several days, isn’t it? Thanks.
You wanna talk about broken Campaign promises?
Oboy, don’t’ even get me STARTED on Canadian Politics. (Don’t know if you follow Canadian news, but we’re in the middle of a fairly serious crisis right now.
Last fall, all the other parties kept threatening to bring down the govt. So Stephen Harper called their bluff, and held an election. And he WON….fair and square. That was 6 weeks ago.
Stephane Dion, the Liberal Leader who lost, did so badly, his OWN PARTY no longer wants him as leader.
But the latest: is that Dion has formed a coalition with the other two parties (including the Seperatists who want to break up Canada!). Talke about getting in bed with the enemy.
And Dion still wants to bring down the goverment. (He cant’ accept that he lost!).
The thing is…he might get his way too. By some stupid Parliament rules, he can potentially kick Stephen Harper out, and DION can become Prime Minister, instead.
So the Loser from our election 6 weeks ago might be able to turf out the winner, WITHOUT even another election being held. WITHOUT Canadians having any say in the matter.
(Go figure…I’m still shaking my head over this one! Many Canadians are).
“Do people really vote for a candidate based upon what (s)he promises? This Presidential election demonstrated that they do”. Of course they do. Electing a president, for most people, is done on an emotional rather than a rational level.
Vered – MomGrind´s last blog post..Are Blogs And eBooks Inferior To Printed Books?
Hi Friar – Thank you for explaining a puzzling situation. What an enormous Constitutional loophole! What really struck me in your answer was “He can’t accept that he lost!” Shades of Al Gore. We’ve got that going on in Minnesota, where it’s entirely possible that our new Senator could be Al Franken, even though his opponent won by a small margin. May we all live in interesting times, indeed!
Hi Vered – In sales, we learn that all decisions are made on emotion and then justified with logic. What’s difficult sometimes is to accept what passes for the logic part in election outcomes. Thanks.
Hi Betsy,
Actually, I don’t think people necessarily voted for Obama based on his promises. Some just voted out the Republicans. I tend to vote for the party rather than the candidate, as I don’t ever see the Republicans as offering a viable solution for the middle and lower classes.
“…campaign promises are tacitly understood to be flexible…” I’m more cynical than that. I’d say campaign promises are tacitly understood to be vacuous, but perhaps not by everyone.
Interesting series. History was my worst subject, so I’m all ears now.
Dot´s last blog post..Weird Tip Tuesday – Eat Less Butter
Hi Betsy – your politicians sound a lot like ours. They always make promises than never stick to them. If we do get any tax breaks, they usually wack us for twice as much on something else.
But it’s a good point – we choose candidates on these promises and they don’t fulfil them. Really, we’re just voting for the best bullshitter.
And what you say about creating or saving jobs is so true – it sure is a flexible statement.
Cath Lawson´s last blog post..Unique Christmas Gift Ideas For Business Owners
Hi Dot – I appreciate your preference to vote for the party rather than the individual and I agree some people voted out the Republicans. However, I don’t think one can discount the evidence that some voters expected Obama to do everything from pay their mortgage to take care of their orphaned children (the suicide guy). That’s freaky scary. Perhaps I’m naive to expect that a promise made is a promise kept, but I’m not willing to compromise on that in my own dealings, so expect the same from others. Thanks.
Hi Cath – I think if we’re not vigilant, then we hear what we want to hear from a candidate – that’s why speechwriters get paid good money and policy wonks await in the wings. What worries me is a house divided cannot stand. Perhaps we are moving toward unity of purpose with the economic threat, but until everyone pulls together, we are vulnerable to evil elements. Thank you.
I don’t expect a candidate to truly deliver on most of his/her promises and I try to vote as I see the need for balance or vision and who is attempting to create that….I think real change comes from the grass roots up – if people now get busy and say – I don’t believe there is an affordable clean coal that would serve my energy needs or my children’s future – and they begin working on local solutions and get results that will show the politicians where folks are headed…if we vote people in because they are talking health care solutions….then we need to work locally on health care solutions and present those results to our politicians to work on our behalf….
In our state there are thousands of volunteers working with the Sound Alliance to put our 5 most important solutions out to the Governor and the State….the Environmental Ideas and the Health care solutions coming out of these polar opposite – ground level workers is awe inspiring…and the candidate that said I don’t wish to be king….I wish to see these great concepts implemented for the people of the state – WON.
Our politicians are only workers on our behalf….and one thing I liked about our last campaign is that Obama’s team presented new problems and the nation saw that individuals were willing to add these new problems to their lists of solutions for the country. Politicians are to give us an accurate overview of what is going on….they are a resource and have the top of the line information available – they are teachers
I felt like the campaign speeches reflected clearly who was listening to the people and who was not….I am still working on health care issues and making myself heard….and researching and gathering data…and writing my representatives locally and nationally….That is my responsibility as a citizen…and to get my needs and my children’s needs met with vision to the future.
Lobbyists represent organizations and businesses… a few represent citizen interests…who do you fund? Look who is on your payroll –
are you supporting the gas and oil lobbyists or the drug companies or the military or shopping your heart away? hmmm
Great piece and good information…well written and thought provoking – thank you for putting this out…
Patricia´s last blog post..Beautiful
Hi Patricia – I’m going to play devil’s advocate for a bit.
