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?

ENDANGERED SPECIES: THE FULFILLED CAMPAIGN PROMISE is a post from: Passing Thru