If one doesn’t expect a candidate to deliver, yet one tries to vote based upon who is going to create balance and provide vision, what part does accountability play? Maybe I’m not understanding what you said there, as it doesn’t compute for me. It seems as if you want an articulation of vision, but you’re not going to necessarily hold the person articulating it accountable. Why bother? Also, the top of the line information really fell apart with respect to WMD’s and Fannie/Freddie, didn’t it?
That being said, I agree that grass roots action is inspiring, and often more creative than top-down policy. And I also believe that collectively we spend too much time focused on government solutions to our immediate personal needs, as opposed to focusing on creating opportunities for more self-sufficiency in income creation, consumer-based decisions and flexibility in our choices. Government should be working for us, as you say, but not in the business of nanny-ing.
Citizen interests are as varied as there are numbers in the citizenry. It’s hard not to disassociate from our personal circumstances, but I think we ought to try. I do believe certain campaign messages struck a chord with some voters in that the message appealed toward a common ideal of the greater good. But there’s way too What’s In It For Me? afoot for my liking.
Thanks for your comments. It’s fun to think about and discuss this stuff!
Betsy,
I think the accountability part comes from the citizens as they bite into the vision that is most vital to them….we tried to do that with Bush when millions upon millions demanded ( worldwide) we not go to war…the Kingpin ignored and now is wandering aimlessly around saying his greatest regret was not really understanding war…huh?
If we really want health care then we will do the research and gain the understanding with the assistance of our elected leaders and hold our top dog’s feet to the fire until what we need is accomplished. Businesses pay lobbyists to do that now for them….Citizens must take back our rights, privileges and responsibilities and do take care of our responsibilities. Education, Education, Education….
Ronald Reagan really truly let everyone off the hook and said go to Disneyland/ buy/ consume/ this is the new morning in America…and most of the citizen’s did just that – I can not tell you how many people tell me they are just not interested as long as “it” doesn’t affect them – or so they perceive it does not affect them
We can not let the financial experts re-create the disaster they have already given us….we must hold them accountable…our politicians forgot to hold AIG accountable and gave them billions of our dollars..
why are the citizen’s not learning the lessons they were taught in school – or were supposed to learn?
why have we dumbed down our schools and our children until all the rich are private schools and the middle class are being entertained and the poor get the cast offs? Because we were not paying attention and I believe it will need to get even more painful for the citizens before they understand…”And the mean and bling generation”, I think most of them will be on the dole all of their lives….
As 36% of our high school students do not graduate and don’t care…we are in big trouble at the grass roots….
I think Obama understands this….Bush has not got a clue…never did…
But it is up to us to educate and have this dialog and conversation and for our writers of novels to make projections based on our here and now
I was so excited to see so many young people involved and hope they will remain involved.
When I read in the State History text, while my children were required to take the class to graduate, I read this line: ” The bankers, land barons, and train folks in the East decided and paid for exploration of the West. It was decided that ______would be a territory settled to encourage communities, families, farmers, and civilization. __________ territories would be established as Military intrusion/check points and would be strip mined for every resource available and useful to the people of the East Coast. If the Indians were a problem and got in the way – kill ‘em” The history of those two states now make perfect sense – hindsight is so 20/20!
Oh expect a candidate to deliver, but I expect the citizens to be the ones pushing for the delivery with knowledge and ideas…First and foremost our National Leaders are they for our safety…and they have been too long there to make money and exploit power….
This took years to come about….Have you read Naomi Klein’s The SHOCK DOCTRINE…pretty amazing stuff… I reviewed the book on my blog about a year ago…I don’t know how to link it up
diversity is such a key to success…as is education
Wow this is fun….way fun….thank you
Hi Patricia – I agree with your thinking that Obama understands grass roots – that’s my understanding of what a community organizer does, and the campaign did a wonderful job of marshaling at that level. But, I also believe he has been imbued with far greater capabilities than he actually may possess by a somewhat knee-jerk electorate – much like 1976 when the nation was weary of previous hijinks. Already the far left progressive factions are very dismayed, and he has yet to take office. I’m personally glad he’s moved pragmatically toward the center, but it will be like herding cats once his base begins a noisier opposition in response to this perceived betrayal.
I also believe that there will be additional buyers’ remorse and cynicism when unrealistic expectations of the more mainstream Obama voters do not come to pass. The incoming Attorney General masterminded the pardon of a convicted felon in exchange for significant financial contributions to the Clinton library, for example. Now there’s a drawdown, not an immediate withdrawal, from Iraq and a Sec’y of State appointee whose view on the war couldn’t be more divergent than the one promoted with Obama voters. But, as you say, maybe there isn’t too much attention paid to these things.
It seems to me that many voters want to place their faith in a personality – hence the troubling messianic aspects, rather than policy (or lack thereof). Now the media has self-assessed and found itself wanting in balance coverage, so it attempts to become more critical in order to salvage appearances. We may even get the vetting that should have occurred prior to the election.
More than anything, I’m concerned that the plan appears to be that the nation will spend its way out of the recession. This can only mean that more money comes out of our pockets – despite assurances of ever-changing income thresholds – and is redirected by those who have mismanaged oversight in the first place.